Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2017, 02:03:43 AM
For starters: remember when Trump (and the Republican party) ran on the promise to "drain the swamp"? Remember when I expressed concern about Trump's behaviour and was told that "he didn't really mean the things he was saying", and even if he did there are "checks and balances" in place to prevent it? Well, ha ha, funny story...
With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office - NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)
Quote
"Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."
- Nancy Pelosi
Trump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 03, 2017, 07:57:29 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2017, 11:08:33 AM
Post by: gillianren on January 03, 2017, 12:00:24 PM
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2017, 12:05:02 PM
Maybe they will support impeachment if it means it will improve their own chances of re-election. Otherwise they might just get tossed out in two years.
Post by: gillianren on January 04, 2017, 12:21:54 PM
Post by: twik on January 04, 2017, 03:15:46 PM
Post by: Ranb on January 04, 2017, 08:01:09 PM
I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress.I don't suppose if Trump makes a good decision it will be included in one of your posts? :) I didn't vote for this clown, but it is possible something good might slip by.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2017, 08:19:32 PM
But sure, if he does actually do something that I feel is exceptionally good I will say so.
If he actually does a good job I will tweet an apology to him for doubting him. I'm sure he needs the ego boost.
Post by: twik on January 09, 2017, 09:46:48 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 09, 2017, 10:08:27 AM
Post by: gillianren on January 09, 2017, 01:25:21 PM
Post by: Zakalwe on January 09, 2017, 05:42:32 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/when-everything-is-a-lie-power-is-the-only-truth-1e641751d150#.3y6weaajv
Its interesting to see that Trump has also used Cambridge Analytica, the same company employed by the leave campaign in the recent Brexit vote. There are remarkable similarities in the way both campaigns were conducted and, unfortunately, in the devastating impacts that i expect to see from the outcome of both.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/the-british-data-crunchers-who-say-they-helped-donald-trump-to-win/
Post by: twik on January 10, 2017, 09:51:06 AM
When you're busy getting a Secretary of Education who never sent her children to public school, I suppose a little thing like managing the nuke program can slip your mind.
Post by: gillianren on January 10, 2017, 11:31:35 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 10, 2017, 11:59:52 AM
Quote
"It's curious and a little bit humorous that Democrats would talk about anything bipartisan ... given how they have vowed to obstruct everything we do." - Kellyanne Conway
Source: Conway dismisses need for independent hack probe, says Trump may reconsider sanctions on Russia (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/09/conway-trump-russia-probe-congress-hacking-obama/96338952/)
That's after 8 years of Republicans obstructing everything President Obama did, even going so far as to force a government shutdown. They didn't mind using obstructionism as a tactic when there was a democrat in the White House, but now it's wrong?
I also love how for decades Republicans were the ones stockpiling guns just in case the Russians invaded, or going on commie witch hunts, but now all of a sudden they act like Russia is their best friend and there's no need to investigate the hackings.
And the biggest hypocrite of them all? Mitch McConnell. He sent a letter to Dem. Senator Chuck Schumer in 2009 setting the standards for President Obama's cabinet nominees. It included FBI background checks, letters from the Office of Government Ethics, and financial disclosure statements. Now, the Republican nominees are failing to meet those same standards and McConnell wants to ignore them. Sen. Schumer sent the letter back to him as a reminder.
https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/818544880658108416
Post by: twik on January 10, 2017, 03:55:17 PM
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 10, 2017, 08:47:29 PM
Post by: twik on January 11, 2017, 05:46:17 PM
Post by: Luke Pemberton on January 11, 2017, 06:52:33 PM
This just gets more and more ridiculous. Trump will appoint Robert Kennedy Jr., noted antivaxxer kook to head a committee on "vaccine safety."
The anti-expert establishment is pervading Western politics. In the UK Michael Gove headed his tenure as SoS for Education by denouncing experts out of hand. He is even on record as saying 'he was tired of listening to experts.'
What is the possibility of Trump being impeached?
Post by: gillianren on January 11, 2017, 09:59:14 PM
Post by: Peter B on January 12, 2017, 04:10:16 PM
Yes, I never thought I'd live to see the day when the GOP was the party who thought the Russians were our official cuddle-buddies, and only nasty hawk-types could distrust their intentions.
I have to say that, as unpleasant a man as Putin is, the US needs either Russia or China as a strategic ally, and given China's growing strength, Russia seems the more sensible choice.
Presumably the new Secretary of State will see the benefit in continuing to build a strategic network in Asia to stop China from getting too aggressive.
I don't remember where I read it, but I've heard the expression that nations have interests not alliances. Which is to say that sometimes it's in your strategic interest to have an ally whose internal politics aren't pleasant. A little over a century ago the two great beacons of republican and monarchical democracy, France and Britain, formed an alliance with the most repressive major state in Europe - Czarist Russia - because it was in the strategic interest of all three to contain Germany. Same again in World War Two with the USSR.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on January 14, 2017, 08:59:58 AM
Post by: twik on January 16, 2017, 09:47:47 AM
Post by: alvarez on January 19, 2017, 07:58:22 PM
Must be a sad day for the people here. For the Americans who for years had no problem with, or actively supported, assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and the war on journalism, as long as you got health care - looks like you won't be getting health care anymore. The families of your victims must be crying their eyes out at the thought that the people who have no problem killing then won't get their subsidised health care. Is there no justice in the world?
For the obedient colonists in Canada and Europe, who look the other way at the terroristic activities of certain other presidential candidates, because she wasn't bombing you - we'll discover if Canada and Europe stay off limits to Americans "fighting for their freedom". If so, we'll also discover if your attitudes towards assassination change when the victims are white instead of brown.
And don't forget, the person bringing you this message must be a Trump supporter, because according to Retard Logic, Trump supporters are the only people who wouldn't want to queue up to suck your glorious neo-Nazi ****s.
Congratulations, justice will soon be served to a group of truly evil people. The problem is, your punishment will be inflicted on everyone else, too.
Post by: smartcooky on January 19, 2017, 11:41:17 PM
It's been a while since I've stopped by the Order of the Swastika, so I thought I'd see how everyone is doing. Looks like not much has changed.
Must be a sad day for the people here. For the Americans who for years had no problem with, or actively supported, assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and the war on journalism, as long as you got health care - looks like you won't be getting health care anymore. The families of your victims must be crying their eyes out at the thought that the people who have no problem killing then won't get their subsidised health care. Is there no justice in the world?
For the obedient colonists in Canada and Europe, who look the other way at the terroristic activities of certain other presidential candidates, because she wasn't bombing you - we'll discover if Canada and Europe stay off limits to Americans "fighting for their freedom". If so, we'll also discover if your attitudes towards assassination change when the victims are white instead of brown.
And don't forget, the person bringing you this message must be a Trump supporter, because according to Retard Logic, Trump supporters are the only people who wouldn't want to queue up to suck your glorious neo-Nazi ****s.
Congratulations, justice will soon be served to a group of truly evil people. The problem is, your punishment will be inflicted on everyone else, too.
If I am parsing your post correctly, you think this forum's membership is entirely made up of Trump supporters, and that makes us all neo-Nazis?
OK, I'll bite. I am a supporter of environmental organisations (financial contributor to both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd - some would argue that the latter makes ME a supporter of terrorism). I am a 20 year veteran of our armed forces and have served in combat zones in the Middle East. I am also a long time "Labour" (centre-left) candidate voter although my party vote has been going to the Green Party since the early 1990s.
I think the election of Trump to POTUS is greatest setback to the environmental movement this planet has ever seen. He will undo years of hard work and hard-won progress done by the environmental lobby world wide. Trump is a rampant misogynist, a racist, a pathological liar and an adherent to some of the world's most barmy conspiracy theories. He is a potential disaster for the Pale Blue dot... his election to office could well be the entry Earth's entry point to "The Great Filter".
All this makes me a neo-Nazi? OK, got it.
Post by: BazBear on January 19, 2017, 11:50:57 PM
It's been a while since I've stopped by the Order of the Swastika, so I thought I'd see how everyone is doing. Looks like not much has changed.What on Terra are you fuxxing talking about? Ranting is all well and good, but sometimes rants make people look less than rational (to be civil).
Must be a sad day for the people here. For the Americans who for years had no problem with, or actively supported, assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and the war on journalism, as long as you got health care - looks like you won't be getting health care anymore. The families of your victims must be crying their eyes out at the thought that the people who have no problem killing then won't get their subsidised health care. Is there no justice in the world?
For the obedient colonists in Canada and Europe, who look the other way at the terroristic activities of certain other presidential candidates, because she wasn't bombing you - we'll discover if Canada and Europe stay off limits to Americans "fighting for their freedom". If so, we'll also discover if your attitudes towards assassination change when the victims are white instead of brown.
And don't forget, the person bringing you this message must be a Trump supporter, because according to Retard Logic, Trump supporters are the only people who wouldn't want to queue up to suck your glorious neo-Nazi ****s.
Congratulations, justice will soon be served to a group of truly evil people. The problem is, your punishment will be inflicted on everyone else, too.
Post by: BazBear on January 20, 2017, 12:05:13 AM
It's been a while since I've stopped by the Order of the Swastika, so I thought I'd see how everyone is doing. Looks like not much has changed.Do you have any evidence of fascistic posting by the regulars here?
Quote
Must be a sad day for the people here. For the Americans who for years had no problem with, or actively supported, assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and the war on journalism, as long as you got health care - looks like you won't be getting health care anymore. The families of your victims must be crying their eyes out at the thought that the people who have no problem killing then won't get their subsidised health care. Is there no justice in the world?WTF does this mean? Pure ranting as far as I can tell.
Quote
For the obedient colonists in Canada and Europe, who look the other way at the terroristic activities of certain other presidential candidates, because she wasn't bombing you - we'll discover if Canada and Europe stay off limits to Americans "fighting for their freedom". If so, we'll also discover if your attitudes towards assassination change when the victims are white instead of brown.Once again, WTF does this mean? Pure ranting as far as I can tell... again.
Quote
And don't forget, the person bringing you this message must be a Trump supporter, because according to Retard Logic, Trump supporters are the only people who wouldn't want to queue up to suck your glorious neo-Nazi ****s.Read my last two replies.
Quote
Congratulations, justice will soon be served to a group of truly evil people. The problem is, your punishment will be inflicted on everyone else, too.1) I didn't vote for the Trumpster, 2) I suspect - but don't know - that most of the regulars here didn't either, and 3) stick your neo-Nazi accusations where the sun don't shine.
WTF are you on?
Post by: Peter B on January 20, 2017, 03:35:31 AM
It's been a while since I've stopped by the Order of the Swastika, so I thought I'd see how everyone is doing. Looks like not much has changed.
Must be a sad day for the people here. For the Americans who for years had no problem with, or actively supported, assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and the war on journalism, as long as you got health care - looks like you won't be getting health care anymore. The families of your victims must be crying their eyes out at the thought that the people who have no problem killing then won't get their subsidised health care. Is there no justice in the world?
For the obedient colonists in Canada and Europe, who look the other way at the terroristic activities of certain other presidential candidates, because she wasn't bombing you - we'll discover if Canada and Europe stay off limits to Americans "fighting for their freedom". If so, we'll also discover if your attitudes towards assassination change when the victims are white instead of brown.
And don't forget, the person bringing you this message must be a Trump supporter, because according to Retard Logic, Trump supporters are the only people who wouldn't want to queue up to suck your glorious neo-Nazi ****s.
Congratulations, justice will soon be served to a group of truly evil people. The problem is, your punishment will be inflicted on everyone else, too.
If I am parsing your post correctly, you think this forum's membership is entirely made up of Trump supporters, and that makes us all neo-Nazis?
[snip]
*sigh*
No, our friend Alvarez is an anti-Obama/Clinton person (see the bolded bit above).
I'm curious, Alvarez, where do you live?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 20, 2017, 03:52:57 AM
Post by: Glom on January 20, 2017, 04:15:00 AM
Post by: gillianren on January 20, 2017, 11:54:53 AM
Post by: Glom on January 20, 2017, 11:57:33 AM
Post by: twik on January 20, 2017, 12:28:56 PM
Post by: Luke Pemberton on January 21, 2017, 01:24:05 PM
Has anyone else been following the confirmation hearings? Looks like my kids' education is about to be in the hands of a woman whose only qualification is that her family has donated some $200 million to the Republican Party over the years.
Pretty much like education in the UK was handed over to an Oxford Historian, whose entire education policy was based on his own grammar school experience while simultaneously tarring the entire teaching profession as the 'left wing' blob. Every kid in the country must follow a rigorous set of exams as standards must be raised (that was the mantra).
Post by: Glom on January 21, 2017, 01:30:11 PM
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 26, 2017, 04:55:10 AM
"The current situation where we have a country with the most advanced science and technology institutions and companies in the world dictated to by a mentally-impaired clown in the throes of a temper tantrum backed up by a load of religious idiots is just not a viable situation for anyone.
People who can land a vehicle on Mars and keep it running for 13 years do not deserve to be dictated to by a total f***ing idiot."
Post by: gillianren on January 26, 2017, 12:52:39 PM
Post by: Glom on January 26, 2017, 01:46:37 PM
Post by: twik on January 26, 2017, 01:53:01 PM
Post by: twik on January 26, 2017, 02:20:05 PM
"n8y25ah7"
and
"Aqenbpuu"
Some people think it's his Twitter password, and the one he reset it to after realizing he'd sent out the first one. Some think they're the nuclear codes. I think they're the most intelligible things to come out of his office for the week.
Post by: smartcooky on January 26, 2017, 06:58:40 PM
Post by: Luke Pemberton on January 26, 2017, 11:11:34 PM
People who can land a vehicle on Mars and keep it running for 13 years do not deserve to be dictated to by a total f***ing idiot."
... but sadly Trump does not have the mental capacity to understand that he's wearing the Emperor's new clothes.
Post by: twik on January 29, 2017, 09:48:14 AM
Who's out? No one important. Just the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. Because why on earth would you need to have them involved?
I know there are at least a couple of people on this board, people I consider sane and of good character, who supported Trump. Can you say today, this is what I wanted when I voted for Trump? Because to my eyes, this has moved beyond madness.
Post by: BazBear on January 29, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
Post by: Luke Pemberton on January 29, 2017, 12:12:06 PM
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928
Post by: gillianren on January 29, 2017, 12:53:39 PM
I wouldn't have voted for this clown for dog catcher, but I thought his campaign rhetoric was probably a bunch of radical crazy populist B.S.; but once elected and in office, I thought cooler, saner heads would prevail. It looks like I was very, very, very self deluded.
Whose saner heads, though? Since basically no one was willing to stand up to him during the campaign, who was left to do it once he was in power?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on January 29, 2017, 01:12:59 PM
I wouldn't have voted for this clown for dog catcher, but I thought his campaign rhetoric was probably a bunch of radical crazy populist B.S.; but once elected and in office, I thought cooler, saner heads would prevail. It looks like I was very, very, very self deluded.
Whose saner heads, though? Since basically no one was willing to stand up to him during the campaign, who was left to do it once he was in power?
Exactly, with the lurch to fundamentalist right-wing views in the higher echelons of the Republican camp, it was clear that many forces were at play, and this administration is the collective policy of disgruntled alt-right extremists that are grinding every axe they can find. They've had 8 years to concoct this agenda. There are no saner voices. This is the voice of collective policy, not the demagogue that sits in the Oval Office. The manner with which Trump assembled his cabinet shows a collection of secularist politicians and the self-interest of the rich, and this will shape US economic, foreign and domestic policy. LGBT rights will be next.
Post by: twik on January 29, 2017, 01:46:16 PM
Post by: smartcooky on January 29, 2017, 02:34:07 PM
Currently, the world is in almost as deep a state of crisis as it was in the 1930s and 1940s when the political climate in the Weimar Republic gave us Hitler. The very existence of human civilization on this planet is under threat and, year upon year, things are getting worse. Globally, democratic political systems have become paralyzed in dealing with this threat almost as much they were in dealing with the Great Depression. Real wage levels are back to where they were 85 years ago while social peace is maintained by record setting levels of debt. Since 9/11, we have seen a continually growing campaign among democratic societies to reduce civil liberties, claiming that this is a necessary step in fighting terrorism. It is worth noting that as Trump attempts to shut the door on Muslims because they might be terrorists, his actions bear a disturbing similarity to what US Attorney General Francis Biddle said in 1942....“every precaution must be taken to prevent enemy agents slipping across our borders. We already have had experience with them and we know them to be well trained and clever.”. He was effectively closing the door on Jews because they might be Nazi spies.
The threat of a new totalitarianism remains and continues to grow.
Post by: apollo16uvc on January 29, 2017, 05:58:08 PM
"Trump's new head of science ministry believes Apollo was faked"
Or a title along those lines. I didn't even bother to click it. Surely its a stupid click bait title.
However, if the USA really has a science ministry which believes that... than the country truly has elected someone who can not separate facts from bullcrap.
Toodle-pip
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 29, 2017, 07:11:02 PM
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/19/top-trump-adviser-roger-stone-moon-landing-video-was-hoax-filmed-new-jersey/213921 (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/19/top-trump-adviser-roger-stone-moon-landing-video-was-hoax-filmed-new-jersey/213921)
Trump is an idiot who surrounds himself with idiots.
Post by: apollo16uvc on January 29, 2017, 07:34:45 PM
Also 'the moon landing video'? like only one video from a single camera was made... which is wrong. The Apollo 11 LEM and EVA had two video camera's, SSTV live feed camera and 16mm film camera.
Post by: smartcooky on January 29, 2017, 09:58:33 PM
Sorry America, you can't say you weren't warned.
Post by: Allan F on January 29, 2017, 10:58:24 PM
I wonder why he is so oddly specific about the location it was shot.
Also 'the moon landing video'? like only one video from a single camera was made... which is wrong. The Apollo 11 LEM and EVA had two video camera's, SSTV live feed camera and 16mm film camera.
Probably because he sounds more convincing, when he provides some kind of detail, instead of waving his hands in an westernly direction.
Post by: Peter B on January 30, 2017, 07:00:11 AM
Not that it will make a difference, but it is rather entertaining watching the numbers tick over on this petition to Parliament.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928
Is that a genuine petition? That is, are they genuine people signing that petition, or just a bunch of bots?
I mean, each time I hit the Refresh button, another 50-100 people have signed it...
Post by: gwiz on January 30, 2017, 07:08:47 AM
Post by: twik on January 30, 2017, 10:41:31 AM
Well, I've signed it and I know several other people who have too. They send you an e-mail link to click to prove that your address is genuine.
It's apparently genuine. Theresa May so far says she'll ignore it because it's just "populist". I dunno, when 1 out of every 50 or so people in your country sign it, it seems like you might have an issue here.
Apparently Trump is a little edgy about having to meet the Royal Family anyway, since Charles is a known supporter of action on climate change, and Trump fears he will "lecture" him.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 30, 2017, 11:10:56 AM
It's apparently genuine. Theresa May so far says she'll ignore it because it's just "populist".
Damn shame that she's not doing the same with the Brexit referendum. After all, that was advisory and most definitely based on populism!
Post by: gillianren on January 30, 2017, 11:52:57 AM
I don't understand - courts issue a stay of the immigration ban, and DHS says, "Bleep you, we're keeping it in place anyway." What happened to rule of law?
I've been trying to explain to the friend of a friend why I think the ban is unconstitutional. She insists it isn't because the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens. I informed her that it literally doesn't matter, as this is a situation where the government is explicitly favouring adherents of one religion over adherents of another with Trump's statement that Christian refugees will be prioritized. Of course, she also thinks we should agree to disagree that every intelligence expert who's spoken out about this has done so to point out that this is a policy that will make Americans less safe, so I'm not convinced this woman is really thinking.
Post by: smartcooky on January 30, 2017, 01:33:44 PM
I've been trying to explain to the friend of a friend why I think the ban is unconstitutional. She insists it isn't because the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens.
Point out to her that, if this were true, then resident non-citizens would be free to violate the Constitution with impunity because it doesn't apply to them.
Post by: twik on January 31, 2017, 12:17:00 AM
Post by: gillianren on January 31, 2017, 03:16:50 AM
I've been trying to explain to the friend of a friend why I think the ban is unconstitutional. She insists it isn't because the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens.
Point out to her that, if this were true, then resident non-citizens would be free to violate the Constitution with impunity because it doesn't apply to them.
I decided to just go ahead and block her. I argued that having the government favour any religion in any context was a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and she countered with, "But it doesn't apply to non-citizens!" When my whole point was that it violates my rights for the government to do that, which I made clear. It is my right as a US citizen to expect that my government won't favour people of one religion over another. Apparently, she didn't know what to say to that, so she just ignored it. I figured it was better for my mental health not to put up with her anymore.
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2017, 09:30:29 AM
They really do lack any sense of irony, don't they.
Post by: twik on January 31, 2017, 03:54:39 PM
Post by: Peter B on February 01, 2017, 08:02:43 AM
A New Order?
They really do lack any sense of irony, don't they.
Well, the term was first used by a Republican President, wasn't it? (Bush I) It was only later hijacked by the conspiracists.
Post by: Glom on February 01, 2017, 09:30:29 AM
Post by: twik on February 01, 2017, 04:04:46 PM
But nah, Hilary was the hawk.
Post by: nomuse on February 02, 2017, 12:09:56 AM
And to not just deny -- this on science-based blogs -- that we are facing an onslaught of unreason that would send Carl Sagan screaming for the hills, a denial of reality I didn't expect to see represented outside of certain historic posters here; to in some sort of implausible ju-jitsu of the dialectic insist that the blog in question get back to doing serious science and leave phantom enemies given life only by partisan politics alone.
A denial of denialism, if that isn't too circular. All the more frightening as it is spoken by what appear to be educated people otherwise capable of putting a logical argument together.
(I am much heartened I haven't seen that kind of poster here.)
(On reflection, there is a kind of sense here. And it is exactly the thing Sagan warned about -- and Randi, and Feynman, and others. Which is that it is easy to use science as a source of blunt facts with which to bludgeon one's opponents. What is harder is to actually do science. To ever question, oneself more than anything.)
Post by: Glom on February 02, 2017, 04:11:23 AM
Post by: twik on February 02, 2017, 09:19:00 AM
A denial of denialism, if that isn't too circular. All the more frightening as it is spoken by what appear to be educated people otherwise capable of putting a logical argument together.
(I am much heartened I haven't seen that kind of poster here.)
Apparently you missed the missive in another thread about how those awful immigrants are taking our jobs, and taxes are the work of the devil (even if certain agencies we support, like NASA, depend on them), and how Trump will prevent all that. Oh, and he won't actually do anything to hurt women's or LBGT civil rights, because he's not that kind of guy.
Post by: twik on February 02, 2017, 02:35:05 PM
Post by: nomuse on February 02, 2017, 07:28:47 PM
Have a high-tech company? Hope you can find all your specialists in the U.S., because Trump's going to get rid of all those pesky immigrants. http://www.salon.com/2017/02/02/first-they-came-for-the-muslims-trumps-next-targets-may-include-poor-immigrants-and-highly-paid-ones/
Heh. That's among the reasons symphony orchestras have apparently, err, joined the chorus. Puts a real crimp on touring overseas as well (but mostly they object because they really like performing and sharing with people from other nations, other musical backgrounds).
Found that out totally by accident while I was looking for a resource on violin technique.
Post by: BazBear on February 03, 2017, 12:10:12 AM
As I said "It looks like I was very, very, very self deluded.".I wouldn't have voted for this clown for dog catcher, but I thought his campaign rhetoric was probably a bunch of radical crazy populist B.S.; but once elected and in office, I thought cooler, saner heads would prevail. It looks like I was very, very, very self deluded.
Whose saner heads, though? Since basically no one was willing to stand up to him during the campaign, who was left to do it once he was in power?
Post by: Peter B on February 03, 2017, 01:05:17 AM
Quote
Mr Trump used an address to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington — normally a solemn occasion — to ask the audience to "pray for" new Apprentice host Schwarzenegger to improve the show's ratings.
Classy.
Post by: ka9q on February 03, 2017, 01:56:11 AM
I didn't vote for him for governor here in California, but I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by how moderate he was despite being a Republican. Maybe that's because he knew he can't actually have any higher aspirations (i.e., for Donald Trump's job).
Post by: Glom on February 03, 2017, 02:56:20 AM
Post by: twik on February 03, 2017, 09:26:24 AM
Check out Schwarzenegger's response.
I didn't vote for him for governor here in California, but I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by how moderate he was despite being a Republican. Maybe that's because he knew he can't actually have any higher aspirations (i.e., for Donald Trump's job).
That response made me laugh, then I thought "Oh crap, Trump's gonna get him deported."
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2017, 11:21:49 AM
Post by: nomuse on February 03, 2017, 06:38:35 PM
Post by: molesworth on February 04, 2017, 02:03:29 PM
Trump himself is, I think, is well out of his depth. He may have been a (moderately) successful businessman, but he has no idea about running a government, or of the need for careful negotiation and diplomacy in international dealings. He also, to my mind again, comes across in his vocabulary, phrasing and expressions, as fairly low in intelligence. Bannon, and others like him, appear to have a considerable hold over Trump, and are using it to push through some very badly thought out policies, and I don't see it ending well.
Trump's rampant narcissism isn't helping either. It appears he can't bear to be criticised or contradicted, and will use every opportunity, no matter how inappropriate, to promote himself. He's not painting himself in a good light.
I had hoped that, once elected, he would be more moderate, or that the rest of the Republicans would rein him in, but that unfortunately hasn't happened.
(I'm planning on visiting in August for the eclipse, so hopefully things will have calmed down a bit by then...)
Post by: Obviousman on February 04, 2017, 05:33:19 PM
Post by: Glom on February 04, 2017, 06:06:30 PM
Post by: ka9q on February 05, 2017, 01:14:14 AM
I've stayed out of this discussion, mainly because I'm a brit and not directly involvedThere isn't a single human being anywhere on or near this planet that isn't directly affected by this.
That's simply a fact of the modern world, and I say that as a US citizen who did vote in the election.
Post by: Glom on February 05, 2017, 04:04:48 AM
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 05, 2017, 05:44:58 AM
(I'm planning on visiting in August for the eclipse, so hopefully things will have calmed down a bit by then...)
I have my flights booked and hotels, I´m staying in Florida and doing a three day trip to South Carolina for the Eclipse.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2017, 04:44:25 PM
I'm visiting the US in March and am very nervous. I have Iraqi stamps in my passport because of work from a few years ago. I had to get a visa because of this. But now I'm worried about being detained for hours in the airport on the arrival. US immigration was bad enough at the best of times and these aren't the best of times.How hard would it be to get a new/second passport?
I know that Americans can do this if they have Israeli visa stamps when they need to visit an Arab country. It only makes sense that other countries could do the same to get around US foolishness.
Post by: molesworth on February 06, 2017, 05:46:32 PM
We're heading to Wyoming - big clear (hopefully) skies, and a chance to visit Yellowstone and Grand Teton. It should be a good eclipse.
(I'm planning on visiting in August for the eclipse, so hopefully things will have calmed down a bit by then...)
I have my flights booked and hotels, I´m staying in Florida and doing a three day trip to South Carolina for the Eclipse.
Anybody else watching and taking pictures or video might want to contribute to Hugh Hudson's "Mega Movie" - http://www.eclipse2017.org/2017/photo/mega_movie.htm (http://www.eclipse2017.org/2017/photo/mega_movie.htm). I'm also trying to figure out exposures for an "Eddington" type experiment, to image stars close to the sun during totality. (Of course all off-topic, and probably worth starting a separate thread nearer the time.)
Post by: Glom on February 07, 2017, 03:08:28 AM
Problem is my visa is in my current one. In retrospect, I probably should have done that once I'd finished with my work there.I'm visiting the US in March and am very nervous. I have Iraqi stamps in my passport because of work from a few years ago. I had to get a visa because of this. But now I'm worried about being detained for hours in the airport on the arrival. US immigration was bad enough at the best of times and these aren't the best of times.How hard would it be to get a new/second passport?
I know that Americans can do this if they have Israeli visa stamps when they need to visit an Arab country. It only makes sense that other countries could do the same to get around US foolishness.
Post by: twik on February 08, 2017, 10:06:16 AM
In other words, the U.S. has lost an ally in the war against terror. Well done, old boy!
Post by: Peter B on February 09, 2017, 04:43:42 AM
...In other words, the U.S. has lost an ally in the war against terror. Well done, old boy!
Coming a few days after giving an earful to our Prime Minister, Mister Trumble...er...Turnbull.
I mean, the USA needs strategic allies. What do you gain by annoying your current allies?
Post by: Glom on February 09, 2017, 04:52:06 AM
Post by: twik on February 09, 2017, 04:39:44 PM
Scariest part of the report from Reuters was:
Quote
Typically, before a telephone call with a foreign leader, a president receives a written in-depth briefing paper drafted by National Security Council staff after consultations with the relevant agencies, including the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies, two former senior officials said.
Just before the call, the president also usually receives an oral "pre-briefing" from his national security adviser and top subject-matter aide, they said.
Trump did not receive a briefing from Russia experts with the NSC and intelligence agencies before the Putin call, two of the sources said. Reuters was unable to determine if Trump received a briefing from his national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Because the whole world enjoys seeing the President of the U.S. winging it when it comes to nuclear destruction.
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 10, 2017, 07:26:37 AM
Defending the block: There's no evidence that any terrorist attack has been perpetrated by anyone from those seven countries; it's removing people's right to travel without due process; it seems to favour one religion over others, and is therefore against the constitution.
Defending the ban: He's the President so he can do what he likes, so nerrr.
So one side argued the pros and cons of the ban itself, while the other argued about power and process. It's like conversations with HBs on this board where we will argue the actual details and they will crow on about being badly treated. It's terrifying to see this kind of thing from actual world leaders!
Post by: Glom on February 10, 2017, 09:07:06 AM
Post by: ka9q on February 10, 2017, 09:12:28 AM
"3-0"
I am not a lawyer, but back in the 1990s I was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the US State Department challenging their arbitrary export controls on public domain encryption software. So I became very familiar with claims by the executive branch that they can do whatever they want in this area. Around that time I began saying that "National security" seems to be the root password to the Constitution.
So it was especially satisfying yesterday to read the opinion in which the judges state emphatically that even if they usually give deference on national security issues to the "political branches" (Congress and the President) they still insist on having the final say on whether something violates the Constitution. Even in wartime.
Yesterday was definitely one of my better days since November 8. Maybe our system of checks and balances really is more robust than I feared. It's certainly getting tested like never before in modern times.
Post by: Obviousman on February 10, 2017, 05:22:07 PM
It's like conversations with HBs on this board where we will argue the actual details and they will crow on about being badly treated. It's terrifying to see this kind of thing from actual world leaders!
Well, my understanding is that President Trump is a believer of several conspiracies claims; the shocking thing is that, like you say, he acts on the world stage pretty much like we would expect a rabid CT / HB to act if they were on a internet forum.
Post by: nomuse on February 11, 2017, 01:20:27 AM
It's like conversations with HBs on this board where we will argue the actual details and they will crow on about being badly treated. It's terrifying to see this kind of thing from actual world leaders!
Well, my understanding is that President Trump is a believer of several conspiracies claims; the shocking thing is that, like you say, he acts on the world stage pretty much like we would expect a rabid CT / HB to act if they were on a internet forum.
He's a pretty good rebuttal to all those people who look at conspiracy theory debunkers and ask why we bother.
Post by: Obviousman on February 11, 2017, 01:27:02 AM
It's like conversations with HBs on this board where we will argue the actual details and they will crow on about being badly treated. It's terrifying to see this kind of thing from actual world leaders!
Well, my understanding is that President Trump is a believer of several conspiracies claims; the shocking thing is that, like you say, he acts on the world stage pretty much like we would expect a rabid CT / HB to act if they were on a internet forum.
He's a pretty good rebuttal to all those people who look at conspiracy theory debunkers and ask why we bother.
8-)
Post by: twik on February 11, 2017, 08:38:53 AM
It's like conversations with HBs on this board where we will argue the actual details and they will crow on about being badly treated. It's terrifying to see this kind of thing from actual world leaders!
Well, my understanding is that President Trump is a believer of several conspiracies claims; the shocking thing is that, like you say, he acts on the world stage pretty much like we would expect a rabid CT / HB to act if they were on a internet forum.
He's a pretty good rebuttal to all those people who look at conspiracy theory debunkers and ask why we bother.
Absolutely right.
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 13, 2017, 11:50:04 PM
Flynn resigns amid controversy over Russia contacts (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/michael-flynn-white-house-national-security-adviser/index.html?sr=fbCNN021417michael-flynn-white-house-national-security-adviser/index.html0423AMStoryLink&linkId=34467748)
Post by: Glom on February 15, 2017, 10:30:06 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 15, 2017, 07:14:25 PM
That's one down... who will be next?There goes another...
Flynn resigns amid controversy over Russia contacts (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/michael-flynn-white-house-national-security-adviser/index.html?sr=fbCNN021417michael-flynn-white-house-national-security-adviser/index.html0423AMStoryLink&linkId=34467748)
Andrew Puzder withdraws as a labor secretary nominee (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/top-senate-republicans-urge-white-house-to-withdraw-puzder-nomination/index.html?sr=fbCNN021517top-senate-republicans-urge-white-house-to-withdraw-puzder-nomination0901PMStoryLink&linkId=34547684)
Post by: smartcooky on February 16, 2017, 10:10:16 PM
The attitude of this man is truly appalling and very scary.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 17, 2017, 03:35:47 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39000389
But, hey, the administration is running like a fine tuned machine*
I listened to his press conference (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html?_r=0&referer=) last night. He's got a massive persecution complex. Today he has been in the job 4 weeks...I can't see him lasting 4 years.
All the hoo-ha about Clinton's email server...the Trump administration are running their emails through the Republican party's servers, not the White House.
The nutter is going to start a war....listen to his threat against North Korea. His comments yesterday about a single state solution for Israel will have the Arabs up in arms. All it will take is ISIS to launch an attack on US soil and he'll impose martial law.
Meanwhile, the Russian have the intelligence gathering ship Viktor Leonov cruising 40 miles off the New London submarine Base. Last Friday the USS Porter was buzzed by three Russian warplanes and a surveillance plane whilst on international waters. The warplanes passed less than 200 yards from the boat. The Russians are basically goading the Yanks and Trump to see how he reacts.
*Finely tuned machine in this case is a v-twin with one piston missing.
Post by: ka9q on February 17, 2017, 05:36:48 PM
Post by: Obviousman on February 18, 2017, 05:00:37 AM
Post by: Zakalwe on February 18, 2017, 06:46:37 AM
The Republican party will not stop supporting Trump as long as he continues to dismantle the regulations on big business, especially the fossil fuel industry. And Trump's ranting at the press, the media, clouds etc. means that the headlines are filled with column inches that hide the real damage that's being done in plain sight.
This is the guy that was going to "drain the swamp" and cut corruption. America, you deserve a slap for electing this puppet. I'm gone beyond caring that he messes up your country, but this muppet, and his Republican controllers, will damage the rest of the world.
Post by: gillianren on February 18, 2017, 01:37:16 PM
Post by: Glom on February 18, 2017, 07:03:39 PM
Post by: Glom on February 22, 2017, 04:47:34 AM
Post by: twik on February 22, 2017, 10:17:25 AM
Post by: Glom on February 22, 2017, 11:22:22 AM
Post by: JayUtah on February 22, 2017, 11:26:19 AM
When I was a kid, the Russians always seemed to have "fishing trawlers" in international waters off the US coast, especially near areas like central Florida. I hadn't heard about this for some time, but neither had I heard that they stopped.
Russian "trawlers" and "cargo ships" routinely shadowed U.S. Navy operations. I lived overseas for a while during the Cold War in a NATO port city and saw a lot of Navy traffic there, always accompanied by the same few Russian "cargo ships." We got to recognize them. They would arrive in port the day after some warship and depart the day after. There was always a lot of activity on the ship while in port, almost none of it seeming to have anything to do with loading or unloading cargo. Also, do cargo ships need antennas that big?
Post by: JayUtah on February 22, 2017, 11:40:13 AM
This week he signed Resolution 38 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-16/trump-signs-measure-blocking-obama-era-rule-to-protect-streams) which overturns a law passed in December last year that stopped coal mining firms from dumping spill and pollution into streams.
Sort of. Congress passes laws, which are general, and the executive -- usually a specific agency directed by statute -- implements them as rules, which are extremely specific. A law that takes only a few paragraphs to spell out in the United States Code may expand to thousands of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations, which the executive agencies use to actually create an enforceable policy. It is these detailed policies embodied in the CFR that are what need to be followed. The so-called Streams rule you refer to was a monumental piece of environmental regulation, painstakingly worked out by more than just the Obama administration. Because the process of executive rulemaking is surprisingly more time-consuming than the legislative process, the steps required to remove a regulation, once adopted, are similarly monumental. However, there is a provision that allows Congress, within 90 days of a rule's adoption, to simply legislate it away. And the President signs it as with any other piece of legislation, and an entire thousand-page book of regulation can be wiped away with the stroke of a pen -- a measure that would normally take careful deliberation. That's what happened here.
Oh, but it gets better. This particular provision is considered a nuclear option. It's a vast intrusion by Congress on the power of the executive, so prior to Trump taking office it was used only once previously in its entire history to overturn a set of regulations regarding OSHA and ergonomics. The reason it's a nuclear option is that if a regulation is done away with by this means, no similar rule can ever be written, ever again. Not only does this do away with clean water restrictions on the mineral industry for the term of this administration, it does away with it for all time.
The escalation of partisan politics to include such nuclear options should frighten people.
Post by: JayUtah on February 22, 2017, 12:12:04 PM
Maybe they will support impeachment if it means it will improve their own chances of re-election. Otherwise they might just get tossed out in two years.
We're doing our best here to toss out Jason Chaffetz. There are credible GOP contenders, and he's losing support here even among Republicans. (Why not elect a Democrat or an independent? Because Utah.) I tried to get into his now-infamous town hall meeting a while back, but like most people who wanted to attend I had to be satisfied with hovering outside. Chaffetz' committee has oversight responsibility for the executive, but simply refuses to exercise it over Trump with respect to his conflicts of interest. In response to the chants of "Do your job!" Chaffetz' answer was predictably evasive. He simply said the President was "exempt" and that was supposed to be the end of it. Well, yes, except from one conflict-of-interest law, but not from the general need to avoid emolument.
Further, Chaffetz' committee isn't ja law-enforcement agency. The executive is limited to investigating violations of laws that already exist. The legislature is not, and it can make laws as needed. One of the reasons we allow Congress the power to investigate is to determine whether new laws are warranted. In other words, maybe the President shouldn't be exempt from conflict-of-interest laws, and maybe it's Chaffetz' duty to collect facts that either support or refute that proposition. Past presidents have voluntarily divested their conflicting interests, so there's an evident moral mandate for such a law. Maybe the reason no one thought before to hold the President accountable for conflicts of interest was because other Presidents held themselves accountable without being asked, and demonstrated that accountability convincingly. Gee, if everyone drove 100 km/h or slower on the freeway without being told to, it wouldn't matter if there were a speed limit law and if some drivers were exempt from it. It's only when that one jerk drives recklessly fast and causes a wreck that we begin to consider the need for regulation and enforcement.
To paraphrase Rand Paul, "Republicans don't investigate other Republicans." That seems to be the conventional partisan wisdom so far. We'll get no meaningful oversight so long as partisan politics overshadow constitutional checks and balances. As for re-election, the tap dancing required to separate races for different branches of government within a single party are well established. Should the need arise -- and it probably will -- GOP candidates for Congress in 2018 and later will already have the rhetoric in place to separate themselves just enough from Trump to make a credible showing. The only way a GOP Congress would impeach President Trump is if he were to do something so treasonous as to make it inevitable political suicide to continue to support him.
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 22, 2017, 09:03:15 PM
Maybe they will support impeachment if it means it will improve their own chances of re-election. Otherwise they might just get tossed out in two years.
We're doing our best here to toss out Jason Chaffetz.
Keep it up! :)
I've been watching the news reports of the anger being expressed at GOP town halls, and it is reassuring to me that people are speaking up and resisting. But I do worry that it will lose steam before the next election.
Quote
Chaffetz' committee has oversight responsibility for the executive, but simply refuses to exercise it over Trump with respect to his conflicts of interest.
Quote
To paraphrase Rand Paul, "Republicans don't investigate other Republicans." That seems to be the conventional partisan wisdom so far. We'll get no meaningful oversight so long as partisan politics overshadow constitutional checks and balances.
The "party first, country second" attitude is so frustrating to me. It's not just limited to the Republicans, or even the United States, but Republicans do seem to take it to extremes. And when we're talking about issues that affect the entire planet (such as the destruction of the environment, or even situations that could lead to war) we have to put our political loyalties aside. Republicans have to take the concerns about Trump more seriously.
I was skeptical that the "checks and balances" were going to be effective when Republicans basically control everything, so it was reassuring that the courts blocked the travel ban.
Quote
The only way a GOP Congress would impeach President Trump is if he were to do something so treasonous as to make it inevitable political suicide to continue to support him.
It sure sounds like if the intelligence agencies keep digging they will find something treasonous. But it no longer surprises me when Republicans do mental gymnastics to justify their continued support of Trump despite his behaviour.
Post by: Glom on February 23, 2017, 03:05:34 AM
We have the principle that no Parliament can bind future Parliaments.
Post by: gillianren on February 23, 2017, 11:35:32 AM
Post by: Glom on February 23, 2017, 11:43:10 AM
Post by: JayUtah on February 23, 2017, 12:18:24 PM
So no law that prevents industry from polluting rivers can ever be implemented in the future? That's ridiculous.
We have the principle that no Parliament can bind future Parliaments.
And in like manner no Congress can bind a future Congress. However the measure that was overruled this week was not a law, but an executive rule. The law still stands, but at present relies on the enforceable detail that is provided in rules prior to Obama's term. This is common in American lawmaking. Laws are written in general language. The Congress relies upon the agencies and offices of the executive to implement the law in terms of rules that can be practically enforced and argued before a court in terms of evidence. These rules are themselves the product of extensive scientific study, deliberation, hearing, and debate. To explain this in terms familiar to English style parliamentary practice, it is roughly analogous to delegated legislation as opposed to primary legislation. Nearly every bill in Congress delegates power to an office of the executive, which has previously been given authority by statute, to make and enforce rules consistent with the language of the bill. Thus every bill in Congress is, to a certain extent, a case of delegated legislation. The body of rules made by means of this delegated power is the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and it is de facto law in the United States.
The normal oversight that Congress retains in this situation is generally deemed sufficient. Each office of the Executive (cf. the Crown) that has been granted statutory authority to make and enforce rules is answerable to a committee of the Congress, and ultimately to Congress itself. The relevant committee can, and frequently does, call before it the officers of the executive to hold them accountable for their rulemaking and enforcement (or lack thereof) and has the power, through legislation, to compel obedience on specific points. But the entire system of delegated authority is, in the American system as in the English system, meant to relieve Congress or Parliament from legislating in fine, from wading through myriad technical details, and from consideration of informal or minor changes. Hence it works best when the executive is staffed with competent conscientious people and left to its own devices.
The law 30 USC 1211 authorizes the creation of an office of the executive whose job is to make and enforce rules pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The Act itself contains such vague language as, "(c) assure that surface mining operations are not conducted where reclamation as required by this chapter is not feasible; (d) assure that surface coal mining operations are so conducted as to protect the environment; (e) assure that adequate procedures are undertaken to reclaim surface areas as contemporaneously as possible with the surface coal mining operations[.]" Questions such as feasibility under (c), the specific details alluded to in (d), and what precisely constitutes "adequate procedures" and "contemporaneous[]" under (e) are what is delegated to the executive to determine, what forms the basis of the pertinent rules in CFR (in this case large portions of CFR Parts 700, 701, 773, 774, 777, and 827), and what delegated answers were wiped away this week. Specifically, those parts of the CFR existed before Obama took office, but were substantially revised during his term to interpret 30 USC Subchapter 25 (the relevant law) for enforcement purposes. Those revisions were eliminated by Congress, thus the relevant parts of CFR revert back to their unrevised form.
This Congress may not bind a future Congress. But it may bind this and future Presidents, and because the Congressional Review Act specifically (CRA) affects powers ordinarily belonging to the Congress but delegated to the Executive for practical purposes, it may indeed place longstanding restrictions on how that delegated power may be wielded by any officer of the executive as long as the law remains in force. In this case the Act prevents the executive from attempting to establish the rule overturned under the provisions of the CRA in "substantially the same form." It also enjoins any court from reviewing the Act of Congress that overturned the rule. (The judiciary in the United States receives its subject-matter jurisdiction from Congress.) But because no Congress can bind a present or future Congress, a "substantially" similar rule could be allowed by act of Congress, as you suggest. That is, in 2018 when a new Congress is seated, they can adopt a measure specifically to allow the clean-water rule enacted under President Obama and overturned by Congress and President Trump to be reinstated in the CFR in its pristine form. But it must be a specific law, specifically aimed at the individual rules that were overturned. And Trump will simply veto that act of Congress. Or conversely, Congress could substantially revise the law itself -- 30 USC 1201 et seq. This would compel the executive to revise its rules to be consistent with the changes in the law, and that would negate the specific restrictions prohibited by the Congressional Review Act. But this is simply not likely to happen in any conceivable future. Hence my hyperbolic "for all time." As long as 30 USC subchapter 25 exists substantially in its present form and as long as the CRA was used to overturn Obama's rules, it may not be enforced in the form provided by the Obama administration.
And you're right; the CRA is ridiculous. Which is to say, a routine application of it in this way is ridiculous precisely because it is so uncommonly draconian. It was meant to corral, in the most invasive and strong terms, an egregiously misbehaving executive. It is meant as a measure of last resort, when all other methods that control the rulemaking power delegated to the executive have failed. This is why it has only succeeded once before in its entire history, and only been attempted a handful of times. And yes, there are other measure to revise and eliminate federal rules. It happens all the time, but it is a rather tedious and onerous process because the public accountability fo repealing or revising a rule is and ought to be as careful as the process that established the rule in the first place. The Republican party was unlikely to succeed in any short order at overturning the relevant rules by the accepted procedure. Hence it employed its nuclear option.
Post by: JayUtah on February 23, 2017, 12:19:15 PM
Side note, happy belated [birthday], Jay. Are you not on Facebook anymore?
No, I no longer use Facebook, but thanks for the good wishes.
Post by: JayUtah on February 23, 2017, 12:50:19 PM
Even the Constitution can be amended. This doesn't sound right. Do you mean those rules can't be introduced under the current law but Congress could pass a new law?
In short, yes. Congress can pass a new law. That law can either revisit the issue of surface mining and water cleanliness de novo, substantially revise the existing law, or -- as I write above -- dictate specifically that a certain rule rescinded under the Congressional Review Act of 1996 may be reinstated. It just is very unlikely to do so. The United States has its own version of the primacy of the legislative. Nearly every restriction imposed on the other branches may be excused by an act of Congress. The much ballyhooed Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution says the President can receive gifts from foreign powers if Congress approves. So if Vladimir Putin wants to buy Donald Trump a vacation dacha on the Black Sea, Congress merely has to pass a resolution approving it. It just doesn't do such things very often.
The power of the Code of Federal Regulations cannot be overestimated. As I write above, it's our de facto law for most regulated activities. As a maker of technology I'm subject to, for example, the body of Federal Aviation Regulations, title 14 of the CFR, and export restrictions, 15 CFR. The U.S. Departments of Transportation and of Commerce, respectively, contain the offices that make and enforce those rules. They receive their authority to do so from Congress, which exercises general control over them and passes general legislation both empowering and funding the activities of these offices and also laying down the general laws these offices are to give enforceable teeth to by their activities. To make an airworthy aircraft, I have to turn to various parts of 14 CFR that govern in precise terms what constitutes the concept of airworthiness. These criteria change from time to time. Congress doesn't have to act on each change; it is concerned only with the mandate that aircraft produced and flown in the United States be suitably airworthy.
The act of Congress in 1977 that mandated surface mining be conducted with proper care toward reclamation of the mining sites and preservation of the cleanliness of water created an office of the executive to make and enforce specific rules. Since 1977 those rules have been revised many times, but most recently not since 2001. In 2016 we have the power to revise what can be enforced as "feasible" or "adequate," since those depend on advances in technology which have come about since 2001. Coal mining in the U.S. is held only to the standards of "adequate" and "feasible" that presumed 2001 levels of technology. As we become more adept, we raise the bar for what constitutes responsible mineral extraction, just as we revise what constitutes "airworthy" based on what we can reasonably attain in the industry.
Congress largely doesn't care about these things. It writes laws generally so that only minimal revision are necessary and the day-to-day revisions are handled in the executive through hearings, petitions, and votes in executive commissions. Congress, in delegating this power to the executive offices, mandates in each case what accountability each office must have to the public and what sorts of procedures it must follow when making rules.
Post by: JayUtah on February 23, 2017, 01:13:46 PM
I've been watching the news reports of the anger being expressed at GOP town halls, and it is reassuring to me that people are speaking up and resisting. But I do worry that it will lose steam before the next election.
It didn't quell the Tea Party uprising that continued until the 2010 elections in which a number of well-seated Democrats lost. The Tea Party movement began precisely as a grass-roots opposition to the situation after the 2008 election. And we remember town-hall meetings held by Democratic incumbents that were every bit as raucous as these today, largely due to Tea Party involvement. I think in the next two years we're going to see something in the Democratic party similar to the Tea Party -- some sort of grass-roots backlash against the party establishment that will affect the 2018 midterm elections and may affect both major parties.
I have to say it's disappointing that the widespread and vocal opposition to so many GOP officials in their constituencies is being dismissed as mercenary opposition rather than genuine feelings. Leave it to that party to foment conspiracy theories to explain away opposition.
Quote
The "party first, country second" attitude is so frustrating to me. It's not just limited to the Republicans, or even the United States...
Agreed. While we can cite egregious examples in both parties, this is an increasingly frustrating problem all around. And it results in ineffective government. I can remember when partisanship was still a thing, but the overriding need was to progress with good government. The Tea Party seems to have removed the aspect of government in which compromises were reached across party lines. Today there is simply no effective bipartisanship.
Quote
I was skeptical that the "checks and balances" were going to be effective when Republicans basically control everything, so it was reassuring that the courts blocked the travel ban.
Indeed, and it's not as if the Republicans didn't take the Democrat executive to court in order to seek to have its executive orders overturned. They were even successful a few times. So complaining that the executive is reactionary or that the President's decrees are unreviewable is disingenuous.
As to checks and balances, they were formulated long before the two-party situation developed. The Framers consider partisanship, but envisioned that no party would be able to gain ascendency and that the normal checks and balances would suffice. Nor did they foresee a system in which two parties, together holding near unanimous constituency, would be able to so effectively wield government power against each other in a partisan way. They envisioned a system more akin to the coalitions in some of the modern European democracies. The checks and balances simply can't cope with a two-party stronghold unless the parties agree that government is more important.
But it looks like Chaffetz may be in real danger of losing his seat. So we may see some movement.
Quote
The only way a GOP Congress would impeach President Trump is if he were to do something so treasonous as to make it inevitable political suicide to continue to support him.
Quote
It sure sounds like if the intelligence agencies keep digging they will find something treasonous.
That's one thing we hear from former administration officials of both parties: don't cross the intelligence community. Apparently everyone there is a little bit J. Edgar Hoover at heart. That's given rise to Deep State conspiracy theories, of course. Most other occupants of the White House seem to have enough political savvy to at least gently disagree with the intelligence-gatherers when they disagree. But Trump seems to be a bull in a china shop, and he might be making the sort of enemy he's not accustomed to dealing with.
Post by: Glom on February 24, 2017, 05:13:15 AM
Sensible. Facebook is the devil's plaything run by Lex Luthor.Side note, happy belated [birthday], Jay. Are you not on Facebook anymore?
No, I no longer use Facebook, but thanks for the good wishes.
Post by: Glom on February 25, 2017, 09:08:23 AM
Post by: ka9q on March 01, 2017, 04:05:40 AM
As to checks and balances, they were formulated long before the two-party situation developed.I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1803, that revised the procedures for electing the President and Vice President.
If not for the 12th Amendment, Hillary Clinton would be Vice President today, as she got the second largest number of electoral votes in the 2016 election. The 12th Amendment established the "party slate" system we have today.
Post by: Zakalwe on March 01, 2017, 04:53:04 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage
Post by: Glom on March 01, 2017, 07:26:32 AM
Post by: Glom on March 02, 2017, 04:10:02 PM
There have been stories about how visitor numbers are down on the back of fears about ott immigration.
Post by: gillianren on March 02, 2017, 11:53:38 PM
Post by: Zakalwe on March 03, 2017, 05:51:21 AM
And Pence has now been caught using an AOL email address for years. From the mid 1990s right up to 2016, including use after the account had been hacked and compromised.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/pence-used-personal-email-state-business----and-hacked/98604904/
https://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2017/03/mike-pence-used-an-aol-e-mail-account-for-state-business-and-it-got-hacked/?comments=1
No doubt we'll hear the Republicans demanding that pence undergoes a FBI investigation and cries of "Lock him up!". :o ::) ::) ::)
Post by: Glom on March 03, 2017, 07:54:12 AM
But there's a reverse of that. Where some people can't say things or do things because their behaviour adds a sinister tone to such things.
Take the border wall. Stopping undocumented movement across the Mexican border is the policy of at least the last two administrations. So Trump pressing the issue is not in of itself something to be all horrified about. But it's the tone he adopts that puts it in a context that makes even those who do want to control immigration uneasy.
Or the media. In other times, many would agree you shouldn't trust much of what you read and hear in the press. But when a POTUS makes such persistent and vitriolic attacks on the media, it has unsettling connotations.
Post by: JayUtah on March 03, 2017, 12:21:58 PM
I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment...
Yes, you make a good point. I had it in my mind that the reforms for electing the executive came later than 1803, i.e., after the generation who weren't founding fathers came to power. Clearly partisanship took an early foothold. But I don't think it was sufficiently considered when the checks and balances were first formulated. Even with the coherently elected executive, I reckon they thought partisanship in Congress wouldn't reach a point where they'd refuse to impeach an errant president of the same party.
Post by: gillianren on March 03, 2017, 12:24:33 PM
Post by: Glom on March 03, 2017, 01:29:06 PM
Sounds like they were maybe a wee bit naive.I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment...
Yes, you make a good point. I had it in my mind that the reforms for electing the executive came later than 1803, i.e., after the generation who weren't founding fathers came to power. Clearly partisanship took an early foothold. But I don't think it was sufficiently considered when the checks and balances were first formulated. Even with the coherently elected executive, I reckon they thought partisanship in Congress wouldn't reach a point where they'd refuse to impeach an errant president of the same party.
I heard it say that America is a monarchy with an elected king while Britain is a republic with a hereditary president. Apparently that was said by an American journalist in the late 19th century.
Post by: JayUtah on March 03, 2017, 03:59:58 PM
Sounds like they were maybe a wee bit naive.
Just a bit, yes.
James Madison believed (or is commonly interpreted to believe) that partisan politics were inevitable, and that the only solution was to mitigate the effects, not stem the causes. He wrongly assumed a number of things. First, he assumed that only the rabble would be partisans. Second, and therefore following from his first assumption, he assumed that anyone qualified enough to be electable from a party would be smart enough to put the public interest before party. Third, he assumed a multitude of factions, not a bifurcation toward two dominant parties. And on and on. Madison's arguments were not founded in the separation of powers directly, but in the careful analysis of the scale of the prospective government and the proportions of representation. His analysis was reasonably cogent for the 18th century but not for the 21st, and not in light of how the American party system actually developed. But inasmuch as Madison's argument was founded in quantitative electoral arguments, the whole thing exists in the framework of the separation of powers in which those elected to the offices of one power would not necessarily be subject to the same flavor of factious emotions as the other branches.
Quote
I heard it say that America is a monarchy with an elected king while Britain is a republic with a hereditary president. Apparently that was said by an American journalist in the late 19th century.
I wouldn't dispute this. I assume entire books have been written comparing the American republic to the British one from which it sprang. But I wouldn't have the time to read them all. I see vestiges in the American system that give homage to a "ruling class," which may or may not ever have existed in valid form anywhere. Judges were appointed and senators given lengthier terms on the basic understanding that the people holding these offices were not the "rabble" of the House, but rather those who -- for lack of a better characterization -- had been groomed into the leadership class. The Founding Fathers had not yet warmed fully to the idea that any of the unwashed rabble would ever be fit to lead. This harks back to the notion of monarchs and peers who followed genealogical lines of succession and were thus bred from youth to assume offices of leadership. (There is, however, a remarkable episode of Netflix's The Crown in which Elizabeth realizes she has been inadequately prepared intellectually.) Whether some hereditary lord or monarch actually had leadership talents was mitigated in the idea that for better or for worse they would be prepared as well as possible for the role.
I gather the Founding Fathers were somewhat conflicted about the executive. On the one hand it's obvious, having just escaped what they believed to be the tyranny of a monarch, they felt reticent about vesting in one person so much power. But on the other hand, if the executive could be a person who was carefully and soberly chosen and vetted by a similarly conscientious college of electors -- and not so much just the person bearing the proper DNA or having electioneered most viciously -- then they could be less anxious about giving him so much direct power. Thus I can see that the English system benefits from the primacy of Parliament in order to quench the power of whatever random monarch ascends the throne. It makes sense. Succession is what it is, and it points to the next bloke in line regardless of his actual qualifications. That's a rational reaction to having lived for hundreds of years in a monarchy, and taking steps over the following hundreds of years (i.e., since Magna Carta) to move toward democracy.
In contrast, had the American electoral college worked the way it was in part envisioned, Trump would not have been elected. That was one of the mechanisms envisioned to prevent despots and demagogues from acquiring the kinglike powers the Constitution granted to the executive. Contrary to the feelings that evolved later, the President was, from the start, not to be elected directly or by a purely popular vote. Even in the now-remote case where the House would elect the President it does so by state, contrary to the customary method of polling the House. In the context of your quote, we seem to have elected ourselves into the mess England learned long ago to avoid.
Post by: Peter B on March 04, 2017, 05:40:33 AM
I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment...
Yes, you make a good point. I had it in my mind that the reforms for electing the executive came later than 1803, i.e., after the generation who weren't founding fathers came to power. Clearly partisanship took an early foothold. But I don't think it was sufficiently considered when the checks and balances were first formulated. Even with the coherently elected executive, I reckon they thought partisanship in Congress wouldn't reach a point where they'd refuse to impeach an errant president of the same party.
I read an article somewhere (no hope now of finding a link) in which the writer pointed out that in any parliament (or congress or whatever you want to call it) where members are each elected to represent a single electorate, you're always going to move towards a two-party system; whereas where members are elected by proportional representation you're always going to move towards endless multiple coalitions. The former occurs because being part of a party machine represents the better chance of being elected than standing as an independent, and the latter occurs because even a small party can be guaranteed getting enough votes across a country/representative region to gain at least one seat.
Here in Australia, the Federal Parliament started out in 1901 with three factional groupings - Free Traders, Protectionists and the Australian Labor Party. For the first few years they formed and broke a number of coalitions until eventually the Free Traders and Protectionists formed a permanent alliance (known initially as Fusion) of more conservatively aligned politicians against the more left wing workers party of the ALP. And that alignment has stayed pretty firm over the last century. The ALP has split a few times (for example, in World War One over conscription, and in the 1960s over Communism) but it has generally stayed the party of choice for working class people.
But that's changed since the 1990s and the (arguably neo-con) reforms of the Hawke and Keating ALP governments of 1983-1996. Since then the ALP has drifted to the political centre as union power has weakened, and its place on the left wing has been occupied by the Greens.
The return of One Nation in the last few years doesn't quite fit the same narrative on the right. For one thing the Liberals (who are actually the conservative party in the country) haven't drifted to the centre, despite comments by deposed PM Tony Abbott. As I understand it, One Nation supporters have generally come from working class and middle class families with a conservative outlook, many of whom in the past would have voted for the ALP; they're similar to Trump Republicans as people who feel they've lost out from globalism.
Now the difference between the USA and Australia is how our political systems cope with these protest votes. In Australia our House of Reps has individual seats, and as mentioned above this promotes a two-party outcome: out of 150 seats in the HoR, 147 are held by members of the two major parties. But the Senate, with 12 Senators elected in each state (and two in each territory), allows far wider political representation. As a result, the two major parties between them hold only 55 of the 76 seats; the crossbench of 21 represents a wide range of political views, and quite a headache for the government to get legislation passed. But at least it's possible to say that nearly everyone's political views have been represented in the Senate, at least to some extent.
But in the USA, where each state elects only two Senators, there isn't much chance for minor parties to be elected. So their best chance has been to be part of one of the two major parties of the System, hence the infiltration of the Republican Party by the Tea Party. If the US Senate had provided for more Senators per state then I'd suggest the Tea Party people may have preferred to guarantee representation in the Senate by running their own candidates outside the Republican Party, while the Democrats could easily fracture into a worker's party and a more liberal middle-class party.
Post by: Glom on March 04, 2017, 07:55:10 AM
The House of Lords here is also a bastion if crossbenchers. However it is also a mess. It is one of only a small handful of upper houses larger than lower houses, because it gets packed with new wood after every change of government while the old wood remains. It's a truly British thing of just fudging and making do. Everyone agrees it needs to change, but no-one agrees to what. Change doesn't necessarily mean making it elected. There is value in it being appointed and therefore not just a clone of the Commons. But if appointed, how to keep the herd suitably thinned and how to avoid it just being a dumping ground for political apparatchiks who can't win Commons seats? Of course, anything radical is likely to be put on hold for the next few years to see if the UK lasts out the next decade.
Post by: JayUtah on March 04, 2017, 02:18:13 PM
But in the USA, where each state elects only two Senators, there isn't much chance for minor parties to be elected.
Or for dark horse candidates to attract the attention of one of the major parties. I was tangentially involved with one of my colleagues' unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate, on a major party ticket. He lost in the primaries, as we expected he would, because the winning candidate was carefully tailored to be just off-center enough to get nominated -- not because he had any great ideas for how to govern. Or any prior experience in governing. But yes, I think your discussion of Australian parties is very much in the same vein as Madison's in the 18th century, albeit with more hindsight.
Post by: JayUtah on March 04, 2017, 02:44:25 PM
...and it may well be that the colonial leaders were a little out of touch with how far British system had moved.
Quite likely, although as a vital colony of the Crown it's not as if the inhabitants of the Americas were unaware of English politics. It's more likely that my analysis lacks sophistication. Hamilton (the statesman, not the musical) was reasonably correct about how the electoral college should have worked to deny Trump the presidency, but there is more to the crafting of the executive than I can recall off the top of my head. My personal feeling is that the American Republicans are content to let Trump lead the media around by the nose and be generally the buffoon we knew he would be in order to distract attention from the efforts of the Republican establishment to dismantle and defuse the previous eight years of progressive policy.
Quote
It's a truly British thing of just fudging and making do. Everyone agrees it needs to change, but no-one agrees to what.
On the contrary, some of the UK's deepest and most respected thinkers have proposed a marvelous way of culling the herd.
Quote
...to see if the UK lasts out the next decade.
Yikes, don't say that. Various forces in my life are making it somewhat likely I may sojourn in the London area for a few years. Or that's one possibility. I understand Dalston is a nice place to have a flat, but I'm also considering Hammersmith (having stayed there some years ago and recalling liking it).
Post by: Glom on March 04, 2017, 03:09:50 PM
Post by: Peter B on March 05, 2017, 05:35:20 AM
According to the Australian ABC article, Trump provided no evidence, but it seems pretty clear he was basing his claim on the Breitbart article.
Over on Unexplained Mysteries, Trump supporters are just about going into meltdown, with the basis of the allegation being (if I understand it correctly) the likelihood that Obama authorised the phone tapping which demonstrated Trump's team had been talking to the Russians.
So is that so? Or is it completely wrong? Or is it plausible?
Post by: grmcdorman on March 05, 2017, 10:06:20 AM
It's extremely unlikely the Obama Whitehouse did what he alleges: it's illegal, it's not Obama's style; see http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-early-morning-tweets for one.
Trump, though, gets much of his news from sites like Brietbart and Alex Jones' site, both of which are prone to breathless unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as I'm sure you know.
Post by: gillianren on March 05, 2017, 12:02:44 PM
Post by: Obviousman on March 05, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Post by: Peter B on March 06, 2017, 06:30:35 AM
There is no way this Administration will last four years.
Possibly so. But how it ends and what comes after worries me more than what the Trump Administration is doing now.
I find it hard not to draw comparisons between events in the USA at the moment and the closing decades of the Roman Republic. To that end, I strongly recommend reading Tom Holland's "Rubicon".
Post by: Glom on March 06, 2017, 08:07:12 AM
Post by: gillianren on March 06, 2017, 11:15:08 AM
I also have several scenarios considered where he just dies, not least because he's seventy and not in great health. Or I could see someone pulling a Guiteau and assassinating him because he hadn't, say, actually had Hillary Clinton locked up or even investigated again. Or an accident involving a gun at one of his rallies.
Or, possibly, everything is getting too big even for the Republicans in Congress to ignore. Treason sounds like it's coming up, to me. Failing that, the Democrats could take back Congress in two years and do what needs to be done.
Post by: Zakalwe on March 06, 2017, 11:22:51 AM
Sad, but true. He's just a puppet for dangerous people and his whole Twitter fiasco is nothing more than a puppet-show on stage whilst the truly nefarious deals are being done in the shadows of the wings.
Post by: JayUtah on March 06, 2017, 11:45:17 AM
...his whole Twitter fiasco is nothing more than a puppet-show on stage whilst the truly nefarious deals are being done in the shadows of the wings.
Agreed. It looks like the Republican strategy is to allow Trump to distract the media while the Republican establishment hands the country back to the corporations and banks.
Post by: Glom on March 06, 2017, 01:52:16 PM
Post by: JayUtah on March 06, 2017, 03:27:21 PM
But really what we need to discuss with such learned company is was the Louisiana Purchase a case of executive overreach?
Not according to Madison, who placed it squarely within the power of the Executive to negotiate treaties. But ssssh! or else Trump will want to build another couple of walls and make France pay for them.
Post by: ka9q on March 07, 2017, 06:05:59 AM
I've read that tourism as an industry is taking a serious hit.Me too. And it's really quite ironic, give that it's a major export industry. Many not in percent of our GNP, but certainly large in absolute dollars per year.
And not just tourism either. International business travelers are rightfully afraid to come to the US. If I were organizing one of the big international meetings of Internet engineers I used to attend, I would probably agree that the ones normally held in the US should be moved to Canada for the time being. They've often been held in Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal and I'm sure the Canadians would welcome the extra business.
I like to say that higher education is one of this country's most important exports, given how many foreign students you see at almost any university. The rest of the world has always looked to the United States as the world leader in advanced education, basic and applied research and market creation, and they try to send us their best students. That's something we have every right to be proud of. Yet Trump is happily dynamiting all that in the ironic name of "making America great again". Ugh. He has absolutely no idea what made this country great in the first place.
Post by: ka9q on March 07, 2017, 06:14:01 AM
It's that many young people meet foreigners -- lots of 'em -- for the very first time when they go to college. When I was a Cornell undergrad in the 1970s, I had fellow students from practically every country in the world, but especially (pre-revolutionary) Iran, China and India. You quickly accept them as fellow students who just happen to look a little different and speak English a little differently (although that part could be a problem).
Many people without the benefit of a college degree, especially those who grow up, go to public school and live their entire lives in rural areas, never get that opportunity. And so they (can be made to) fear those they do not know.
Post by: ka9q on March 07, 2017, 06:22:17 AM
Not according to Madison, who placed it squarely within the power of the Executive to negotiate treaties. But ssssh! or else Trump will want to build another couple of walls and make France pay for them.Hey, the German comedian Jan Böhmermann points out that Germany also built a big, beautiful wall and they even made the Russians pay for it!
Post by: Peter B on March 07, 2017, 08:08:59 AM
Speaking of higher education, everybody knows there's a strong correlation between support for Trump and the lack of a college degree. I think I know why this is, and it's not the extra education per se.
It's that many young people meet foreigners -- lots of 'em -- for the very first time when they go to college. When I was a Cornell undergrad in the 1970s, I had fellow students from practically every country in the world, but especially (pre-revolutionary) Iran, China and India. You quickly accept them as fellow students who just happen to look a little different and speak English a little differently (although that part could be a problem).
Many people without the benefit of a college degree, especially those who grow up, go to public school and live their entire lives in rural areas, never get that opportunity. And so they (can be made to) fear those they do not know.
That's certainly the impression I get from some of the more frothy-mouthed Trump supporters on Unexplained Mysteries - their fear of Muslims is so visceral and hysterical I find it easy to believe they've never actually knowingly met one. I'd suggest that they chill out and go have lunch at their local Turkish restaurant or Lebanese take-away, but then I wonder whether they actually have such treasures where they live...
And the irony is, you go to a Turkish restaurant here in Australia, and they're so strictly Islamic they serve wine and offer Christmas banquets... ::)
And another thought - if you want to see a crowd of 100,000 fanatic Muslims: go to the cricket in Pakistan or Bangladesh, rather than the mosque. I'm not going to say I'd feel safe at a cricket match in Karachi in a crowd that big, but I don't think I'd be at risk from religious violence.
Post by: Peter B on March 07, 2017, 08:32:56 AM
Even those who know nothing about cricket will see that all five squads have a decent number of black (West Indian) and white (English, South African, Australian and New Zealander) players. What's not so obvious is that most teams also have one or two Sri Lankan players as well, and for one club their captain is a Sri Lankan. Sure, I don't think there's a single Indian player there, but the cosmopolitan nature of the teams should be pretty obvious: the fans and the organisers want good players, not just good Pakistani players.
And while most of the games in the comp were played in the UAE, the final was played in Lahore in front of a crowd of 22,000 very excited Pakistanis.
Post by: gillianren on March 07, 2017, 10:58:53 AM
Post by: ka9q on March 07, 2017, 04:24:51 PM
There's an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon can go to China.I thought it was an old Klingon proverb.
Post by: Glom on March 08, 2017, 02:44:41 AM
No it's Vulcan. You must be thinking of revenge is a dish best served cold.There's an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon can go to China.I thought it was an old Klingon proverb.
Post by: gwiz on March 08, 2017, 06:34:41 AM
I like to say that higher education is one of this country's most important exports, given how many foreign students you see at almost any university. The rest of the world has always looked to the United States as the world leader in advanced education, basic and applied research and market creation, and they try to send us their best students. That's something we have every right to be proud of. Yet Trump is happily dynamiting all that in the ironic name of "making America great again". Ugh. He has absolutely no idea what made this country great in the first place.We've got a similar situation in the UK, foreign student numbers down since the Brexit vote and also, apparently, fewer UK students going to European universities. This cutting off of links puts all the rhetoric about the UK going to be a great global player into perspective.
Post by: Dalhousie on March 12, 2017, 11:28:41 PM
Post by: twik on March 14, 2017, 09:18:22 AM
Post by: Glom on March 14, 2017, 11:19:08 AM
Post by: gillianren on March 14, 2017, 12:26:40 PM
Post by: twik on March 14, 2017, 03:03:54 PM
Hehehe (evil cackle)
Post by: gillianren on March 15, 2017, 11:45:50 AM
Post by: JayUtah on March 16, 2017, 10:24:40 AM
The most recent executive order appears intended to just outright destroy any number of agencies. I really don't think it'll hold up in court.
Which is why so much effort was made to keep the seat open on the Supreme Court until a conservative swing justice could be appointed.
Post by: gillianren on March 16, 2017, 11:16:58 AM
Post by: Glom on March 16, 2017, 11:30:46 AM
Post by: JayUtah on March 16, 2017, 12:47:52 PM
I'm not sure I see all the conservative justices there now as being willing to approve it.
No, they probably won't. But still in the American system Congress holds the pursestrings. The President can suggest a budget, but it's up to Congress to actually write it. And from the early reports I've seen, many in Congress have no intention of cutting that deeply. Some of the programs on the chopping block have historically had bipartisan support despite partisan fluctuations in spending for them.
Post by: Allan F on March 16, 2017, 04:10:58 PM
I've read that tourism is already down and likely to decrease further. Which, of course, will hurt the economy and cost jobs, just like everything else from the administration.
I thought of going with my GF. I think we'll wait about 3y10mds.
Post by: Glom on March 16, 2017, 04:48:44 PM
Post by: Allan F on March 16, 2017, 07:43:02 PM
Post by: Obviousman on March 17, 2017, 02:30:56 AM
Post by: Glom on March 17, 2017, 04:33:34 AM
Post by: twik on March 17, 2017, 10:22:00 AM
Post by: Glom on March 17, 2017, 10:32:10 AM
Post by: gillianren on March 17, 2017, 11:23:35 AM
Post by: twik on March 17, 2017, 12:35:50 PM
Post by: Glom on March 17, 2017, 03:52:38 PM
Post by: Zakalwe on March 17, 2017, 05:55:51 PM
Post by: Obviousman on March 17, 2017, 09:27:42 PM
Sure, big improvements are going to take time: dropping the unemployment rate, boosting the economy, etc... we won't see any improvement for a while.
The way President Trump is behaving, though.... what is going on? Sure, he's different and won't be the same as others, but the tweets, his comments regarding other nations, the claims he makes... they are completely detrimental to himself, his Administration and the US in general.
This is not just things a 'radical' would do when trying to 'clean up the swamp'. These are things I simply cannot explain.
It's as if he was deliberately trying to bring himself into disrepute.
Post by: nomuse on March 18, 2017, 12:01:27 AM
Post by: gillianren on March 18, 2017, 11:27:42 AM
I think he deeply believed that Trump was the right choice for the nation. However, my personal opinion is that he glossed over Trump's anti-science stance, which has become more apparent (at least in my eyes). I wonder if Trump's supporters in the scientific fields have been able to reconcile themselves with this.
I just literally don't understand how an intelligent person could have missed not only Trump's anti-science stance but his genuine incompetence. Or the fact that his proposed policies are nightmarish. The claim that there's no evidence that feeding poor children "works"? Even if you needed the excuse to make sure that poor children don't go hungry, that's flatly wrong. Every study done shows that the most effective way to improve children's performance in school is to feed them.
Post by: twik on March 20, 2017, 11:23:12 AM
However, this is an odd stance for a supporter of NASA and state-sponsored (that is, taxpayer supported) science. When government costs are cut, we see things without immediate tangible benefits being the first on the chopping block.
Post by: gillianren on March 20, 2017, 12:31:42 PM
Post by: JayUtah on March 20, 2017, 03:25:30 PM
Every study done shows that the most effective way to improve children's performance in school is to feed them.
Indeed, but I look at that program at a more basic level. Trying to correlate children's performance in school with food programs certainly has value. But for me the program shows results when kids don't go hungry. You can feed hungry kids in the hopes of boosting their performance in school. But you can also feed hungry kids because it's the right thing to do. You succeed when there are fewer hungry kids. That's how you measure the success of the program.
Post by: gillianren on March 21, 2017, 11:45:43 AM
Post by: Peter B on March 25, 2017, 08:25:40 AM
Every study done shows that the most effective way to improve children's performance in school is to feed them.
Indeed, but I look at that program at a more basic level. Trying to correlate children's performance in school with food programs certainly has value. But for me the program shows results when kids don't go hungry. You can feed hungry kids in the hopes of boosting their performance in school. But you can also feed hungry kids because it's the right thing to do. You succeed when there are fewer hungry kids. That's how you measure the success of the program.
And anyone cutting such a program no doubt agrees with you.
In the vernacular of the Australian Parliament, "The honourable member for Salt Lake City knows that no one recognises the value and importance of such a program more than me. But due to the fiscal black hole left to us by the previous government, the members on the opposite side of the chamber surely understand that we've had to make some tough decisions to help bring the budget back into surplus."
Post by: gillianren on March 25, 2017, 11:37:30 AM
Post by: JayUtah on March 25, 2017, 01:16:16 PM
Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending.
Indeed, the programs the President wants to eliminate have, in general, miniscule budgets compared even to the incidental costs of maintaining the opulent lifestyle of the First Family. When transitioning from a liberal to a conservative government, it is common and expected to eliminate discretionary spending. However, the programs in question have had bipartisan support in some cases for many decades. While their budgets grow and shrink according to the preferences of the party in power, they have never been slated for wholesale elimination. Thus the present budget recommendation is being viewed as more of a political statement than a plan for fiscal responsibility.
The proposed increase in defense spending is incongruous with the President's campaign promise to ask U.S. allies to shoulder more of the cost of coalition actions worldwide. Among all the topics that could arise in this thread, military policy is likely to be the most contentious. There are wide and deeply felt rifts in belief over what military action should be taken in what circumstances, by whom, and how paid for. Whether it's true or not, Trump's campaign rhetoric was that America has been paying too much for the world's defense. Then it gets harder to ask for more defense spending.
Post by: gillianren on March 25, 2017, 06:56:27 PM
Post by: Glom on March 28, 2017, 04:29:07 PM
Post by: gillianren on March 29, 2017, 11:19:34 AM
Post by: twik on March 29, 2017, 11:37:48 AM
Glad to hear that, and still angry for people who aren't that lucky.
The Toronto School Board isn't going to send any more school trips to the U.S. until things are settled. They're worried what would happen if one student was stopped at the border, and wasn't allowed to go with the others.
Post by: gillianren on March 29, 2017, 05:40:44 PM
Post by: Glom on March 29, 2017, 07:33:39 PM
I have narrowed the time period of Frontierland to between 1877 and 1890 due to a flag displayed over a refreshment stand which has 38 stars. But what is more shocking than shocks is that the pattern of stars is a rectangular grid of 5 rows and 8 columns where on the second and fourth row it is the left most stars which are missing, not the right, as most history pages seem to suggest.
I think Frontierland might be fake and Brer Rabbit was never kidnapped by Brer Fox. How did he escape anyway?
Post by: gillianren on March 30, 2017, 09:25:01 AM
Post by: Glom on March 31, 2017, 09:30:27 PM
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
Post by: Peter B on April 01, 2017, 05:24:49 AM
Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending. Or even just the cost of supporting the First Lady in her residence in New York. I agree that it's best for their kid if he stays in his school at least through the end of the school year; continuity is good for a kid. But if tough sacrifices are being made, maybe start there?
To which the likely response would be...
"If the honourable Senator from Washington is asking whether I'm a patriot for my country...if the honourable Senator is asking whether I care about the safety of the people of this country...then I'm proud to say, 'Guilty as charged'. The honourable Senator from Washington may not care about protecting this land of ours, but I and my colleagues do!"
In other words, as soon as you talk about trading off any social welfare program against a military program the response will be to challenge your patriotism regardless of how wasteful or pointless it is, and remain silent about the social welfare program regardless of how beneficial it is.
Seriously, these sorts of speeches and sound-bites just about write themselves (more's the pity).
Post by: gillianren on April 01, 2017, 12:04:32 PM
Speaking of strange American things, is it a done thing to pay the principle of the bill on card and leave cash for the tip?
There's usually a tip line on credit card receipts. However, if you pay cash for the tip, your server is guaranteed to get the tip that day; it's my understanding that this isn't always true with credit cards, depending on the restaurant. (I've never worked somewhere you could accept tips--the rule at the Burger King where I did my food service was that you couldn't.) If the management is really unpleasant, they might never get a credit card tip at all.
Post by: Glom on April 01, 2017, 03:58:24 PM
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
Post by: Dalhousie on April 01, 2017, 06:57:31 PM
Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending. Or even just the cost of supporting the First Lady in her residence in New York. I agree that it's best for their kid if he stays in his school at least through the end of the school year; continuity is good for a kid. But if tough sacrifices are being made, maybe start there?
To which the likely response would be...
"If the honourable Senator from Washington is asking whether I'm a patriot for my country...if the honourable Senator is asking whether I care about the safety of the people of this country...then I'm proud to say, 'Guilty as charged'. The honourable Senator from Washington may not care about protecting this land of ours, but I and my colleagues do!"
In other words, as soon as you talk about trading off any social welfare program against a military program the response will be to challenge your patriotism regardless of how wasteful or pointless it is, and remain silent about the social welfare program regardless of how beneficial it is.
Seriously, these sorts of speeches and sound-bites just about write themselves (more's the pity).
The responses to that sort of chest thumping idiocy also write themselves, but I will resist, as it is not my country (something I am very grateful for)
Post by: JayUtah on April 01, 2017, 09:36:39 PM
So basically I did good.
Yes. Cash tips are further appreciated because there's no paper trail to remind you to report it as income for tax purposes. If you get what I mean.
Post by: Peter B on April 01, 2017, 11:18:24 PM
Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending. Or even just the cost of supporting the First Lady in her residence in New York. I agree that it's best for their kid if he stays in his school at least through the end of the school year; continuity is good for a kid. But if tough sacrifices are being made, maybe start there?
To which the likely response would be...
"If the honourable Senator from Washington is asking whether I'm a patriot for my country...if the honourable Senator is asking whether I care about the safety of the people of this country...then I'm proud to say, 'Guilty as charged'. The honourable Senator from Washington may not care about protecting this land of ours, but I and my colleagues do!"
In other words, as soon as you talk about trading off any social welfare program against a military program the response will be to challenge your patriotism regardless of how wasteful or pointless it is, and remain silent about the social welfare program regardless of how beneficial it is.
Seriously, these sorts of speeches and sound-bites just about write themselves (more's the pity).
The responses to that sort of chest thumping idiocy also write themselves, but I will resist, as it is not my country (something I am very grateful for)
Oh, it's not my country either, but there aren't many Australians who can resist poking fun at Americans...sometimes in deadly seriousness.
In a way it's an indictment of Australian politics too, that I was doing only a small amount of paraphrasing of things I'm sure I've heard Australian politicians say.
And on that point, it has to be said that the popularity of Australian politicians with the Australian public has rarely been lower.
For example, we've recently had the Fair Work Commission (a government agency which oversees industrial relations) recommend cuts to pay rates for weekend work for people in the hospitality sector, a move applauded by the (politically conservative) government as boosting the economy. And then a couple of weeks later the government announced its intention to cut company tax rates to boost the economy. So apparently giving people more money is bad for the economy when it's given to low-paid people, but good when it's given to rich people.
Then there's the robo-debt welfare problem, in which an automated data-matching system is sending letters out to people claiming that they're inappropriately claiming benefits (often erroneously), while politicians are living high on the hog inappropriately claiming travel and accommodation benefits (often erroneously). The hypocrisy is frustrating.
Then there's been the business of power cuts. South Australia now generates about 30% of its electricity needs from renewables like solar and wind, but when a couple of tornadoes blew down transmission lines which led to a statewide blackout that was blamed on the renewables. Meanwhile, the current PM, who has previously endorsed the idea of a carbon emissions trading scheme is now sitting back while his ministers tout the benefits of building new coal-fired power station, and himself touting a multi-billion dollar expansion of the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme having recently lectured us on the importance of cutting government spending to reduce the deficit. *
To add to the problem, several states have privatised their electricity networks, with a number of power stations now being owned by foreign companies. Over the last few years several of these foreign-owned coal-fired power stations have been closed down, noticeably reducing the amount of electricity generated in the country, and there are now serious warnings of electricity shortages and blackouts as early as next summer. Naturally, manufacturers who rely on electricity to make things aren't thrilled, and both energy operators and political parties of all stripes are preferring to spend their time blaming each other rather than do anything about it.
So in the context of possible blackouts next summer, I'm going to be accelerating my plans to have some solar PV panels, a battery system, and a solar hot water system installed.
* Meanwhile, the skepticism about global warming coming from engineers, geologists and certain lobby groups is disturbing, even as the Great Barrier Reef experiences more frequent and serious bleaching events.
Post by: Dalhousie on April 02, 2017, 04:27:17 AM
* Meanwhile, the skepticism about global warming coming from engineers, geologists and certain lobby groups is disturbing, even as the Great Barrier Reef experiences more frequent and serious bleaching events.
Don't entirely discount the scepticism of geologists. They know more about climate change than most scientists and the limits of mathematical modeling of complex environmental systems.. Many of them provide important corrections to some of the more silly things said about climate change. But that's another topic.
Post by: Glom on April 02, 2017, 12:24:50 PM
Post by: LionKing on April 07, 2017, 03:27:19 AM
Post by: Allan F on April 07, 2017, 05:39:08 PM
So basically I did good.
Yes. Cash tips are further appreciated because there's no paper trail to remind you to report it as income for tax purposes. If you get what I mean.
It doesn't really matter if you tip on card on cash. The employees and the business are only interested in the total amount of cash in the till and on card and the sum of the days sale. Where I live, tips are tax exempt, they have been ruled to be gifts. Unless a tip is "substantial" - like a days wage or more. Then the receiver is obliged to self-report it.
Post by: gillianren on April 08, 2017, 11:28:06 AM
Post by: Obviousman on April 08, 2017, 05:35:26 PM
I know President Trump doesn't have any type of strategy but I can't say I disagree with his ordering a Syrian strike. Being ex-military, I tend to sometimes favour military options where they are quick and leave the message 'do not poke the tiger!'.
Post by: Peter B on April 09, 2017, 02:06:59 AM
Well, this is going to be interesting.
I know President Trump doesn't have any type of strategy but I can't say I disagree with his ordering a Syrian strike. Being ex-military, I tend to sometimes favour military options where they are quick and leave the message 'do not poke the tiger!'.
As with a lot of what happens in the Middle East, I'm unsure about whether it was a good thing.
For example, I note that North Korea has pointed out the value of its nuclear weapons in the context of the attack on Syria - I think it's pretty unlikely that the USA would attempt an attack of this sort on North Korea...
For another thing, it certainly hasn't helped the relationship between the USA and Russia.
But something else to consider is that the attack came a day after Steve Bannon was removed from the National Security Council. As I understand it, the alt-right was unhappy with Trump getting the US more deeply involved in Syria, so I wonder what the relationship is between the removal of the alt-right's poster boy from the NSC one day and the attack on Syria the next.
Post by: gillianren on April 09, 2017, 09:54:51 AM
Post by: Allan F on April 09, 2017, 06:07:33 PM
Post by: smartcooky on April 10, 2017, 01:17:21 AM
Problem is, if the president asks congress for permission to do a single operation, the target of that operation will get advance knowledge of the operation, and can either hide the intended target, disperse it, or beef up the defenses.
Yep, there are basically two ways to get a message to the widest possible audience
1. Television.
2. Tell Congress.
Much as I detest Trump (IMO, he is a misogynistic nitwit and about the worst choice of US President in the 240 year history of the country), I do agree that the President should have the power to act without reference to Congress. He is, after all, the CinC of US forces.
Post by: gillianren on April 10, 2017, 11:59:08 AM
Post by: smartcooky on April 10, 2017, 03:53:57 PM
But not a dictator. I don't care why he does it; the point is that he still has to follow the Constitution. And after all, letting Johnson avoid going through Congress got us Vietnam.
You are probably right, but as a person with a military background, if I am a soldier, sailor or airman embarking on a dangerous mission, I sure as hell don't want the bunch of self-interested politicians in the leaking tank that is the US Congress knowing anything about it.
Post by: nomuse on April 11, 2017, 02:00:03 AM
It's been a while, but wasn't that one of the reasons the RDF was around?
Post by: Glom on April 11, 2017, 05:55:44 AM
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 11, 2017, 08:04:50 AM
Or am I just being too liberal and wishy-washy in being amazed and disappointed that we can, collectively, put people on the Moon, eradicate some illnesses, treat others very well and improve life in many ways, yet we can't seem to find ways to solve many differences that don't involve blowing the crap out of large groups of people?
Post by: gillianren on April 11, 2017, 08:35:12 AM
The reason the President is not, according to the Constitution, allowed to declare war despite being C-in-C is that the Founding Fathers were generally (there were exceptions) terrified of a tyranny and didn't want a single person to be able to make decisions of that magnitude. They were afraid that a single person would be more likely to act for foolish or selfish reasons.
Post by: Glom on April 11, 2017, 10:38:59 AM
Post by: Trebor on April 11, 2017, 03:58:54 PM
Well we vest such a power in the Queen and yet in 65 years she has never done it. So there.The best quality in a leader is the ability to do nothing ever.
Post by: smartcooky on April 11, 2017, 10:56:48 PM
Or am I just being too liberal and wishy-washy in being amazed and disappointed that we can, collectively, put people on the Moon, eradicate some illnesses, treat others very well and improve life in many ways, yet we can't seem to find ways to solve many differences that don't involve blowing the crap out of large groups of people?
In an ideal world, I agree, but it only works if both sides are willing to solve their differences that way, if at all.
In the real world, there are people/groups of people who will take advantage of your liberal wishy-washyness; they see it as a weakness to be exploited for their own gain. These people only understand "blowing the crap out of" things/people. If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.
Post by: Geordie on April 12, 2017, 12:23:25 AM
[The founding fathers] were afraid that a single person would be more likely to act for foolish or selfish reasons.
Foolish; selfish, hmm. That reminds me of someone, his name's on the tip of my tongue....
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 12, 2017, 07:43:07 AM
If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.
Seriously? Sorry, but that attitude just seems to set up the whole problem in the first place. I have less of a problem with the idea of retaliation to an actual attack, but boy do I have a big problem to anyone who answers the question: 'why did you attack that person/town/country' with: 'well, they'd attack me some day so I thought I'd better do it first'.
It was put humorously by Dave Allen decades ago when he told the story of his father telling him when he went to school that there will be someone there who'll want to hit him. That's a bully. All bullies are cowards, so if you hit him first he'll run away. Within a week he was expelled for being a bully, going around hitting everyone first before they could hit him!
I think it's ridiculous to try to justify actually killing a bunch of people on the grounds that one day they will kill you. Really? When the first world war began every combatant believed, adamantly, they were waging a defensive war. Some a defence against actual invasion, some a defence against perceived future threats, but all believed they were defending their homes and all believed that right and god was on their side. Someone has to be the first to say 'actually, there's no point in killing and blowing things up, or we'll just end up with thousands of people getting slaughtered for the sake of capturing a few miles of blasted mud with nothing useful left standing on it', or we end up... well, we know how that ended up.
Anyway, my point was not to suggest how things should be done, but to point out how sad it is that we have advanced so much but still resort to sabre rattling and destructive action to show off our might rather than finding other ways to settle differences that don't involve the collateral damage of innocent deaths. However either side feels about it, surely everyone can recognise that destructive conflict is not in anyone's interests? I don't have a solution, but that doesn't mean I can't be dismayed about it or feel that people in positions of power should be doing their damndest to find that solution rather than making sure we all have the capability to blow up entire countries, just in case, and every so often blasting a little chunk of one of them just to make sure they get the message.
Post by: Glom on April 12, 2017, 09:31:10 AM
Post by: gillianren on April 12, 2017, 09:37:37 AM
[The founding fathers] were afraid that a single person would be more likely to act for foolish or selfish reasons.
Foolish; selfish, hmm. That reminds me of someone, his name's on the tip of my tongue....
Yeah, can't imagine who.
I'm generally disdainful of people who say "the Founding Fathers thought," or similar. The example I tend to give is that if Alexander Hamilton'd said the sky was blue, three guys at least would've gone to the window. But I think it's quite clear from the remaining notes we have about the Constitutional Convention that preventing a Trump-like figure is exactly why the Constitution spells out the kinds of checks and balances it does.
Post by: smartcooky on April 13, 2017, 03:33:27 AM
If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.
Seriously? Sorry, but that attitude just seems to set up the whole problem in the first place.
Jason its not an "attitude" is reality
Do you really think there was any possibility of negotiating with Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930's? I mean, really?
On September 30, 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned to England from the Munich Conference. On the tarmac at Heston Aerodrome, West London, he waved a piece of paper about, and said "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time". He might as well have used it to wipe his arse for all it was worth....in less than 12 months Hitler's invaded Poland and soon after, the war began. Hitler never had any intention of honoring that agreement. He just used the delays yo build up his forces.
Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?
Post by: Zakalwe on April 13, 2017, 07:03:09 AM
Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?
It's a tricky one. We used to say that we couldn't negotiate with the IRA too. Or ETA.
Post by: Glom on April 13, 2017, 07:23:27 AM
Post by: gillianren on April 13, 2017, 10:08:28 AM
Post by: twik on April 13, 2017, 04:00:46 PM
Forgive my political naivety, but isn't allowing the President to act unilaterally when it comes to military action against any other country because there's too much risk of the plans being leaked if Congressional approval is sought solving the wrong problem? Might even be advantageous if military plans were leaked on all sides, since that would effectively create a military stalemate where no actual shooting or bombardment would happen because everyone knows and is prepared for it, thus rendering it pointless.
Or am I just being too liberal and wishy-washy in being amazed and disappointed that we can, collectively, put people on the Moon, eradicate some illnesses, treat others very well and improve life in many ways, yet we can't seem to find ways to solve many differences that don't involve blowing the crap out of large groups of people?
Well, yes, it might be advantageous if all sides leaked equally. But it's unlikely that we could get North Korea or even Russia to have the relatively tolerant approach to leakers that the Western countries have.
Post by: smartcooky on April 13, 2017, 05:32:24 PM
Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?
It's a tricky one. We used to say that we couldn't negotiate with the IRA too. Or ETA.
You can't really make that comparison.
The IRA was strictly a local group that attacked the British in Ireland and in England.
The ETA were similar but were based in the Basque Country and attacked the Spanish and the French.
Neither group...
► used brainwashed members with no fear of death as suicide bombers
► declared war on the rest of the world
► had tens of thousand of followers world-wide traveling to Ireland/Basque Country to join in the fight
► had followers world-wide carrying out terrorist acts.
The IRA were always willing to negotiate, its just that what they wanted (a unified Ireland and the British out of Ireland completely) was totally unacceptable to the British. It was the British Government who refused to negotiate.
Likewise, ETA wanted independence for the Basque provinces of Álava, Biscay and Gipuzkoa (in Spain) and Labourd, Basse-Navarre and Soule (in France). and were willing to negotiate for it. Neither France or Spain were willing to have talks.
ISIS, on the other hand, are totally uninterested negotiating. They have no a specific aim beyond controlling the rubble pile that is their patch of ground. They appear to be an angry horde of insane individuals who routinely murder people over what they wear, what they say and what they believe. They consider anyone who is not of their unique form of Islam has no right to be alive. Every single one of us non-believers; you, me, everyone on this forum, in all our respective countries, is Infidel, and is therefore marked for execution. We all have targets on our backs.
Negotiation with groups of this type of mentality and holding this kind of belief system, is impossible. There are only two things you can do;
1. Put yourself behind an impenetrable wall and hope that it really is impenetrable.
2. Wipe them out before they wipe you out.
Post by: AstroBrant on April 14, 2017, 03:26:38 AM
I have never been a very "political" person -- at least not until Trump was nominated. I was shocked that there were enough Americans with so little regard for their government and so much contempt for facts, decency, integrity, intelligence, maturity, professionality, and competence as to actually put someone like that in a presidential race. Clinton was not a great candidate, but Trump was a nightmare. I was horrified when he was elected. I feel this marks the death of the American democratic ideal. I fear that the world will never view my country with respect again. What's worse, this could result in unprecedented international catastrophe. At the very least it validates all the worst kind of thinking that we find so commonly among conspiracy theorists, woo-woos, religious fundamentalists, and political extremists. For a long time, regarding such types, I've been saying, "These people serve on juries?? Vote?? Have children?? Drive cars??"
Well, now we see the results. Idiocracy is officially here.
Since the election, my online time has been dominated by this frightening situation. It has caused me to neglect my video-making. In November, I was in the middle of a video response to a flat Earth video, and haven't touched it since. I really must get back to that.
Speaking of which, I've been asking several flat-Earthers if they were Trump fans. I'd really love to know how much of a correlation there is.
I know I will lose some friends over this. That's sad.
Post by: Peter B on April 14, 2017, 07:17:38 AM
If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.
Seriously? Sorry, but that attitude just seems to set up the whole problem in the first place.
Jason its not an "attitude" is reality
Do you really think there was any possibility of negotiating with Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930's? I mean, really?
Yes, I think there was. Hitler was an opportunist - he kept pushing as long as he thought he'd face no opposition. Remember, when he gave orders for the army to reoccupy the Rhineland, they included the condition that if the French army made any move the German forces were to immediately abandon the reoccupation.
Had Hitler been faced by a united front of nations he would have been unwilling to risk war, because up to 1940 Germany simply didn't have the military strength to fight a two-front war. It wouldn't have removed Hitler from power but it would have kept peace in Europe (with the ongoing possibility of a military coup removing Hitler).
Quote
On September 30, 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned to England from the Munich Conference. On the tarmac at Heston Aerodrome, West London, he waved a piece of paper about, and said "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time". He might as well have used it to wipe his arse for all it was worth....in less than 12 months Hitler's invaded Poland and soon after, the war began. Hitler never had any intention of honoring that agreement. He just used the delays yo build up his forces.
But so did the British and French. It's worth considering the difference to the RAF an extra year of rearmament allowed.
The Polish invasion was only possible because someone else had managed to negotiate an agreement with Hitler. Had the British and French been serious about an agreement with Stalin (and forced the Poles to come along with them) Hitler wouldn't have had a hope of invading Poland. As it was German forces were being rushed over to the Western Front even before the conquest of Poland was complete.
Quote
Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?
Yes. Everyone has their price.
Consider that for all their bluster about destroying old monuments they're actually making a fair amount of money from the sale of antiquities on the black market. So they're perfectly happy to compromise their principles if there's money involved. And once money is involved it's simply a matter of working out the most effective way to spend money in such a way as to ruin the organisation from the inside.
Let me give a couple of examples. Back in the 10th century, in that part of the world, the Byzantine Empire was fighting against a particularly skillful Muslim general named Sayf Ed-Dawla. But the Byzantines were also skilled in winning wars without having to do much fighting. So, for example, one year the local Byzantine general, John Curcuas, sent bags of gold with letters addressed to senior subordinate generals of Sayf. The letters thanked these men for their assistance. Curcuas then arranged for the letters and gold to fall into Sayf's hands. Sayf had his subordinates arrested and interrogated to find out what assistance they'd given to Curcuas. They'd done nothing wrong, of course, but the interrogations and loss of trust meant that Sayf's planned campaign for that year had to be abandoned.
Similarly, one of the methods used to defeat the Huk Rebellion in the Philippines in the early 1950s involved offering rewards for the capture of various leaders, but offering lower rewards for the highest-ranked leaders. This led to internal bickering between the various leaders over who thought themselves the most significant.
Post by: Zakalwe on April 14, 2017, 09:29:03 AM
If your favourite, or only, tool is a hammer then all problems look like nails.
Post by: Peter B on April 14, 2017, 10:30:56 PM
Here's an interesting assessment of North Korea, which pretty much tallies with comments I've made in the past over at UM about the current leadership of that delightful country.
Quote
...the Kim regime is dangerous, brutal and petulant but if anything, predictable.
= = = =
Incidentally, on the issue of whether you can negotiate with terrorists, another example I read about was a method used by the US military occupying forces in Iraq to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda: they set up a Sunni self-defence militia and invited any local Sunnis to join, no questions asked.
They were paid a small allowance - small in Western terms, but enough money that members of the militia didn't need to work. The result was that large numbers of Al Qaeda members deserted that organisation to join the militia, patrolling their communities alongside American troops they'd been shooting at only weeks before. The number of AQ attacks went down, the militia were respected by their community, and the cost in terms of salaries was far smaller than the cost of sending hundreds of resented American soldiers in to patrol the communities.
Of course, it raises a bunch of questions: What did the American soldiers think of walking the streets with men who'd probably been responsible for the deaths of their own comrades? Was it moral or ethical to take such a mercenary stand in relation to people who'd previously sworn their opposition to the USA?
But this is the problem you get when you treat a group or a country as some sort of eternal enemy and pre-emptively rule out any possibility of negotiation. For one thing, when circumstances dictate that you do have to negotiate with them then you look like a hypocrite (think of the various Western hostages in Lebanon back in the 1980s whose eventual liberation relied on American negotiations with their supposed arch-enemy Iran). For another thing becoming too doctrinaire or belligerent when speaking about a current enemy makes it that much harder to back down later if you need to ask for their assistance. Consider the way Admiral Bill Halsey spoke during World War Two about Japanese people in general, and consider that if his attitude had permeated the American occupation forces in the years after the end of the war, it would have been that much harder to use Japan as a staging post for American and allied forces in South Korea.
That's why, in terms of foreign relations, I think it's better to be a guarded pragmatist - you never know when today's enemy might be a useful ally.
So in that regard (with both North Korea and Syria) I'm fairly positive about Rex Tillerson as Trump's Secretary of State.
Post by: Geordie on April 14, 2017, 11:00:49 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-14/nothing-unpredictable-about-dangerous-north-korea/8444778
Here's an interesting assessment of North Korea, which pretty much tallies with comments I've made in the past over at UM about the current leadership of that delightful country.Quote...the Kim regime is dangerous, brutal and petulant but if anything, predictable.
= = = =
Incidentally, on the issue of whether you can negotiate with terrorists, another example I read about was a method used by the US military occupying forces in Iraq to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda: they set up a Sunni self-defence militia and invited any local Sunnis to join, no questions asked.
They were paid a small allowance - small in Western terms, but enough money that members of the militia didn't need to work. The result was that large numbers of Al Qaeda members deserted that organisation to join the militia, patrolling their communities alongside American troops they'd been shooting at only weeks before. The number of AQ attacks went down, the militia were respected by their community, and the cost in terms of salaries was far smaller than the cost of sending hundreds of resented American soldiers in to patrol the communities.
Of course, it raises a bunch of questions: What did the American soldiers think of walking the streets with men who'd probably been responsible for the deaths of their own comrades? Was it moral or ethical to take such a mercenary stand in relation to people who'd previously sworn their opposition to the USA?
But this is the problem you get when you treat a group or a country as some sort of eternal enemy and pre-emptively rule out any possibility of negotiation. For one thing, when circumstances dictate that you do have to negotiate with them then you look like a hypocrite (think of the various Western hostages in Lebanon back in the 1980s whose eventual liberation relied on American negotiations with their supposed arch-enemy Iran). For another thing becoming too doctrinaire or belligerent when speaking about a current enemy makes it that much harder to back down later if you need to ask for their assistance. Consider the way Admiral Bill Halsey spoke during World War Two about Japanese people in general, and consider that if his attitude had permeated the American occupation forces in the years after the end of the war, it would have been that much harder to use Japan as a staging post for American and allied forces in South Korea.
That's why, in terms of foreign relations, I think it's better to be a guarded pragmatist - you never know when today's enemy might be a useful ally.
So in that regard (with both North Korea and Syria) I'm fairly positive about Rex Tillerson as Trump's Secretary of State.
Could these examples, and what has taken place recently, be Realpolitik?
(Realpolitik is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as pragmatism in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
Post by: Peter B on April 15, 2017, 01:36:34 AM
And that circles back around to topics we covered a page or two ago, about the expenditure of money on various domestic programs...
In the years after World War Two the USA spent large amounts of money rebuilding Western European countries devastated by the war - the Marshall Plan.
Now obviously, there was a propaganda aspect to the plan, in presenting the USA as a generous donor country, compared with those nasty Communists in the Soviet Union.
But there was a pragmatic angle to it too. By rebuilding the economies of those countries they were able to start producing stuff to sell overseas, which gave them the money to buy stuff from the USA. In other words, the money the USA spent rebuilding the European economies was amply repaid to the USA. The Marshall Plan kickstarted something like 25 years of economic growth after World War Two.
So it frustrates me when people want to cut a program (any program) which costs money when those programs are easily demonstrated to save a lot more money down the track.
For example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.
The problem is, of course, for many people (on both sides of politics) ideological purity is more important than results or costs.
Post by: Obviousman on April 15, 2017, 05:13:06 AM
Incidentally, on the issue of whether you can negotiate with terrorists, another example I read about was a method used by the US military occupying forces in Iraq to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda: they set up a Sunni self-defence militia and invited any local Sunnis to join, no questions asked.
They were paid a small allowance - small in Western terms, but enough money that members of the militia didn't need to work. The result was that large numbers of Al Qaeda members deserted that organisation to join the militia, patrolling their communities alongside American troops they'd been shooting at only weeks before. The number of AQ attacks went down, the militia were respected by their community, and the cost in terms of salaries was far smaller than the cost of sending hundreds of resented American soldiers in to patrol the communities.
That reminds me of the book 'Once A Warrior King' by "David Donovan", about a soldier's experiences in Vietnam.
https://www.amazon.com/Once-Warrior-King-Memories-Paperbacks/dp/0753819562
I don't have any experience in that area, but it sounds like a good plan.
Post by: Peter B on April 15, 2017, 06:52:35 AM
Consider the Coalition from the First Gulf War - USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, etc etc. Plenty of Muslim countries which saw their interests better served by aligning themselves with the Crusaders than with their fellow Muslims.
During World War One, Germany and Austria-Hungary had no problems aligning themselves with Ottoman Turkey, and religious figures in Turkey had no problems calling down a fatwa on some Christians - that is, the UK, Russia and France.
And about 60 years earlier those same Brits and Frogs had been Ottoman allies in the fight against Russia - because once again geopolitics was far more important than religion.
In fact throughout history it's easy to find examples where Christians and Muslims found geopolitics trumped religion, such as in the 16th century when France was surrounded by the politically and religiously aligned Spanish and German Empires, so the King of France made an alliance with Suleiman the Magnificent of Turkey.
But the best examples come from the Crusades. Anyone who thinks the Crusades were solely about Christians fighting Muslims knows nothing about the Crusades.
= = = =
1. The origin of the Crusades lay in a religious dispute, but not one involving Christians. In the early 11th century the Seljuk Turks, then located in Central Asia, converted to Sunni Islam, and then vowed to unite the whole Islamic world for the (then powerless) Caliph in Baghdad. This meant conquering the Shia Fatimids of Egypt and their heretic Caliph in Cairo. On the way to Egypt some loosely allied Turkoman tribes decided on a bit of freelance raiding of the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor responded and his army was soundly defeated. The Turkish tribes occupied most of Asia Minor (that is, what's now Asian Turkey). Twenty years later another Byzantine Emperor, Alexius, asked for assistance from Western European leaders. He was looking for mercenaries. What he got was the First Crusade.
2. The Pope's model for organising the Crusade was the Norman invasion of England 30 years earlier, to the extent of formally blessing the standards of the commanders. Yes, back in 1066 the Pope at the time had formally endorsed Duke William's invasion because at the time the English church was considered to be heretical. Thus William's invasion had, among other objectives, the very religious objective of rescuing the English church from heresy. Much the same formulation was followed for the First Crusade.
3. The first target of the Crusaders was the city of Nicaea. However the Crusaders had little knowledge of siege warfare and Nicaea had high stone walls. Emperor Alexius soon turned up with a siege train, and the Byzantine siege engines knocked down a section of wall. The Crusaders informed Alexius they were going to attack the city the next morning, but the next morning they were astonished to discover Byzantine flags flying from the city's towers. Overnight Alexius had convinced the Turkish garrison to surrender and leave the city. The Crusaders were furious that Alexius had effectively stolen the city from under their noses, firstly because it now meant they wouldn't be able to sack the city, and secondly because the Turks were allowed to live and might fight them again in the future. But Nicaea's population was still overwhelmingly Greek and Christian and Alexius wanted the city back intact. He paid off the Crusaders with a large pile of gold - still cheaper than rebuilding a destroyed city.
4. During the march to Antioch, the Crusaders received an embassy from some Muslims who were seeking an alliance. Given that they saw their job as killing Muslims, the Crusaders dismissed the embassy. It turned out the embassy was from the Fatimids, who were just about holding the Seljuks at bay on the border of Egypt, and who saw the Crusaders as a useful ally in what they (the Fatimids) thought was a war against a common enemy.
5. After capturing Antioch (after a siege lasting more than a year), the Crusaders had to turn around and face a large Turkish army, consisting mostly of cavalry. But the Crusaders had lost so many horses to starvation that their army was now mostly infantry. Yet despite being hungry, outnumbered and mostly on foot, the Crusaders were victorious. No wonder the victory was seen as a miracle. But what the Crusaders didn't realise was that the Turkish tribal leaders saw their own commander as more of a threat to their independence than this Christian army and abandoned him, leaving him to fight the battle with only his own retinue. No surprise then that he was defeated.
6. The Crusaders, now full of religious fervour from their 'miraculous' victory, marched on to Jerusalem, which they captured. What they didn't realise was that the garrison was actually Fatimid, not Turkish. The Crusaders were so unaware of Muslim politics that in marching from Antioch to Jerusalem they didn't notice they'd crossed the front line of a completely separate religious war.
7. The First Crusade created a power vacuum in the Middle East. The Crusader princes immediately fell to arguing and fighting among themselves, and all sides soon realised the benefits to be gained by forming alliances with local Muslim tribal leaders, who were just as fractured among themselves as the Crusaders were. Within 10 years of the Crusader capture of Jerusalem we have records of battles in which both armies consisted of Crusaders and Muslims.
Now in the end the Crusaders lost their last cities to a united Muslim state (the Mamluk Sultanate), but this Muslim unity was the exception rather than the rule. The main reason the Crusader states lasted nearly two centuries was because for most of that time the Muslims of the region were divided among themselves, and saw the Crusaders as useful allies rather than a religious enemy.
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2017, 10:48:52 AM
So it frustrates me when people want to cut a program (any program) which costs money when those programs are easily demonstrated to save a lot more money down the track.
For years, I got my birth control through a program from the state of Washington. A friend got a vasectomy through the program! I forget how much the program was estimated to save the state every year, but it was a lot. And, yes, certain lawmakers were routinely trying to end the program.
Quote
For example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.
A friend or possibly relative of a friend insists that can't be true, because how much can homeless people cost?
Post by: Glom on April 15, 2017, 02:51:31 PM
The Flower & Garden Festival at Epcot has a number of lovely outdoor kitchens. The Bauernmarkt in the Germany pavilion in World Showcase offers currywurst.
However, when they say currywurst with chips, it came with crisps, not fries. I have photographic evidence of authentic Berliner currywurst that shows the research had a small gap in it.
Post by: Peter B on April 15, 2017, 06:41:49 PM
QuoteFor example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.
A friend or possibly relative of a friend insists that can't be true, because how much can homeless people cost?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-16/cheaper-to-provide-homes-for-homeless-rather-sleep-rough/8354284
Here's the article. As it happens, it was talking about last-resort housing, not ordinary housing. So there's some difference there. But the article summarises the costs:
Quote
Getting people off the streets was calculated to have the following economic benefits per person:
Type of cost Savings per year, per bed
Health cost: $8,429
Reduced crime: $6,182
Individual costs: $6,500
Improved human capital: $4,236
Other: $268
Total: $25,615
Post by: gillianren on April 16, 2017, 09:30:34 AM
Post by: smartcooky on April 16, 2017, 05:23:17 PM
Another demonstration of Realpolitik comes from examining the claims of those who talk about a Muslim-Christian culture war. Such a culture war exists only to the extent that it serves the agenda of those who claim the culture war's existence.
Consider the Coalition from the First Gulf War - USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, etc etc. Plenty of Muslim countries which saw their interests better served by aligning themselves with the Crusaders than with their fellow Muslims.
During World War One, Germany and Austria-Hungary had no problems aligning themselves with Ottoman Turkey, and religious figures in Turkey had no problems calling down a fatwa on some Christians - that is, the UK, Russia and France.
And about 60 years earlier those same Brits and Frogs had been Ottoman allies in the fight against Russia - because once again geopolitics was far more important than religion.
In fact throughout history it's easy to find examples where Christians and Muslims found geopolitics trumped religion, such as in the 16th century when France was surrounded by the politically and religiously aligned Spanish and German Empires, so the King of France made an alliance with Suleiman the Magnificent of Turkey.
This concept makes great comedy
Post by: Peter B on April 17, 2017, 01:33:40 AM
Over that 500 year period that Sir Humphrey talks about, England's/Britain's strategic security has been based on keeping Europe divided. Only a united Europe has the strength to invade Britain, so British foreign policy involves opposing any state on the road to controlling/uniting Europe. Hence: backing the Dutch against Spain in the late 16th century; backing the alliance against Louis XIV in the late 17th century *; backing various coalitions against Napoleon in the early 19th century; backing the Entente against Germany in WW1; opposing Germany in WW2; and backing NATO against the USSR.
* One of the reasons for Parliament overthrowing James II in 1688 was his desire to ally with France, which was severely against England's strategic interests.
Post by: Peter B on April 17, 2017, 01:46:51 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-17/pence-north-korea/8447606
Quote
Pointing to the quarter-century since North Korea first obtained nuclear weapons, the Vice President said a period of patience followed.
"But the era of strategic patience is over," he warned.
I wonder what the South Korean government thinks about that. I suspect they'd be keen to try to stretch things out as long as they can, given the number of artillery pieces pointing at Seoul.
Post by: JayUtah on April 17, 2017, 06:53:41 PM
For example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.
That study took place (at least partly) in my city. Your analysis is spot-on. Not only did we save money by simply providing subsidized housing for the homeless, but (according to my friend who's a county prosecutor) so much of the crime associated with homelessness such as drug dealing was reduced. That resulted in a safer city and lower costs of public law enforcement and court proceedings. The situation is objectively improved across the board when homelessness isn't made a law-enforcement problem. But alas you're correct: the notion of "coddling" the homeless was ultimately politically unsustainable.
As it regards arts programs, I like to note that we observe cultures with subsistence economies still allocating their scarce resources to their "arts" programs such as traditional celebrations, dance, visual art, etc. These forms of expression are deeply rooted in who we are as a species. Of course there's the famous (and perhaps apocryphal) Churchill quote. When it was suggested that Britain forego its arts in favor of the war effort, Churchill responded: "Then what are we fighting for?"
Post by: nomuse on April 18, 2017, 02:05:27 AM
Post by: Obviousman on April 18, 2017, 03:35:32 AM
If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.
Perhaps now is the time to put the brakes on, take away their dangerous toys. The solution would ideally involve China but how long do you wait? One moment you have a yappy puppy... the next, you have a fully grown savage dog.
Post by: Peter B on April 18, 2017, 04:28:13 AM
I wonder if this is what's been needed? Okay, try diplomacy and patience but at a certain point you have to take some type of action. Back about 10 or so years ago, the DPRK was thought to have only one or two "deliverable" nuclear weapons... and that was short range with their largest delivery vehicles. That's now up to 15 or so and their bombs are getting smaller... and their launch vehicles are getting a longer range with bigger payloads.
If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.
Perhaps now is the time to put the brakes on, take away their dangerous toys. The solution would ideally involve China but how long do you wait? One moment you have a yappy puppy... the next, you have a fully grown savage dog.
Possibly...
The thing is, though, the ultimate objective of the Kim regime is survival. Both Kim and his generals would be well aware that going to war would result in at least the loss of their cushy lifestyle and at worst death. Why would they do anything to risk that?
My understanding of the strategic purpose of North Korea's nuclear weapons is to discourage anyone from attacking them for fear of getting a nuclear reprisal. At the moment that reprisal would be against South Korea or Japan, which might not be enough to discourage the USA. But consider, they've had the ability to rain nuclear destruction down on those two countries for several years and haven't done so - they don't because they know if they do it means the end of their cushy lifestyle...etc etc.
So I think we should see their nuclear arsenal as defensive or retaliatory rather than offensive. And that's what makes America's current threats so dangerous - it brings about exactly the circumstances in which the North Koreans would feel the need to use their weapons.
I think I'd prefer the USA just quietly pay a billion dollars a year into a Swiss bank account for Kim's personal use (that is, for distribution among the generals to keep them on-side *). In the long run it'd be cheaper than war.
* And if the Americans wanted to be vindictive, drop a hint to the generals that Kim was getting two billion a year and have them all wonder how Kim was spreading it around.
Post by: molesworth on April 18, 2017, 05:10:41 PM
Quote
"South Korea should surrender, and welcome in their brothers from the North with open arms. The Kim regime would last about two weeks...":)
Post by: Geordie on April 18, 2017, 09:17:08 PM
If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.
Exactly. We here in Canada have 'no interest' in this, but if they nail Seattle, the closest American city except for perhaps Anchorage, we'll have to abandon Vancouver, which would to say the least make me deeply unhappy.
Post by: twik on April 24, 2017, 04:59:30 PM
I wonder if this is what's been needed? Okay, try diplomacy and patience but at a certain point you have to take some type of action. Back about 10 or so years ago, the DPRK was thought to have only one or two "deliverable" nuclear weapons... and that was short range with their largest delivery vehicles. That's now up to 15 or so and their bombs are getting smaller... and their launch vehicles are getting a longer range with bigger payloads.
If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.
Perhaps now is the time to put the brakes on, take away their dangerous toys. The solution would ideally involve China but how long do you wait? One moment you have a yappy puppy... the next, you have a fully grown savage dog.
Possibly...
The thing is, though, the ultimate objective of the Kim regime is survival. Both Kim and his generals would be well aware that going to war would result in at least the loss of their cushy lifestyle and at worst death. Why would they do anything to risk that?
That assumes that Kim and his regime have, in Adam Savage's famous phrase, accepted our reality and not substituted their own.
But Kim isn't even a garden-variety dictator who thrust his own way to power. He's the son of one, and has been given near-divine veneration all his life. How he sees the world must be incredibly different from how someone from the West would see it. He appears to truly see his position as some sort of divine right. How dangerous is it to play with nukes when you're the Chosen One? All his life has been a guaranteed win. I presume even as a toddler no one ever won at making sandcastles with him. The thought of losing probably is beyond his ken.
His mental state is probably something similar to Saddam Hussein, who could have ruled in comfort until he died a natural death if he'd understood the limits of his power, and that God wouldn't automatically make his the winning play every time the roulette wheel was spun.
Post by: Geordie on April 24, 2017, 07:36:47 PM
"North Korea follows Songun, or "military-first" policy.[34] It is the country with the highest number of military and paramilitary personnel, with a total of 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel. Its active duty army of 1.21 million is the fourth largest in the world, after China, the United States and India.[35]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
He may well think he can take on any and all comers.
Post by: Peter B on April 24, 2017, 09:50:16 PM
I wonder if this is what's been needed? Okay, try diplomacy and patience but at a certain point you have to take some type of action. Back about 10 or so years ago, the DPRK was thought to have only one or two "deliverable" nuclear weapons... and that was short range with their largest delivery vehicles. That's now up to 15 or so and their bombs are getting smaller... and their launch vehicles are getting a longer range with bigger payloads.
If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.
Perhaps now is the time to put the brakes on, take away their dangerous toys. The solution would ideally involve China but how long do you wait? One moment you have a yappy puppy... the next, you have a fully grown savage dog.
Possibly...
The thing is, though, the ultimate objective of the Kim regime is survival. Both Kim and his generals would be well aware that going to war would result in at least the loss of their cushy lifestyle and at worst death. Why would they do anything to risk that?
That assumes that Kim and his regime have, in Adam Savage's famous phrase, accepted our reality and not substituted their own.
But Kim isn't even a garden-variety dictator who thrust his own way to power. He's the son of one, and has been given near-divine veneration all his life. How he sees the world must be incredibly different from how someone from the West would see it. He appears to truly see his position as some sort of divine right. How dangerous is it to play with nukes when you're the Chosen One? All his life has been a guaranteed win. I presume even as a toddler no one ever won at making sandcastles with him. The thought of losing probably is beyond his ken.
His mental state is probably something similar to Saddam Hussein, who could have ruled in comfort until he died a natural death if he'd understood the limits of his power, and that God wouldn't automatically make his the winning play every time the roulette wheel was spun.
Re: the bolded text. I don't think so. He wasn't Kim Jong-Il's oldest son, which means there must have been some sort of selection process at which he excelled. On top of that have been the occasional purges, sometimes of close relatives (including uncle and older half-brother).
This suggests to me he's someone with a ruthless survival streak, and in turn this makes me think he's more likely to be a pragmatist.
Sure, I could be wrong - I'm not an expert on North Korea - but that's how I read his behaviour.
Post by: Glom on April 25, 2017, 03:09:09 AM
But what happens after the fall of Pyongyang? They can't just declare the Wall fallen and be done with it. North Korea is far more of an alien landscape than East Germany ever was. There would need to be a period where North Korea is an occupied zone, to be rehabilitated before proper unity can be achieved.
Post by: gillianren on April 25, 2017, 10:51:03 AM
Post by: Geordie on April 27, 2017, 09:36:10 PM
[...] threat to numerous nations.
Exactly. We here in Canada have 'no interest' in this [....]
It's fun to be smug when you have "no interest" (like I really think the DPRK has the ability to deliver any kind of payload to North America.)
How quickly things change. I'm interested now. We, and I mean BC, not Canada per se, are trying to get into a trade war with the US. Probably a bad idea. All you can do is laugh. Right in the middle of a provincial election even.
(https://s11.postimg.org/c40lxhy0j/clark-and-trump-composite_1.jpg)
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/sec.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/christy-clark-v-donald-trump-the-proverbial-knife-to-the-gun-fight/article34831213/%253Fservice%253Damp&ved=0ahUKEwi4soyK-sXTAhUT9GMKHU-SC6EQiJQBCBwwAA&usg=AFQjCNHiNndMvui07iNx47m4ZbbHCkBIwg&sig2=0XfL6FRKvqkPSh58a8qbaA
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-moves-to-ban-u-s-coal-transport-in-retaliation-for-softwood-duties-1.4086688
Post by: Glom on April 28, 2017, 08:25:15 AM
The last time British Columbia got into a dispute with America, Germany gave them a bunch of Canada's islands.[...] threat to numerous nations.
Exactly. We here in Canada have 'no interest' in this [....]
It's fun to be smug when you have "no interest" (like I really think the DPRK has the ability to deliver any kind of payload to North America.)
How quickly things change. I'm interested now. We, and I mean BC, not Canada per se, are trying to get into a trade war with the US. Probably a bad idea. All you can do is laugh. Right in the middle of a provincial election even.
(https://s11.postimg.org/c40lxhy0j/clark-and-trump-composite_1.jpg)
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/sec.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/christy-clark-v-donald-trump-the-proverbial-knife-to-the-gun-fight/article34831213/%253Fservice%253Damp&ved=0ahUKEwi4soyK-sXTAhUT9GMKHU-SC6EQiJQBCBwwAA&usg=AFQjCNHiNndMvui07iNx47m4ZbbHCkBIwg&sig2=0XfL6FRKvqkPSh58a8qbaA
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-moves-to-ban-u-s-coal-transport-in-retaliation-for-softwood-duties-1.4086688
Post by: nomuse on April 28, 2017, 12:52:00 PM
In any case, most recent show they were asking for letter grades for Trump's first hundred days. The grades were not on a spectrum. A small variety of D's, plus and minus, maybe a C or two. And then, on the other end. A+. Across the board, every single caller. Not the slightest sign of "maybe he isn't quite what we hoped," much less, "Oops." Instead a firm "absolutely the greatest president ever, doing every single thing perfectly."
I'm sorry but I see disconnect here.
(And, no, it isn't helping that in the wider world of debate those opposing Trump oppose him on what HE is doing and saying. Trump supporters still reach for "but Obama....but Hillary....")
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 28, 2017, 03:38:27 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/X1oKDKt.jpg)
Post by: Geordie on April 28, 2017, 05:02:28 PM
The last time British Columbia got into a dispute with America, Germany gave them a bunch of Canada's islands.
Oh yeah - the Pig War. I'd forgotten all about that. I guess I learned about it in high school, but I only learned this interesting detail today:
"As a result of the negotiations, both sides agreed to retain joint military occupation of the island until a final settlement could be reached, reducing their presence to a token force of no more than 100 men.[6] The "English Camp" was established on the north end of San Juan Island along the shoreline, for ease of supply and access; and the "American Camp" was created on the south end on a high, windswept meadow, suitable for artillery barrages against shipping.[8] Today the Union Jack still flies above the "English Camp", being raised and lowered daily by park rangers, making it one of the few places without diplomatic status where U.S. government employees regularly hoist the flag of another country."
I wonder where the other few places are, and which flags are involved.
Post by: Peter B on April 29, 2017, 01:28:16 AM
Here's an analysis of Trump which makes a lot of sense to me. It assesses him as a guy who's addicted to winning, and to him the only purpose of other people is to help him win whatever his current objective is. But people shouldn't expect any loyalty from him - his interest in them ends as soon as he's reached his objective (or redefined it in such a way that they're no longer useful to him).
This assessment helps explain why, for example, he hasn't bothered to prosecute Hillary Clinton: he only said that during the election campaign because it helped win him votes. Now that he's won the election he'll only pursue a prosecution against Clinton if it will help him reach some new objective.
= = = =
In this regard Trump reminds me of the Australian businessman Kerry Packer. Packer was also the son of a successful businessman, and one who ruthlessly pursued desired objectives, using and discarding people depending on how useful or obstructive they were in reaching his objectives. A Packer story might help explain things...
Back in the 1970s the (government-owned) Australian Broadcasting Commission held the rights to broadcast international cricket on television. It was a threadbare operation, undertaken with a grand total of two cameras, but it still rated well. Packer saw that holding the broadcast rights for such a high-rating sport would allow him to earn heaps in advertising dollars, so he offered a huge amount of money (more than five times what the ABC paid) for the rights, but was turned down. So Packer set up a rebel cricket operation called World Series Cricket (WSC), and he recruited international cricketers from around the world by paying them enough that they could be full-time cricketers (at the time even international cricketers were paid a pittance and needed a full-time job outside cricket). He then screened his own games on his own TV network, in direct competition with the international cricket on the ABC.
It helped that Packer was a cricket fanatic in his own right. He encouraged all sorts of innovations which are now standard to either the game or the process of broadcasting the game (one-day cricket, coloured uniforms, stump microphones, anything up to a dozen cameras). And he also cared for the cricketers - when one cricketer was hit in the head by a cricket ball and needed to get to hospital quickly, Packer put the player in his own limousine and got him there faster than waiting for an ambulance. As a result of Packer's attention to detail WSC soon out-rated the official product, which was now looking distinctly old-fashioned.
After two years Packer finally obtained the rights to broadcast international cricket, and he proceeded to make every last dollar from advertising that he'd expected. He therefore wound up WSC and moved on to his next business venture.
But the thing that struck me about the story was the experience of the cricketers: they appreciated Packer's interest in them, they liked being paid enough that they could play cricket full-time, and they were affected by his concern for the injured cricketer. But once WSC ended, so did the careers of quite a few of the cricketers, as there was now only one game in town, not two. Packer tore up the players' contracts and left them to compete for the now-smaller number of positions available; his interest in the players' welfare simply evaporated, as they were no use to him achieving his next business objective.
Post by: Glom on May 02, 2017, 04:44:41 AM
Suddenly Britain not looking so bad, maybe?Ugh. I take it back. I'm a bit worried that the PM has gotten a bit drunk on the "je suis Napolean" koolaid. And the alternative is a nutjob who never met a terrorist he didn't like.
Post by: twik on May 02, 2017, 02:44:29 PM
Post by: Obviousman on May 02, 2017, 06:06:25 PM
I just can't help but think of this:
(http://mste.illinois.edu/patel/chisquare/gifs/peanutsfair.gif)
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 09, 2017, 08:58:43 PM
(http://i68.tinypic.com/vfio0z.jpg)
Post by: gillianren on May 10, 2017, 11:45:21 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 10, 2017, 12:47:06 PM
I hope this is enough for some of the Republican Senators to recover their backbones and ethics.
I hope so too, but Mitch McConnell has already dismissed the need for a special prosecutor, so it looks like he is going to continue to put party loyalty ahead of the best interests of your country.
Post by: gillianren on May 11, 2017, 12:30:27 PM
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 15, 2017, 07:12:52 PM
::)
Post by: Zakalwe on May 16, 2017, 02:42:18 AM
Read one of the linked transcripts in this article. Truly he is the singularity at the centre of a black hole of ignorance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/donald-trump-degradation-of-the-language.html?_r=0
Post by: Kiwi on May 16, 2017, 05:11:59 AM
Does this man have ANY redeeming qualities?... Truly he is the singularity at the centre of a black hole of ignorance.
Like the bumper sticker said:--
ELECT A CLOWN -
EXPECT A CIRCUS
:) :) :) :) :)
Post by: gillianren on May 16, 2017, 11:25:09 AM
Post by: Glom on May 17, 2017, 09:45:58 AM
Penn Jillette talks, in his latest podcast, about his trip to London last week. He describes being astounded how the media is about seemingly entirely about American stories with the occasional reference to himself.
Erm, did he not notice we have a general election on?
Is this what they call confirmation bias?
He sees the stories of interest to him and ignores those that are not. So the reason he thinks it's wall to wall America is because that is the only time he's actually paying attention. The 90% of time it's about domestic news, most likely the election, he tunes out. And so when reviewing the balance of coverage, he incorrectly perceives it as being more American centred than it is.
I feel this is somehow relevant to this topic.
Post by: twik on May 17, 2017, 10:57:53 AM
Our nation's epitaph is going to be "but her e-mails." I literally saw a screencap from Fox News (I think from their website) that asked yesterday if she was going to be investigated some more.
Seriously, if I were Hilary Clinton, I'd have my bags packed and a place to go with no extradition. Because I can see Trump reaching the conclusion that a good show trial is the best way to divert attention from his actions. I'm sure he remembers how popular the "lock her up" chants were at his rallies.
Post by: Kiwi on May 18, 2017, 01:18:40 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/15/a-shake-up-may-make-things-worse/?utm_term=.702844c8e02f
Quote
The president has a congenital inability to take personal responsibility for his own mistakes.
...every error is someone else’s fault...
...when they are fired, aides have more incentive to rat out their former colleagues and boss.
Rather than a career-making move, going to work for Trump nearly guarantees one will appear dishonest and gullible. With each round of replacements the quality likely diminishes. Loyalty — toadyism, actually — is such an overarching requirement in this White House that new staff is unlikely to bring new ideas and/or help guide the president away from his own worst instincts.
Post by: gillianren on May 18, 2017, 12:22:38 PM
Post by: Zakalwe on May 27, 2017, 06:54:57 PM
Says it all, really.
Post by: Glom on May 28, 2017, 04:06:04 AM
Post by: gillianren on May 28, 2017, 11:31:03 AM
Post by: Zakalwe on May 28, 2017, 01:35:34 PM
To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?
He's also the fattest, the dumbest, the most obnoxious and the most incompetent.Heck, it was only 700 metres of a walk!
I did laugh at this though....Macron did absolutely the right thing here in going straight to his allies and friends.
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 28, 2017, 06:29:31 PM
To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?Yeah, but he has been known to brag about how physically fit he is.
Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk
Post by: Glom on May 28, 2017, 07:55:54 PM
He went straight for Merkel.To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?
He's also the fattest, the dumbest, the most obnoxious and the most incompetent.Heck, it was only 700 metres of a walk!
I did laugh at this though....Macron did absolutely the right thing here in going straight to his allies and friends.
France and Germany are united like never before. A thousand years of British foreign policy, to keep Europe from uniting against us, lies in ruins. Sir Humphrey would be apalled.
Post by: Glom on May 29, 2017, 07:52:58 AM
Why does this sound so familiar?
Post by: twik on May 29, 2017, 09:36:32 AM
To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?
Yes, but he boasted about how he would be a powerhouse of a president. No golfing vacations or naps for him! No sirree. Not like that elderly woman who had to sit down just because she had pneumonia.
Post by: gillianren on May 29, 2017, 12:30:10 PM
So let's recap. The election was about a woman running on a campaign of vote me just coz, expecting to walk it against a buffoonish outsider who has said all sorts of reprehensible things and acted in all sorts of reprehensible ways but is able to overperform expectations by putting forward a bunch of outlandish populist policies that can strike a chord despite being hugely expensive, pointless and quite often counterproductive.
Why does this sound so familiar?
It doesn't sound like the election I voted in. I voted in an election where an experienced woman presented a lot of intelligent campaign proposals that no one listened to because they'd been programmed not to trust her for decades.
Post by: ka9q on May 30, 2017, 04:06:31 AM
I would think most truly competent people would have looked at his record and refused to have anything to do with him. Especially anywhere he, personally, would be paying their salaries.Apparently not. I have a friend who works for a gaming machine company (slot machines, video poker, etc). Their company lost a few hundred $K by agreeing to sell some of their machines to Trump's casinos in Atlantic City before they went bankrupt.
Needless to say, my friend didn't vote for Trump.
I can easily imagine how it went for many of Trump's contractors and suppliers. They figured he was too big to fail, that if the investors were willing to support his projects then they would at least get paid. Trump milked this assumption to the hilt, then ridiculed the banks for being foolish enough to believe him. An incredibly dishonest man.
Post by: gillianren on June 01, 2017, 11:59:05 AM
Side note, whoever's doing the social media for Merriam-Webster is just killing it.
Post by: Kiwi on June 02, 2017, 01:07:28 PM
Covfefe
Is there somebody here who PUH-lease has the courtesy and intelligence to explain to we non-Americans what the hell that gibberish is all about?
Is it just another in-joke about The Chump? That clown you voted in as a President?
We don't always "get" this stuff down here in the southwest Pacific. We can't figure it out and we don't always have time to. Our country, our lives, sometimes matter a little more to us than yours. We are left wondering who is telling the truth about American politics and who is bullshitting us.
In the last hour I have wasted 20 minutes scouring past issues of my local newspaper, trying to find a piece where somebody wrote something about some chump talking people into investing in his schemes, and when something went bust, one or two of his companies or something, he berated the banks for trusting him.
I didn't cut the article out at the time because I thought it HAD to be just another stupid, sick joke. I couldn't believe that it was the truth. Even the meanest, nastiest rich people I've heard of in my country never stooped as low as that, and in any case, there's thankfully very few of them. Surely, no-one with half a brain would vote in as their president (of a country that's a little more important to the world than Jersey), some chump, some untrustworthy, bullshitting bastard who has done that.
Is it a joke or is it not? Am I and others, on the right track or not? Is there still some honour left in the USA? Or not?
Having no luck finding the paper version of the article, but during the search, finding equally horrific articles about the Potus, I Googled the few words I remembered and didn't find it, but did find this:
Quote
...don't you get the impression that Donald Trump gets some positive pleasure out of taking people who make the mistake of trusting him for a ride?
That's from a Paul Krugman who apparently has something to do with the New York Times. Never heard of him before. But even if he's pulling our legs three-quarters of the time, everything else he wrote in the same article about the new Chumpcare sounds to me, in my ignorance, pretty bad for many Americans. Unless it's just another joke that nobody's letting us know about.
So besides telling us what Covfefe is all about, can anyone recommend some commentator on American affairs who is worth believing?
Some interesting names from my local paper (Manawatu Standard) are:
Jennifer Rubin - "Shake-up may make things worse" - "It's Watergate on amphetamines"
David Brooks - "The talent vacuum that is the Trump administration"
Ana Palacio - "Lack of leadership creates troubles"
Karl Du Fresne - ??? (Nah! He's a Kiwi. But two days ago wrote an excellent piece about Vaxxing, free speech, democracy, tolerance, dissent, and sexist rants.)
The only article I liked was headlined, "Trump calls for quicker Mars trip."
Edited to add: Apologies to those who don't understand my use of Potus. Apparently it stands for President of the United States. Some months ago I read POTUS over and over and over and nobody ever bothered explaining this widely-unknown term, and I never imagined the "O" might stand for "of" because that's just not done in British English. Nor is the upper case if the abbreviation is pronouncable, like Nasa, Unesco and Anzus. We all have our strange, illogical quirks - it makes the world interesting.
Post by: gillianren on June 03, 2017, 11:14:41 AM
All of this is weird enough--we were actually discussing the possibility of a Stalin situation, where he'd died and no one dared check on him--but initially, his press secretary made the claim that "he and a small group of people" knew what "covfefe" meant. Which is obviously ridiculous. Because it's not a word. I've read that someone claims it means something in Arabic; it does not. Another of his supporters proudly tweeted that it was proof that he doesn't focus group everything, which I suppose is true enough but not really the point here. And because we are in desperate need for a laugh, we latched onto "covfefe" and wouldn't let go. I maintain we don't have to; it's emblematic.
As for "POTUS," we in the US don't usually include "of" in abbreviations. We do in this instance because that makes it--and SCOTUS, FLOTUS, and a few others--pronounceable. (Supreme Court, First Lady.) I'm aware of the "if it's a word, lowercase for most of it" rule in British English, but you'll understand that it took some getting used to.
And, yes, everything about the "planned" replacement for the Affordable Care Act is terrible for Americans, unless they happen to be rich. That is true of pretty much every plan the administration has. This includes a suggested maternity leave law that would only apply to married women.
Post by: gillianren on June 03, 2017, 11:16:15 AM
Post by: BazBear on June 04, 2017, 05:34:47 PM
Oh, and, yes, I'm pretty sure that he's duped plenty of people and then said it was their fault for trusting them. He's gone bankrupt repeatedly, including bankrupting a casino, which ought to be impossible to do. They may be professional and not personal bankruptcies, but for someone who ran in no small part on his success as a businessman, that's not better.I've heard it said (I can't recall where) that if he had invested his inheritance from daddy in moderately conservative index funds, he'd be worth far more than he is now. I can't and won't vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but it certainly rings true.
Post by: gillianren on June 05, 2017, 11:11:31 AM
Post by: Obviousman on June 06, 2017, 03:17:52 AM
Post by: gillianren on June 06, 2017, 11:33:23 AM
Post by: Glom on June 09, 2017, 02:29:23 PM
So let's recap. The election was about a woman running on a campaign of vote me just coz, expecting to walk it against a buffoonish outsider who has said all sorts of reprehensible things and acted in all sorts of reprehensible ways but is able to overperform expectations by putting forward a bunch of outlandish populist policies that can strike a chord despite being hugely expensive, pointless and quite often counterproductive.It's like the world is stuck on repeat.
Why does this sound so familiar?
Post by: Obviousman on July 09, 2017, 06:56:26 PM
Quote
Scathing, searing and brutal were just a few of the adjectives flying around social media on Sunday following an eloquent takedown of Donald Trump by ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) political editor Chris Uhlmann.
Speaking to Insiders from Hamburg, Uhlmann delivered a wrap on the G20 summit that has since gone viral, resonating with people from around the world and astonishing American political commentators.
https://twitter.com/InsidersABC/status/883829926993862656/video/1
Post by: ka9q on July 22, 2017, 03:50:56 AM
Post by: Obviousman on July 31, 2017, 05:05:42 PM
Seriously - impeach President Trump before he actually does something that will kill people.
Post by: Zakalwe on July 31, 2017, 05:15:09 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-removes-anthony-scaramucci-as-communications-director-just-days-after-hiring-him-20170731-gxmnb0.html
Seriously - impeach President Trump before he actually does something that will kill people.
To be fair, that was Kelly showing everyone that a new gunslinger is in town. Scaramucci* did say that he was a front-stabber. I guess he didn't expect that he was the one to be stabbed though.
*will he do the fandango? ;D
Post by: sandopan on July 31, 2017, 08:27:58 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-removes-anthony-scaramucci-as-communications-director-just-days-after-hiring-him-20170731-gxmnb0.html
Seriously - impeach President Trump before he actually does something that will kill people.
Trump has already killed quite a lot of people, if we take the radical, extremist view that Africans and Asians count as people. His immediate predecessor killed many thousands, and the one before that had a truly impressive body count. Had the November 2016 election gone the other way, the new US president would have come into office on day one with quite a long trail of dead bodies already behind her. Whether Trump manages to send more people to their graves than his two predecessors or his election rival, time will tell, although I don't see a whole lot of reason to expect him to show any more restraint than they did.
None of them were impeached, before or after killing large numbers of Africans or Asians who are sometimes alleged to be people. I’ll be surprised if that changes any time soon.
Post by: sandopan on July 31, 2017, 08:32:15 PM
To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?Yeah, but he has been known to brag about how physically fit he is.
Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk
He's possibly more fit than William Howard Taft was.
Post by: twik on August 01, 2017, 10:35:16 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-removes-anthony-scaramucci-as-communications-director-just-days-after-hiring-him-20170731-gxmnb0.html
Seriously - impeach President Trump before he actually does something that will kill people.
Trump has already killed quite a lot of people, if we take the radical, extremist view that Africans and Asians count as people. His immediate predecessor killed many thousands, and the one before that had a truly impressive body count. Had the November 2016 election gone the other way, the new US president would have come into office on day one with quite a long trail of dead bodies already behind her. Whether Trump manages to send more people to their graves than his two predecessors or his election rival, time will tell, although I don't see a whole lot of reason to expect him to show any more restraint than they did.
None of them were impeached, before or after killing large numbers of Africans or Asians who are sometimes alleged to be people. I’ll be surprised if that changes any time soon.
Do you think that the leaders of any powerful country with military presence have never contributed to the death of anyone?
There's no one out there with clean hands. No one.
Post by: gillianren on August 01, 2017, 11:36:51 AM
He's possibly more fit than William Howard Taft was.
Though Taft, to my knowledge, didn't claim that the human body had a finite amount of energy and that exercise was bad for you.
Post by: gillianren on August 01, 2017, 11:37:52 AM
Post by: Glom on August 01, 2017, 12:36:10 PM
Post by: sandopan on August 01, 2017, 12:59:57 PM
Do you think that the leaders of any powerful country with military presence have never contributed to the death of anyone?
There's no one out there with clean hands. No one.
There are lots of countries out there which have not openly declared that they are at war with an ill-defined enemy and that the entire world is a battlefield, so that everyone is a combatant, and may be killed at will. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, only one country has done that.
Quite a lot of countries have not engaged in aggressive military action for many years, in some cases, centuries. One country seems to have trouble refraining from doing so for five minutes.
But, some of the people alluded to in my post don't seem to have gotten the "it's all business as usual" message, given the blistering denunciations they issue of foreign leaders who do a small fraction of what they do themselves. The next time Putin invades someone else's territory, or Duterte conducts a bunch of extrajudicial killings, you can explain why it's all good.
On other fronts, much of the news in the US recently has been about allegations that some other country attempted to influence the election. Those people don't seem to have gotten the message that it's all business as usual either.
Post by: sandopan on August 01, 2017, 01:07:33 PM
Seriously, if I were Hilary Clinton, I'd have my bags packed and a place to go with no extradition. Because I can see Trump reaching the conclusion that a good show trial is the best way to divert attention from his actions. I'm sure he remembers how popular the "lock her up" chants were at his rallies.
That seems like it would have been a good to thing to think about before she repeatedly voted in the senate to strengthen the government's ability to detain suspects indefinitely, or just assassinate them. But I suppose she always figured she would be on the other side of that transaction. Rather odd, because she is not stupid. She generally opposed US membership in the ICC, which seems like a good idea for someone with her policies, who was hoping to become president in the same year that "aggression" became a defined crime under the Rome statute. A bit surprising that she could anticipate the danger to herself in the one context, but completely miss it in the other.
However, I would give her the opposite advice, and tell her to stay in the US - she'll be much safer there, than in some country that might actually try her or send her to the ICC. She is a spent force, no danger to the Trump presidency; if he wants a show trial, it will be someone who is currently in power and blocking him from achieving his objectives. And if he just needs a general popularity plug, he can always do what she would have done, and go kill a few hundred thousand Muslims.
Post by: jfb on August 01, 2017, 05:03:43 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-removes-anthony-scaramucci-as-communications-director-just-days-after-hiring-him-20170731-gxmnb0.html
Seriously - impeach President Trump before he actually does something that will kill people.
Here's the problem with that...
Congress (specifically the House) has to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President, and this particular Congress (or at the very least, Speaker Ryan) won't do that, even if Mueller discovers all kinds smoking guns regarding collusion, election fraud, etc. The fact that Congress isn't batting an eye over President Trump wanting to fire Mueller speaks volumes (part of the reason President Nixon was impeached was for firing Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in).
Then again, this Congress is on pace for accomplishing absolutely dick-all in this entire session. That will be a singular achievement on both Ryan's and McConnell's resumes.
As someone else said, the scary thing isn't that President Trump's approval rating is so low, but that it's so high. 38% of Americans polled are perfectly happy with what he's doing, because what he's doing is pissing off liberals, intellectuals, the media, etc., and that's what they care about. These are people who've been screwed, repeatedly, by both parties for the last few decades. They've lost their voice, they've lost whatever power they had, their communities are dying, and their voting for Trump was basically primal scream therapy.
President Trump didn't actually want to win - he didn't actually want the office. He wanted to boost his brand, start a new TV network, something like that. He's manifestly unqualified for the job, and he knows it, and he hates it - it shows.
The only way President Trump is going to be removed from office is if he loses re-election in 2020 or if he kicks after one too many Trump Tower Taco Bowls. Much as he hates the job, he won't resign. He will not be impeached (there's no way we're turning over the House before 2020). If he ran for re-election, I'm not sure he'd lose. We have deep, systemic, intractable problems in the US that are not being addressed by either party, and the growing know-nothing movement is a response to that. President Trump found a direct line into the lizard brain of a lot of voters and yanked on it as hard as he could.
Post by: smartcooky on August 01, 2017, 09:48:26 PM
What a name. That'll play great in the movie.
"Scaramouche (from Italian scaramuccia, literally "little skirmisher"), also known as scaramouch, is a stock clown character of the comic theatrical arts of Italian literature. The role combined characteristics of the Zanni (servant) and the Capitano (masked henchman). Usually attired in black Spanish dress and burlesquing a don, he was often beaten by Harlequin for his boasting and cowardice."
I wonder if Anthony does the fandango!!
Post by: twik on August 02, 2017, 10:28:21 AM
Seriously, if I were Hilary Clinton, I'd have my bags packed and a place to go with no extradition. Because I can see Trump reaching the conclusion that a good show trial is the best way to divert attention from his actions. I'm sure he remembers how popular the "lock her up" chants were at his rallies.
That seems like it would have been a good to thing to think about before she repeatedly voted in the senate to strengthen the government's ability to detain suspects indefinitely, or just assassinate them. But I suppose she always figured she would be on the other side of that transaction. Rather odd, because she is not stupid. She generally opposed US membership in the ICC, which seems like a good idea for someone with her policies, who was hoping to become president in the same year that "aggression" became a defined crime under the Rome statute. A bit surprising that she could anticipate the danger to herself in the one context, but completely miss it in the other.
However, I would give her the opposite advice, and tell her to stay in the US - she'll be much safer there, than in some country that might actually try her or send her to the ICC. She is a spent force, no danger to the Trump presidency; if he wants a show trial, it will be someone who is currently in power and blocking him from achieving his objectives. And if he just needs a general popularity plug, he can always do what she would have done, and go kill a few hundred thousand Muslims.
Exactly what country do you think would attempt to try Mrs. Clinton? Please list them.
Post by: gillianren on August 02, 2017, 11:22:16 AM
He will not be impeached (there's no way we're turning over the House before 2020).
I think we've got a strong chance for 2018, honestly. For one thing, the party of the President tends to lose seats at the midterm even when the President is popular. Which this one isn't remotely; his numbers continue to fall. One of the reasons Republicans tend to do better at midterms is that Democrats don't turn out, and I have a sneaking suspicion it'll be a lot easier to get Democratic turnout this time 'round.
I also still think it's possible he'll declare victory and resign, as Palin did.
Post by: twik on August 02, 2017, 04:54:03 PM
Post by: raven on August 02, 2017, 07:39:49 PM
There might be LGBTQAI+ for Trump, but he sure ain't for them.
Post by: Obviousman on August 04, 2017, 07:29:07 AM
The President: Mr. Prime Minister, how are you?
Prime Minister Turnbull: I am doing very well.
The President: And I guess our friend Greg Norman, he is doing very well?
Prime Minister Turnbull: He is a great mutual friend yes.
The President: Well you say hello to him. He is a very good friend. By the way thank you very much for taking the call. I really appreciate it. It is really nice.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Thank you very much. Everything is going very well. I want to congratulate you and Mike Pence on being sworn in now. I have spoken to you both now as you know. I know we are both looking to make our relationship which is very strong and intimate, stronger than ever – which I believe we can do.
The President: Good.
Prime Minister Turnbull: I believe you and I have similar backgrounds, unusual for politicians, more businessman but I look forward to working together.
The President: That is exactly right. We do have similar backgrounds and it seems to be working in this climate – it is a crazy climate. Let me tell you this, it is an evil time but it is a complex time because we do not have uniforms standing in front of us. Instead, we have people in disguise. It is brutal. This ISIS thing – it is something we are going to devote a lot of energy to it. I think we are going to be very successful.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Absolutely. We have, as you know, taken a very strong line on national security and border protection here and when I was speaking with Jared Kushner just the other day and one of your immigration advisors in the White House we reflected on how our policies have helped to inform your approach. We are very much of the same mind. It is very interesting to know how you prioritize the minorities in your Executive Order. This is exactly what we have done with the program to bring in 12,000 Syrian refugees, 90% of which will be Christians. It will be quite deliberate and the position I have taken – I have been very open about it – is that it is a tragic fact of life that when the situation in the Middle East settles down - the people that are going to be most unlikely to have a continuing home are those Christian minorities. We have seen that in Iraq and so from our point of view, as a final destination for refugees, that is why we prioritize. It is not a sectarian thing. It is recognition of the practical political realities. We have a similar perspective in that respect.
The President: Do you know four years ago Malcom, I was with a man who does this for a living. He was telling me, before the migration, that if you were a Christian from Syria, you had no chance of coming to the United States. Zero. They were the ones being persecuted. When I say persecuted, I mean their heads were being chopped off. If you were a Muslim we have nothing against Muslims, but if you were a Muslim you were not persecuted at least to the extent – but if you were a Muslim from Syria that was the number one place to get into the United States from. That was the easiest thing. But if you were a Christian from Syria you have no chance of getting into the United States. I just thought it was an incredible statistic. Totally true – and you have seen the same thing. It is incredible.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Well, yes. Mr. President, can I return to the issue of the resettlement agreement that we had with the Obama administration with respect to some people on Nauru and Manus Island. I have written to you about this and Mike Pence and General Flynn spoke with Julie Bishop and my National Security Advisor yesterday. This is a very big issue for us, particularly domestically, and I do understand you are inclined to a different point of view than the Vice President.
The President: Well, actually I just called for a total ban on Syria and from many different countries from where there is terror, and extreme vetting for everyone else – and somebody told me yesterday that close to 2,000 people are coming who are really probably troublesome. And I am saying, boy that will make us look awfully bad. Here I am calling for a ban where I am not letting anybody in and we take 2,000 people. Really it looks like 2,000 people that Australia does not want and I do not blame you by the way, but the United States has become like a dumping ground. You know Malcom, anybody that has a problem - you remember the Mariel boat lift, where Castro let everyone out of prison and Jimmy Carter accepted them with open arms. These were brutal people. Nobody said Castro was stupid, but now what are we talking about is 2,000 people that are actually imprisoned and that would actually come into the United States. I heard about this – I have to say I love Australia; I love the people of Australia. I have so many friends from Australia, but I said – geez that is a big ask, especially in light of the fact that we are so heavily in favor, not in favor, but we have no choice but to stop things. We have to stop. We have allowed so many people into our country that should not be here. We have our San Bernardino's, we have had the World Trade Center come down because of people that should not have been in our country, and now we are supposed to take 2,000. It sends such a bad signal. You have no idea. It is such a bad thing.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Can you hear me out Mr. President?
The President: Yeah, go ahead.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Yes, the agreement, which the Vice President just called the Foreign Minister about less than 24 hours ago and said your Administration would be continuing, does not require you to take 2,000 people. It does not require you to take any. It requires, in return, for us to do a number of things for the United States – this is a big deal, I think we should respect deals.
The President: Who made the deal? Obama?
Prime Minister Turnbull: Yes, but let me describe what it is. I think it is quite consistent. I think you can comply with it. It is absolutely consistent with your Executive Order so please just hear me out. The obligation is for the United States to look and examine and take up to and only if they so choose – 1,250 to 2,000. Every individual is subject to your vetting. You can decide to take them or to not take them after vetting. You can decide to take 1,000 or 100. It is entirely up to you. The obligation is to only go through the process. So that is the first thing. Secondly, the people – none of these people are from the conflict zone. They are basically economic refugees from Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. That is the vast bulk of them. They have been under our supervision for over three years now and we know exactly everything about them.
The President: Why haven't you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?
Prime Minister Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people –
The President: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.
Prime Minister Turnbull: This is our experience.
The President: Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries. These people are crazy to let this happen. I spoke to Merkel today, and believe me, she wishes she did not do it. Germany is a mess because of what happened.
Prime Minister Turnbull: I agree with you, letting one million Syrians walk into their country. It was one of the big factors in the Brexit vote, frankly.
The President: Well, there could be two million people coming in Germany. Two million people. Can you believe it? It will never be the same.
Prime Minister Turnbull: I stood up at the UN in September and set up what our immigration policy was. I said that you cannot maintain popular support for immigration policy, multiculturalism, unless you can control your borders. The bottom line is that we got here. I am asking you as a very good friend. This is a big deal. It is really, really important to us that we maintain it. It does not oblige you to take one person that you do not want. As I have said, your homeland officials have visited and they have already interviewed these people. You can decide. It is at your discretion. So you have the wording in the Executive Order that enables the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to admit people on a case by case basis in order to conform with an existing agreement. I do believe that you will never find a better friend to the United States than Australia. I say this to you sincerely that it is in the mutual interest of the United States to say, "yes, we can conform with that deal - we are not obliged to take anybody we do not want, we will go through extreme vetting" and that way you are seen to show the respect that a trusted ally wants and deserves. We will then hold up our end of the bargain by taking in our country 31 [inaudible] that you need to move on from.
The President: Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.
Prime Minister Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right – It is not 2,000.
The President: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.
Prime Minister Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting. I think that what you could say is that the Australian government is consistent with the principles set out in the Executive Order.
The President: No, I do not want say that. I will just have to say that unfortunately I will have to live with what was said by Obama. I will say I hate it. Look, I spoke to Putin, Merkel, Abe of Japan, to France today, and this was my most unpleasant call because I will be honest with you. I hate taking these people. I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.
Prime Minister Turnbull: I would not be so sure about that. They are basically –
The President: Well, maybe you should let them out of prison. I am doing this because Obama made a bad deal. I am not doing this because it fits into my Executive Order. I am taking 2,000 people from Australia who are in prison and the day before I signed an Executive Order saying that we are not taking anybody in. We are not taking anybody in, those days are over.
Prime Minister Turnbull: But can I say to you, there is nothing more important in business or politics than a deal is a deal. Look, you and I have a lot of mutual friends.
The President: Look, I do not know how you got them to sign a deal like this, but that is how they lost the election. They said I had no way to 270 and I got 306. That is why they lost the election, because of stupid deals like this. You have brokered many a stupid deal in business and I respect you, but I guarantee that you broke many a stupid deal. This is a stupid deal. This deal will make me look terrible.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Mr. President, I think this will make you look like a man who stands by the commitments of the United States. It shows that you are a committed –
The President: Okay, this shows me to be a dope. I am not like this but, if I have to do it, I will do it but I do not like this at all. I will be honest with you. Not even a little bit. I think it is ridiculous and Obama should have never signed it. The only reason I will take them is because I have to honor a deal signed by my predecessor and it was a rotten deal. I say that it was a stupid deal like all the other deals that this country signed. You have to see what I am doing. I am unlocking deals that were made by people, these people were incompetent. I am not going to say that it fits within the realm of my Executive Order. We are going to allow 2,000 prisoners to come into our country and it is within the realm of my Executive Order? If that is the case my Executive Order does not mean anything Malcom [sic]. I look like a dope. The only way that I can do this is to say that my predecessor made a deal and I have no option then to honor the deal. I hate having to do it, but I am still going to vet them very closely. Suppose I vet them closely and I do not take any?
Prime Minister Turnbull: That is the point I have been trying to make.
The President: How does that help you?
Prime Minister Turnbull: Well, we assume that we will act in good faith.
The President: Does anybody know who these people are? Who are they? Where do they come from? Are they going to become the Boston bomber in five years? Or two years? Who are these people?
Prime Minister Turnbull: Let me explain. We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in. If they had arrived by airplane and with a tourist visa then they would be here.
The President: Malcom [sic], but they are arrived on a boat?
Prime Minister Turnbull: Correct, we have stopped the boats.
The President: Give them to the United States. We are like a dumping ground for the rest of the world. I have been here for a period of time, I just want this to stop. I look so foolish doing this. It [sic] know it is good for you but it is bad for me. It is horrible for me. This is what I am trying to stop. I do not want to have more San Bernardino's or World Trade Centers. I could name 30 others, but I do not have enough time.
Prime Minister Turnbull: These guys are not in that league. They are economic refugees.
The President: Okay, good. Can Australia give me a guarantee that if we have any problems – you know that is what they said about the Boston bombers. They said they were wonderful young men.
Prime Minister Turnbull: They were Russians. They were not from any of these countries.
The President: They were from wherever they were.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Please, if we can agree to stick to the deal, you have complete discretion in terms of a security assessment. The numbers are not 2,000 but 1,250 to start. Basically, we are taking people from the previous administration that they were very keen on getting out of the United States. We will take more. We will take anyone that you want us to take. The only people that we do not take are people who come by boat. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Noble [sic] Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point.
The President: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.
Prime Minister Turnbull: No, let me explain why. The problem with the boats it that you are basically outsourcing your immigration program to people smugglers and also you get thousands of people drowning at sea. So what we say is, we will decide which people get to come to Australia who are refugees, economic migrants, businessmen, whatever. We decide. That is our decision. We are a generous multicultural immigration nation like the United States but the government decides, the people's representatives decides. So that is the point. I am a highly transactional businessman like you and I know the deal has to work for both sides. Now Obama thought this deal worked for him and he drove a hard bargain with us – that it was agreed with Obama more than a year ago in the Oval Office, long before the election. The principles of the deal were agreed to.
The President: I do not know what he got out of it. We never get anything out of it - START Treaty, the Iran deal. I do not know where they find these people to make these stupid deals. I am going to get killed on this thing.
Prime Minister Turnbull: You will not.
The President: Yes, I will be seen as a weak and ineffective leader in my first week by these people. This is a killer.
Prime Minister Turnbull: You can certainly say that it was not a deal that you would have done, but you are going to stick with it.
The President: I have no choice to say that about it. Malcom [sic], I am going to say that I have no choice but to honor my predecessor's deal. I think it is a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made. It is an embarrassment to the United States of America and you can say it just the way I said it. I will say it just that way. As far as I am concerned that is enough Malcom [sic]. I have had it. I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day. Putin was a pleasant call. This is ridiculous.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Do you want to talk about Syria and DPRK?
The President: [inaudible] this is crazy.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Thank you for your commitment. It is very important to us.
The President: It is important to you and it is embarrassing to me. It is an embarrassment to me, but at least I got you off the hook. So you put me back on the hook.
Prime Minister Turnbull: You can count on me. I will be there again and again.
The President: I hope so. Okay, thank you Malcolm.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Okay, thank you.
Post by: twik on August 04, 2017, 09:52:12 AM
Post by: Geordie on August 04, 2017, 10:59:58 AM
Donald Trump’s phone-call leaks are a threat to America
"If two leaders can’t approach these conversations bluntly, with the full expectation their words will be kept private, they will hesitate to speak unvarnished truths or to make direct demands. This opens the world up to misunderstandings on important subjects. Who will want to call the United States now to have a candid chat on a tough issue? How effective can diplomacy be without this essential tool in its toolkit? If these leaks keep happening, America will lose even more influence than Trump is already throwing away."
Post by: twik on August 04, 2017, 04:04:45 PM
Post by: ka9q on August 06, 2017, 01:39:55 AM
What a name. That'll play great in the movie.For some reason I kept thinking it was Scaramanga.
Post by: LunarOrbit on August 06, 2017, 02:53:26 AM
Did he have a golden gun?What a name. That'll play great in the movie.For some reason I kept thinking it was Scaramanga.
Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk
Post by: twik on August 10, 2017, 10:05:05 AM
Post by: Glom on August 10, 2017, 10:51:06 AM
Post by: twik on August 10, 2017, 11:24:30 AM
Post by: smartcooky on August 11, 2017, 03:23:34 PM
After a series of moves similar to two thugs in a bar who keep deliberately provoking each other to draw their guns. Unfortunately, it may lead to massive loss of life among the other bar patrons who had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, except one is holding a single shot Webley Air Pistol and the other is holding 50 calibre Desert Eagle with a 7 round clip and one in the chamber (and a couple of full spare clips in his pocket)
Post by: Geordie on August 12, 2017, 05:49:05 PM
This might be a case of the US bringing a gun to a knife fight. Any military conflict would be much different than, say, the Toyota war. A large or modern nuclear arsenal is not necessary to bring a world of hurt to South Korea. The DPRK has huge numbers of conventional artillery massed along the border. Huge, I say.After a series of moves similar to two thugs in a bar who keep deliberately provoking each other to draw their guns. Unfortunately, it may lead to massive loss of life among the other bar patrons who had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, except one is holding a single shot Webley Air Pistol and the other is holding 50 calibre Desert Eagle with a 7 round clip and one in the chamber (and a couple of full spare clips in his pocket)
It's not just the .50 cal. Desert Eagle that makes the US hyperpowerful, but also the high level of professionalism displayed by the troops. How professional is the North Korean soldiery? We don't know, although it sure would be easy to find out. My guess is that they are "pretty professional."
We do know that since '94, Songun - a policy of "military first" - has been central to North Korea. The Korean People's Army wants for nothing, period. This is a nation-state, not some irregular force holed up in a desert or a jungle, improvising explosive devices and conducting raids on or even capturing and holding cities.
It might be useful to remember that North Korea exists because the last time we (Canada and whoever else) traded shots with them, we gave up, because they were too bad*ss.
But how bad can things get when they have aligned themselves with most of the world in one small but crucial detail: unlike regional isolationists Japan and Hong Kong, they drive on the right.
Post by: raven on August 12, 2017, 06:57:45 PM
Post by: Glom on August 12, 2017, 07:52:43 PM
Hey. Civilised countries drive on the left. There's Ireland.This might be a case of the US bringing a gun to a knife fight. Any military conflict would be much different than, say, the Toyota war. A large or modern nuclear arsenal is not necessary to bring a world of hurt to South Korea. The DPRK has huge numbers of conventional artillery massed along the border. Huge, I say.After a series of moves similar to two thugs in a bar who keep deliberately provoking each other to draw their guns. Unfortunately, it may lead to massive loss of life among the other bar patrons who had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, except one is holding a single shot Webley Air Pistol and the other is holding 50 calibre Desert Eagle with a 7 round clip and one in the chamber (and a couple of full spare clips in his pocket)
It's not just the .50 cal. Desert Eagle that makes the US hyperpowerful, but also the high level of professionalism displayed by the troops. How professional is the North Korean soldiery? We don't know, although it sure would be easy to find out. My guess is that they are "pretty professional."
We do know that since '94, Songun - a policy of "military first" - has been central to North Korea. The Korean People's Army wants for nothing, period. This is a nation-state, not some irregular force holed up in a desert or a jungle, improvising explosive devices and conducting raids on or even capturing and holding cities.
It might be useful to remember that North Korea exists because the last time we (Canada and whoever else) traded shots with them, we gave up, because they were too bad*ss.
But how bad can things get when they have aligned themselves with most of the world in one small but crucial detail: unlike regional isolationists Japan and Hong Kong, they drive on the right.
Post by: twik on August 14, 2017, 11:09:14 AM
Post by: twik on August 18, 2017, 09:38:19 AM
Quote
Charlottesville Police Chief Al S. Thomas Jr. said the rallygoers went back on a plan that would have kept them separated from the counterprotesters. Instead of coming in at one entrance, he said, they came in from all sides. Headlong into the counterprotesters.
A few minutes before 11 a.m., a swelling group of white nationalists carrying large shields and long wooden clubs approached the park on Market Street. About two dozen counterprotesters formed a line across the street, blocking their path. With a roar, the marchers charged through the line, swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals.
Post by: Glom on August 18, 2017, 10:43:38 AM
Post by: twik on August 18, 2017, 11:21:33 AM
I think he is a true racist, and can't understand why people are treating those "alt-left" protesters as better than those nice white men, many of whom were wearing MAGA insignia. He's starting to go off on neoConfederate talking points already.
Post by: gillianren on August 18, 2017, 11:57:30 AM
It might be useful to remember that North Korea exists because the last time we (Canada and whoever else) traded shots with them, we gave up, because they were too bad*ss.
It also had a bit to do with China.
It's disheartening to discover how racist some of my friends' friends are. I need to stop arguing with them; it doesn't convince them, and it just makes me feel worse.
Post by: jfb on August 18, 2017, 12:06:09 PM
Not that honest-to-God Nazis aren't a thing to get exercised about (especially when they kill a counter-protester and call it a good day), but...
Post by: twik on August 18, 2017, 01:39:32 PM
Meanwhile, Kim Jong Un is standing over in the corner, waving his arms frantically, and yelling, "hey, imperialist pigs, remember me? Still have nukes, still working on missiles."
Not that honest-to-God Nazis aren't a thing to get exercised about (especially when they kill a counter-protester and call it a good day), but...
Actually, he's sort of shut up. Almost as if when no one engages him (and China tells him that if he starts a shooting war, he's on his own), he crawls back into his shell.
If Steven Bannon is right about anything, it's that there's no military solution to the NK problem. Whatever the solution, threatening nuclear destruction (and then having your staff tell the public not to worry, we're just kidding) isn't it.
Post by: Geordie on August 19, 2017, 01:34:05 AM
It might be useful to remember that North Korea exists because the last time we (Canada and whoever else) traded shots with them, we gave up, because they were too bad*ss.
It also had a bit to do with China.
It's disheartening to discover how racist some of my friends' friends are. I need to stop arguing with them; it doesn't convince them, and it just makes me feel worse.
Yes, you're right, it certainly did. A lot of time has passed since then, time for them to drill endlessly, and build up a serious arsenal.
But yeah, without that bottomless supply line, they probably wouldn't last terribly long. The chinese would rather supply us with consumer goods, and get hard cash and goodwill in return.
I don't think the DPRK will fold like Saddam's forces in Desert Storm, though, and when they do go down, it will be in a spectacular fashion.
But as others have said, the regime is not suicidal. I don't think there is going to be any pitched Korean War-style battles in this current round of trumped-up crises.
As far as racists go, there is a naziesque rally planned for tomorrow, here in Vancouver. We shall see how that plays out. My prediction is it will be attended by a couple thousand antis, a couple hundred reporters, and a small basket of deplorables.
--
Haha - I'm helping a guy sitting next to me watch "Ancient Aliens" videos on his computer.
Post by: Geordie on August 19, 2017, 07:23:00 PM
It's disheartening to discover how racist some of my friends' friends are. I need to stop arguing with them; it doesn't convince them, and it just makes me feel worse.As far as racists go, there is a naziesque rally planned for tomorrow, here in Vancouver. We shall see how that plays out. My prediction is it will be attended by a couple thousand antis, a couple hundred reporters, and a small basket of deplorables.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/anti-racism-rally-vancouver-city-hall-1.4253117
"Around 4,000 people showed up at Vancouver City Hall to protest against a far-right rally on Saturday afternoon."
"By 3 p.m., a handful of far-right protesters appeared to have gathered."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/anti-racism-rally-boston-1.4254282
Boston's so-called 'Free Speech' rally had 40,000 people show up to protest hate speech. Good for them.
Post by: raven on August 20, 2017, 12:06:20 AM
Post by: Glom on October 26, 2017, 03:05:56 PM
I'm watching this BBC Four series about the Vietnam War.
Just got to the bit about how Nixon sabotaged peace talks in the runup to the 1968 election to help his campaign. That is so low real numbers can't quantify it. At least Trump hasn't yet gone that low.
Though after seeing the bit about John McCain's captivity, it makes Trump's remarks about McCain all the more despicable. Still not as bad as extending a terrible war for personal political gain though.
Post by: jfb on October 26, 2017, 05:47:16 PM
Holy...
I'm watching this BBC Four series about the Vietnam War.
Just got to the bit about how Nixon sabotaged peace talks in the runup to the 1968 election to help his campaign. That is so low real numbers can't quantify it. At least Trump hasn't yet gone that low.
That we know of. Yet. Mueller's investigation is still ongoing.
Quote
Though after seeing the bit about John McCain's captivity, it makes Trump's remarks about McCain all the more despicable. Still not as bad as extending a terrible war for personal political gain though.
The sad thing is that apart from that and Watergate (and the secret bombings, and...), Nixon was one of the more effective Presidents of the 20th century (along with Johnson, who was also a complete reprobate). He normalized relations with China, signed off on establishing the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, established programs to treat drug addiction as a public health issue as well as a law enforcement issue, etc., etc.
Yes, he was a nasty, venal, bitter, paranoid sonofabitch, whose advanced his career through dirty tricks and character assassination, and honestly we'd be better off as a nation had he stayed a small-time lawyer in California, but Nixon was not going to be small-time.
Post by: Glom on October 26, 2017, 06:12:05 PM
Post by: gillianren on October 27, 2017, 11:09:25 AM
Post by: Glom on October 28, 2017, 05:05:24 PM
Maybe Schindler's List next to round off a romantic evening?
Post by: twik on November 10, 2017, 10:05:17 AM
Post by: gillianren on November 10, 2017, 10:15:10 AM
Post by: Glom on November 11, 2017, 03:59:15 AM
Maybe they're having trouble with that hand gesture.
Post by: twik on November 14, 2017, 09:32:33 AM
Actually, I suspect that he or his handlers were worried some of them would take the opportunity to lecture him on some basic science facts, and didn't want to face the embarrassment.
Post by: gillianren on November 14, 2017, 11:15:12 AM
Post by: jfb on November 15, 2017, 05:09:53 PM
I'm reading What Happened, and man, I wish she were President right now. Also, she's a lot funnier than people give her credit for. I was horrified, too, to discover that Bill was the first husband at the hospital where Chelsea was born allowed to be in the operating room while his wife was having a C-section, and they only let him in because they didn't want to argue with the governor.
The deep, deep irony is that Trump was not supposed to win; his role was to lose ungraciously and continually call into question the legitimacy of her Presidency (remember he was saying that the election would be rigged all through the primaries and general). The Russians had a huge pile of dirt (some legit, most made up) ready to spoon-feed Congressional Republicans so that they'd start hearings the day she was inaugurated. And, while the federal government was distracted and paralyzed, Putin could get the band back together without much interference.
Of course, a bunch of rednecks in "real America" wrecked that particular plan, and here we are. The GOP's entire playbook going into 2017 was going to be "oppose Clinton on literally everything"; that's why they can't freaking shut up about her, even though she's now just a private citizen with no real power. Trump doesn't want to be President, you can tell by his manner and attitude. He's freaking miserable in the job. I will legitimately be surprised if he makes it to 2020 without some major health issue.
Personally, I wish the Democratic Party could have done better than a couple of white septuagenarians - it was kind of shocking to see that the GOP field was younger and more diverse than the Dem contenders. Yes, Clinton was genuinely historic as the first woman with a better than even chance of winning the Presidency (Fiorina was not ever going to be a contender), but even so, the Republican slate was legitimately a more representative cross-section of America.
The Democratic party has no bench. We've let state organizations wither on the vine, and 31 or so states have majority Republican legislatures. The old guard won't get out of the way, they won't mentor new blood, and generally suck up all the oxygen (and money). It's maddening. There's a group of Democrats who want to run Joe Biden in 2020, and I want to punch them in the neck.
How 'bout we pick someone under 70 this time around, guys?
Post by: Zakalwe on November 16, 2017, 04:19:03 AM
I'm reading What Happened, and man, I wish she were President right now. Also, she's a lot funnier than people give her credit for. I was horrified, too, to discover that Bill was the first husband at the hospital where Chelsea was born allowed to be in the operating room while his wife was having a C-section, and they only let him in because they didn't want to argue with the governor.
The deep, deep irony is that Trump was not supposed to win; his role was to lose ungraciously and continually call into question the legitimacy of her Presidency (remember he was saying that the election would be rigged all through the primaries and general). The Russians had a huge pile of dirt (some legit, most made up) ready to spoon-feed Congressional Republicans so that they'd start hearings the day she was inaugurated. And, while the federal government was distracted and paralyzed, Putin could get the band back together without much interference.
The same thing happened here in the UK with Brexit. The look of deep, deep shock on the faces of toads like Farage and Boris Johnson was evident. They were like the dog that finally caught the car after years of chasing and then realised that they were dogs and had no idea what to do with the car.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html
Post by: gillianren on November 16, 2017, 11:23:19 AM
Post by: Geordie on November 16, 2017, 07:21:14 PM
... Putin could get the band back together ...He's on a mission from God.
Post by: twik on November 17, 2017, 02:10:34 PM
Quote
Of course, a bunch of rednecks in "real America" wrecked that particular plan, and here we are. The GOP's entire playbook going into 2017 was going to be "oppose Clinton on literally everything"; that's why they can't freaking shut up about her, even though she's now just a private citizen with no real power. Trump doesn't want to be President, you can tell by his manner and attitude. He's freaking miserable in the job. I will legitimately be surprised if he makes it to 2020 without some major health issue.
I've heard rumours, not sure how accurate they are, that he's gained about 100 pounds since taking office due to stress eating.
But you're correct that the Republican/Fox conglomerate is highly confused as to what they're supposed to be doing now. The best they're hoping for is to convince Congress to start a special investigation into Uranium One, but even most Republican Congressmembers know there's nothing in that. And Hillary, to their despair, has kept a low profile. There's nothing new they can drag out.
Post by: Zakalwe on December 01, 2017, 11:02:04 AM
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-russia/ex-trump-adviser-flynn-charged-with-lying-to-fbi-in-russia-probe-idUKKBN1DV50U
This could be massive. According to that, Flynn is going to plead guilty and do a deal with Mueller. Also, Kushner was interviewed by the FBI earlier this week. Was Mueller sitting there with a load of information from Flynn?
I expect tomorrow's news to be full of another dose of late-night Trump tweets as he tries to create a smokescreen.
Post by: jfb on December 01, 2017, 02:18:53 PM
They won't.
They're too busy figuring out how best to completely destroy what's left of the middle class. Hell, the tax "reform" bill that the Senate is debating hasn't even been written yet - they're literally making it all up as they go along. And everyone with the slightest economic clue is telling them, from Forbes to The Economist to the WSJ to the CBO, that this is a stupendously bad idea, that this "reform" will explode the debt, create structural deficits, tank savings across the board, and generally make the 2008 recession look like a minor dip.
And DPRK has demo'd an ICBM capable of reaching pretty much anywhere in the US mainland, and we've managed to piss off Great Britain, and...
Not trying to be a drama queen here, but I honestly question if anything's going to be left standing after the new year.
Y'all gotta remember, Trump isn't the disease, he's a symptom of the disease. The question isn't why his approval rating is so low, but why it's so high. Literally millions of Americans think he's doing a damned fine job.
Post by: gillianren on December 02, 2017, 11:41:37 AM
Post by: LionKing on December 06, 2017, 06:42:14 AM
https://www.livescience.com/61110-us-embassy-move-jerusalem.html?utm_source=notification
Post by: twik on December 06, 2017, 10:15:53 AM
crazy Trump wants to stir unnecessary problems
https://www.livescience.com/61110-us-embassy-move-jerusalem.html?utm_source=notification
That's an endlessly repeatable post, I think. Just change the link for each unnecessary problem he provokes.
Post by: gillianren on December 06, 2017, 12:25:04 PM
Post by: gwiz on December 07, 2017, 05:17:43 AM
Indeed. Though this particular one reinforces my belief that Jerusalem ought to be an international city, part of no country.Wasn't the late King Hussain of Jordan trying to get that done? Pity his successor doesn't seem interested.
Post by: raven on December 07, 2017, 08:38:48 PM
It's a hundred and eight miles to the White House. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.... Putin could get the band back together ...He's on a mission from God.
Post by: Al Johnston on December 08, 2017, 06:50:08 AM
It's a hundred and eight miles to the White House. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.... Putin could get the band back together ...He's on a mission from God.
Hit it!
Post by: twik on December 20, 2017, 01:34:57 PM
Along with the scrubbing of "climate change" this indicates a wholesale assault on objective science.
Post by: Glom on December 21, 2017, 06:47:05 PM
Post by: twik on January 04, 2018, 10:34:43 AM
I'm reading What Happened, and man, I wish she were President right now. Also, she's a lot funnier than people give her credit for. I was horrified, too, to discover that Bill was the first husband at the hospital where Chelsea was born allowed to be in the operating room while his wife was having a C-section, and they only let him in because they didn't want to argue with the governor.
The deep, deep irony is that Trump was not supposed to win; his role was to lose ungraciously and continually call into question the legitimacy of her Presidency (remember he was saying that the election would be rigged all through the primaries and general). The Russians had a huge pile of dirt (some legit, most made up) ready to spoon-feed Congressional Republicans so that they'd start hearings the day she was inaugurated. And, while the federal government was distracted and paralyzed, Putin could get the band back together without much interference.
Of course, a bunch of rednecks in "real America" wrecked that particular plan, and here we are. The GOP's entire playbook going into 2017 was going to be "oppose Clinton on literally everything"; that's why they can't freaking shut up about her, even though she's now just a private citizen with no real power. Trump doesn't want to be President, you can tell by his manner and attitude. He's freaking miserable in the job. I will legitimately be surprised if he makes it to 2020 without some major health issue.
I'm just pulling this post from November back up because it fits so well with the story in the Wolff book that's blowing up Washington this week. That gives a sadly hilarious story of Trump's reaction when he realized he was going to win.
It does make me sorry for Melania, though. Yes, she agreed to sell herself to be pawed by an obnoxious old man. But she seems to be a shy, introverted person, and I don't think she realized she was signing up to be a public figure, in a country and language not her own. And inexcusably, the administration has failed to give her a strong support staff that could at least create a public persona comfortable with her role. I can truly believe she wept on realizing this was going to be her life now.
Post by: jfb on January 04, 2018, 05:48:51 PM
I'm reading What Happened, and man, I wish she were President right now. Also, she's a lot funnier than people give her credit for. I was horrified, too, to discover that Bill was the first husband at the hospital where Chelsea was born allowed to be in the operating room while his wife was having a C-section, and they only let him in because they didn't want to argue with the governor.
The deep, deep irony is that Trump was not supposed to win; his role was to lose ungraciously and continually call into question the legitimacy of her Presidency (remember he was saying that the election would be rigged all through the primaries and general). The Russians had a huge pile of dirt (some legit, most made up) ready to spoon-feed Congressional Republicans so that they'd start hearings the day she was inaugurated. And, while the federal government was distracted and paralyzed, Putin could get the band back together without much interference.
Of course, a bunch of rednecks in "real America" wrecked that particular plan, and here we are. The GOP's entire playbook going into 2017 was going to be "oppose Clinton on literally everything"; that's why they can't freaking shut up about her, even though she's now just a private citizen with no real power. Trump doesn't want to be President, you can tell by his manner and attitude. He's freaking miserable in the job. I will legitimately be surprised if he makes it to 2020 without some major health issue.
I'm just pulling this post from November back up because it fits so well with the story in the Wolff book that's blowing up Washington this week. That gives a sadly hilarious story of Trump's reaction when he realized he was going to win.
It does make me sorry for Melania, though. Yes, she agreed to sell herself to be pawed by an obnoxious old man. But she seems to be a shy, introverted person, and I don't think she realized she was signing up to be a public figure, in a country and language not her own. And inexcusably, the administration has failed to give her a strong support staff that could at least create a public persona comfortable with her role. I can truly believe she wept on realizing this was going to be her life now.
Personally, I would not put too much stock into Wolff's book. It's gossip from a highly suspect source (Bannon could claim that the sky was blue and water was wet and I'd still go to Snopes to verify it), and Wolff himself has a reputation as a somewhat sloppy reporter, favoring impact over accuracy.
I'm sure there are nuggets of truth in there, but slathered under layers of bullshit.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2018, 04:59:35 AM
It does make me sorry for Melania, though. Yes, she agreed to sell herself to be pawed by an obnoxious old man. But she seems to be a shy, introverted person, and I don't think she realized she was signing up to be a public figure, in a country and language not her own. And inexcusably, the administration has failed to give her a strong support staff that could at least create a public persona comfortable with her role. I can truly believe she wept on realizing this was going to be her life now.
Yeah....this "shy introverted person" managed to get from a 2 bed apartment in a former Eastern Bloc country to the White House via the medium of modelling, soft-porn photoshoots some of which included simulated lesbian sex scenes. I cannot think of anyone that less likely fits the description of a "shy introverted person". I think that " single-minded focus", "scheming" and someone that is more than happy to use her sexual talents and attributes to sleep her way to the top is probably far more apt.
Post by: Kiwi on January 09, 2018, 05:53:30 AM
Manawatu Standard, Tuesday 9 January 2018, page 6
Backfire and fury
Editorial
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/100394846/backfire-and-fury
Such is the churning disgrace of the Trump presidency that it’s hard to know who to hold in greater contempt – his treacherous appointees or his loyal ones.Backfire and fury
Editorial
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/100394846/backfire-and-fury
The lickspittle loyalists seem capable of staring down any camera and not just disregarding, but denying, his monstrous failings as a man, let alone a leader.
The traitors are just downstream versions of the same. In their vanity they thought they could cunningly manage the man-child, or at least personally prosper from their temporarily high status.
Some were jettisoned after the forces of official accountability came knocking. Others fell from, well, we hesitate to say, grace. They fell from favour amid the internecine combat of the loose affiliation of warring tribes that the White House promptly became under Donald Trump.
Among the dumped is chief strategist Steve Bannon. The Republicans rightly saw him as a scornful enemy from the extremities of the Right and Trump’s kids saw him as a Rasputin-like influence on their dad.
He was a key source for Michael Wolff’s instantly notorious book Fire and Fury, dishing withering criticisms of those around Trump, and the man himself.
It was almost jolly to hear the president’s top political adviser Stephen Miller call Bannon an "angry, vindictive person", as if this had suddenly become a bad thing in Trumpland.
Angry and vindictive pretty much describes the greater part of Trump’s electoral catchment. Add boastful and you have a precis of his own campaign speeches.
Bannon has denied the book’s account of him accusing Donald Trump Jr of treachery to the United States, but he hasn’t backed down on a bunch of other scornful descriptions, including those of "dumb as a brick" Ivanka Trump or her husband Jared Kushner.
Then we have the who’s-crazy allegations. The book adds fuel to fears that Trump is not just emotionally unstable, but unravelling mentally. To which the president declares himself "a very stable genius". That’s not typically a title that’s self-bestowed.
And now Bannon, amid the fallout pressure from, among others, funders of his Breitbart News, declares that he is "unwavering" in his support of Trump.
Such is the state of US politics, where people are prepared, if needs be, to deny the wetness of water. And that includes the host of Republicans, even those who slip coded escape clauses out of their endorsements. Like Secretary of State Rex Tillerson now calling Trump "the most unique president we have ever seen in modern history".
Quite so.
Unique as a meat axe.
Post by: jfb on January 09, 2018, 11:25:47 AM
It does make me sorry for Melania, though. Yes, she agreed to sell herself to be pawed by an obnoxious old man. But she seems to be a shy, introverted person, and I don't think she realized she was signing up to be a public figure, in a country and language not her own. And inexcusably, the administration has failed to give her a strong support staff that could at least create a public persona comfortable with her role. I can truly believe she wept on realizing this was going to be her life now.
Yeah....this "shy introverted person" managed to get from a 2 bed apartment in a former Eastern Bloc country to the White House via the medium of modelling, soft-porn photoshoots some of which included simulated lesbian sex scenes. I cannot think of anyone that less likely fits the description of a "shy introverted person". I think that " single-minded focus", "scheming" and someone that is more than happy to use her sexual talents and attributes to sleep her way to the top is probably far more apt.
There's a bit of a difference between posing in a photo studio and being mobbed by reporters over every stupid thing your husband says. There are plenty of actors and performers who can bare it all on camera and yet be painfully shy or withdrawn around other people.
AFAIK, she's not taking an active role in running the WH or participating in any policy discussions, so frankly her past and character are irrelevant and should not be part of the discussion. Ivanka and Jared are fair game since they obviously have a hand in running the place.
It's 2018. Murkians, get thee registered to vote if you aren't already. Find out who's running for what in your city, state, and congressional district, read up on any bonds and other ballot initiatives (and in Texas, find out what this year's spate of Constitutional amendments will be), and VOTE. Harangue your family, friends, and neighbors to do the same. Slap the first person who bitches about gerrymandering (which is a problem, but can be overcome with sufficient turnout).
We get exactly the government we deserve. If we think we deserve better, then we have to work for it.
Post by: gillianren on January 09, 2018, 12:24:54 PM
Post by: jfb on January 09, 2018, 12:37:06 PM
I mostly agree, but there are places where gerrymandering cannot be overcome with sufficient turnout; that's the whole point. Not unless a certain proportion of voters in those districts realize they've been had. Especially with current voter suppression tactics.
Yeah, gerrymandering has to be fixed at the state level, which honestly is where we need to fix most of our attention in 2018 and 2020.
Post by: twik on January 09, 2018, 04:18:11 PM
It does make me sorry for Melania, though. Yes, she agreed to sell herself to be pawed by an obnoxious old man. But she seems to be a shy, introverted person, and I don't think she realized she was signing up to be a public figure, in a country and language not her own. And inexcusably, the administration has failed to give her a strong support staff that could at least create a public persona comfortable with her role. I can truly believe she wept on realizing this was going to be her life now.
Yeah....this "shy introverted person" managed to get from a 2 bed apartment in a former Eastern Bloc country to the White House via the medium of modelling, soft-porn photoshoots some of which included simulated lesbian sex scenes. I cannot think of anyone that less likely fits the description of a "shy introverted person". I think that " single-minded focus", "scheming" and someone that is more than happy to use her sexual talents and attributes to sleep her way to the top is probably far more apt.
You may be right about scheming or single-minded. But I've never seen a First Lady who looks so ill-at-ease in her position. Her body language consistently screams "Get me out of here!" rather than "Look at me! I'm on top of the world!"
As I said, I think she sold herself to an old man for money. But I'm pretty sure that she never figured being a public figure into it. She looks like imposter syndrome weighs heavily on her. She knows this isn't a role she was cut out for, and her attempts at smiling through it are pitiable. And I'm sure Trump gives her no praise for what success she has, and plenty of criticism if he feels she doesn't make him look good.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 09, 2018, 05:48:59 PM
You may be right about scheming or single-minded. But I've never seen a First Lady who looks so ill-at-ease in her position. Her body language consistently screams "Get me out of here!" rather than "Look at me! I'm on top of the world!"
As I said, I think she sold herself to an old man for money. But I'm pretty sure that she never figured being a public figure into it. She looks like imposter syndrome weighs heavily on her. She knows this isn't a role she was cut out for, and her attempts at smiling through it are pitiable. And I'm sure Trump gives her no praise for what success she has, and plenty of criticism if he feels she doesn't make him look good.
(http://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4h9d3MI4v1rwcc6bo1_500.gif)
i'm sure that she sobs herself to sleep every night on a pile of dollar bills.
Post by: twik on January 10, 2018, 02:53:19 PM
Sure, she's not suffering like immigrant women who are suddenly facing deportation, or women who need health insurance, or all those women who've been dealt body blows by the Trump administration. But I don't think she's happy where she is. Let's just say that the day she gets her widow's weeds out will be the day she'll wear the most genuine smile she's had since Trump started to run.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 11, 2018, 04:58:01 AM
But I don't think she's happy where she is. Let's just say that the day she gets her widow's weeds out will be the day she'll wear the most genuine smile she's had since Trump started to run.
Indeed.
I'm sure the substantial inheritance will help to wash away the memories of Trumps corpulent mass humping away on her..... :)
As Nicholas Soame's first wife once said that sex with Soames was "like having a wardrobe fall on top of you with the key sticking out"
Post by: gillianren on January 11, 2018, 11:41:18 AM
Post by: twik on February 13, 2018, 11:18:16 AM
But for the time being, NASA gets severe cuts on studying climate change.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 13, 2018, 12:44:08 PM
So, it appears that Trump wants, someday, to go to Mars.
But for the time being, NASA gets severe cuts on studying climate change.
He also talked about going to the Moon, but funded next to nothing. The old adage applies "No bucks, no Buck Rogers"
Post by: gillianren on February 13, 2018, 12:49:12 PM
Post by: jfb on February 13, 2018, 03:32:55 PM
Post by: Zakalwe on February 13, 2018, 04:05:09 PM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/op-ed-the-story-behind-the-satellite-that-trump-wants-dead/
"By trying to kill this program, people in the administration are sending two messages. One is that everything they've been saying when they try to explain why they're taking no actions on climate change is a sham—they don't actually believe any of it. And the second message is they'd rather waste millions of taxpayers' dollars than gather data that could possibly tell us we need to act."
Post by: twik on February 13, 2018, 04:55:52 PM
Post by: gillianren on February 22, 2018, 11:47:56 AM
Post by: Glom on February 23, 2018, 06:12:25 PM
What hope for us when a country that has an unelected head of government, an unelected head of state, an unelected upper chamber, an unelected civil service*, acts like somehow we're being oppressed because we don't get to directly vote for the President of the European Council, who doesn't even have legislative or executive power. Perhaps illusion might describe the mindset.
* not that I have a problem with most of that though I'm open minded about Lords reform
Sorry. Someone was wrong on the Internet and it got me worked up. I restrain myself from participating in the places I read, so I dumped here where noone will see it.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 25, 2018, 03:56:33 AM
(http://i68.tinypic.com/35jy1xx.jpg)
Post by: Zakalwe on February 25, 2018, 10:32:52 AM
Oh boo hoo. You think you got problems? At least in three years you'll be done with this. In three years, our problems will only be just beginning.
What hope for us when a country that has an unelected head of government, an unelected head of state, an unelected upper chamber, an unelected civil service*, acts like somehow we're being oppressed because we don't get to directly vote for the President of the European Council, who doesn't even have legislative or executive power. Perhaps illusion might describe the mindset.
* not that I have a problem with most of that though I'm open minded about Lords reform
Sorry. Someone was wrong on the Internet and it got me worked up. I restrain myself from participating in the places I read, so I dumped here where noone will see it.
I feel your pain. It seems like the UK has been taken over by idiots and nationalists (is there a difference??). Watching the current UK government imploding in slow motion is painful.
My new word of the month is kakistocracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy)..."a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens". Sounds like that admirably describes the current incumbents on both sides of the Atlantic.
Post by: Glom on February 25, 2018, 05:48:01 PM
Post by: raven on February 25, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Post by: Zakalwe on February 26, 2018, 03:14:21 AM
If there was at least an opposition that wasn't terrifying, there would be a glimmer of hope. But that's too much to ask it seems.
Shocking, isn't it? All Labour seem to be doing is enabling a shambolic Tory government.
Oh, and making a song and dance about a change in direction to go for something that the EU has explicitly ruled out from day one. ::) ::) ::)
Post by: jfb on February 26, 2018, 10:26:17 AM
Oh boo hoo. You think you got problems? At least in three years you'll be done with this.
Optimist.
Democrats are going to run midterms on a platform of impeachment, which will just entrench support for Trump the way it did for Clinton in the '90s (even if Mueller finds multiple smoking guns). Then they'll find the worst possible Presidential candidates in 2020 and he'll be re-elected handily. Will Rogers had our number 80 years ago, and it's still true today.
The only way he doesn't serve eight years in office is because of a stroke or an exploding ticker.
Quote
In three years, our problems will only be just beginning.
What hope for us when a country that has an unelected head of government, an unelected head of state, an unelected upper chamber, an unelected civil service*, acts like somehow we're being oppressed because we don't get to directly vote for the President of the European Council, who doesn't even have legislative or executive power. Perhaps illusion might describe the mindset.
* not that I have a problem with most of that though I'm open minded about Lords reform
Sorry. Someone was wrong on the Internet and it got me worked up. I restrain myself from participating in the places I read, so I dumped here where noone will see it.
Heh. Brings new meaning to "security through obscurity".
Post by: twik on February 26, 2018, 11:38:28 AM
Quite honestly, if I read a fictional POTUS like him in a book, I'd expect it to be crazy satire, because if it were intended to be realistic I'd have told the author "dial it back to believable levels of stupidity and corruption."
Unfortunately it seems the Bernie bros will be out in force to try to commandeer the Democratic party to accept a leader who's never been a Democrat, and they'll resume their sulking wait for the end of the world when it doesn't.
Post by: gillianren on February 26, 2018, 11:49:36 AM
Meanwhile, an idiot in my state has proposed a law to arm teachers, and I got an e-mail this morning telling me how my son's school district is preparing for live shooting incidents.
Post by: gillianren on February 26, 2018, 11:50:22 AM
Post by: jfb on February 26, 2018, 01:22:15 PM
Also, I frankly wouldn't put it past Trump to claim to have accomplished everything he wants to in a single term and just not run again. I don't think he likes being President.
This is true - he didn't actually want to win, he wanted to boost his resale value. And yeah, he can just say "nope, done" in 2020 and go back to hawking steaks.
I don't expect that, personally - between the apparent narcissistic personality disorder, the continued fellating by certain wings of the GOP, and the ever-present threat of a polonium cocktail from the Russians once he stops being useful, I fully expect that he will run for re-election (assuming he's healthy enough).
Post by: Obviousman on February 26, 2018, 03:52:34 PM
Is there anything he will actually get that would be of value to him?
Post by: raven on February 26, 2018, 09:55:55 PM
It's easy to be brave after the fact. ::)
Post by: Geordie on February 27, 2018, 12:54:06 PM
Quite honestly, if I read a fictional POTUS like him in a book, I'd expect it to be crazy satire, because if it were intended to be realistic I'd have told the author "dial it back to believable levels of stupidity and corruption."Perhaps he's a comedian, playing the long game, like Andy Kaufman.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 27, 2018, 01:14:18 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-florida-shooting-parkland-school-run-into-no-gun-stop-shooter-broward-deputy-a8229536.html
It's easy to be brave after the fact. ::)
&feature=youtu.be&t=48s
Post by: gillianren on February 27, 2018, 01:42:15 PM
Post by: Apollo 957 on February 27, 2018, 04:43:20 PM
It's easy to be brave after the fact. ::)
He would have "run in" ..... ?
Has anyone, anywhere, seen Trump run AT ALL in living memory? I would ask how quick he could run a 100metres, if I thought he could complete but a fraction of that....
Post by: gillianren on February 28, 2018, 12:00:36 PM
Post by: jfb on February 28, 2018, 01:48:56 PM
Quite honestly, if I read a fictional POTUS like him in a book, I'd expect it to be crazy satire, because if it were intended to be realistic I'd have told the author "dial it back to believable levels of stupidity and corruption."Perhaps he's a comedian, playing the long game, like Andy Kaufman.
No lie, I used to fantasize about running as a candidate so unhinged, so obviously batshit head-trauma crazy, that it would scare everyone into voting for the other guy.
Trump's election has shown me that such a plan could never work. People will happily, nay eagerly vote for batshit head-trauma crazy.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 05, 2018, 01:12:28 PM
Post by: gillianren on May 05, 2018, 03:18:22 PM
Post by: nomuse on May 05, 2018, 06:13:51 PM
It's easy to be brave after the fact. ::)
He would have "run in" ..... ?
Has anyone, anywhere, seen Trump run AT ALL in living memory? I would ask how quick he could run a 100metres, if I thought he could complete but a fraction of that....
I remember a picture from a certain summit, with the world leaders walking across a green and, in the back, Trump sitting in a cart.
This is after all the man who has professed that you only get a certain number of heartbeats in your life, so why do anything to use them up faster.
Heck, I'm kinda surprised, given his record, the Candyman wasn't picked for Surgeon General.
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 05, 2018, 11:21:38 PM
This is after all the man who has professed that you only get a certain number of heartbeats in your life, so why do anything to use them up faster.
I'm pretty sure Neil Armstrong said that too.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 06, 2018, 02:54:06 AM
You have to remember that guns are magic and solve everything, even the problems they cause.
Yes as per the NRA’s idea to stop school masacares, “let’s arm the teachers!” Why do these barmy ideas not sound idiotic to the people that propose them?
Post by: Zakalwe on May 06, 2018, 07:17:53 AM
You have to remember that guns are magic and solve everything, even the problems they cause.
Yes as per the NRA’s idea to stop school masacares, “let’s arm the teachers!” Why do these barmy ideas not sound idiotic to the people that propose them?
Selling a gun to the teachers to stop the man that you sold a gun to sounds awfully like the logic of a person who wants to sell two guns.
Post by: gillianren on May 06, 2018, 12:20:21 PM
Selling a gun to the teachers to stop the man that you sold a gun to sounds awfully like the logic of a person who wants to sell two guns.
You're not wrong; these days, the NRA supports gun manufacturers a lot more than they support gun owners.
Post by: jfb on May 07, 2018, 10:04:59 AM
You have to remember that guns are magic and solve everything, even the problems they cause.
I thought that was beer.
Post by: jfb on May 07, 2018, 10:34:53 AM
You have to remember that guns are magic and solve everything, even the problems they cause.
Yes as per the NRA’s idea to stop school masacares, “let’s arm the teachers!” Why do these barmy ideas not sound idiotic to the people that propose them?
Selling a gun to the teachers to stop the man that you sold a gun to sounds awfully like the logic of a person who wants to sell two guns.
Yup. The modern NRA serves the interests of the gun manufacturers, period. Anything that could possibly slow down gun sales (waiting periods, background checks, real licensing) is cast as an Assault On Freedom, while anything that could possibly drive up sales (arming teachers, students, cafeteria workers, janitors) is Standing Up For America. And the goddamned rednecks buy it wholesale.
FTR, I own a couple of weapons (a .38 Colt Police Positive revolver that belonged to one grandfather, and a .22 Remington rifle that belonged to the other). Neither have been fired in years. I've been toying with the idea of getting a Concealed Carry license just in case the state of Texas decides that's the only allowable form of voter ID going forward (I wouldn't put it past this bunch of idiots). I wouldn't want to use the .38 for the training, though - it's old, and modern .38 ammo is a little too powerful for it, so I'd need to find a new(er) weapon.
I wouldn't actually carry concealed, mind you - I'm not that paranoid about my personal safety. Again, I'd just want the license for ID purposes.
Worked a short-term contract with a gold-plated gun nut with a CCL who brought his weapon to the office. Let's just say I was happy to not get my contract renewed.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 07, 2018, 02:11:25 PM
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2jax2cj.jpg)
Post by: gwiz on May 08, 2018, 06:34:48 AM
Was just reading this thread and someone shared this with me.. There is a video attached as people outside the UK (and some inside the UK) will not understand the reference.There's a small industry working this meme:
https://www.facebook.com/TrumptonMayor/
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 08, 2018, 09:01:39 AM
There's a small industry working this meme:
https://www.facebook.com/TrumptonMayor/
Just a quick glance and we find, "Briton's be prepared: - Show your rump to Trump." Had to chuckle at that one.
Post by: molesworth on May 08, 2018, 04:01:37 PM
Quote
As he left the podium, Trump took a question from a journalist asking how the deal will affect US security.Well, I'm really glad you cleared that up for us Mr President...
"How does this make America safer?" asked the journalist.
"This will make America much safer," Trump responded.
My only hope is that Europe, Russia, China etc. can persuade Iran that it's still worth continuing the deal. That however would leave the US very isolated, potentially leading to other problems.
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 08, 2018, 04:50:07 PM
The fact that he thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize is ridiculous. For what? If he has had any beneficial effect on North Korea it is by pure luck. He could have just as easily started a nuclear war.
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 08, 2018, 05:00:37 PM
Trump is making the same mistake as George W. Bush by taking advice from Benjamin Netanyahu. He was the one who said it would have a beneficial effect on the region to remove Saddam Hussein. And we are still cleaning up that mess 15 years later.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 08, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
My only hope is that Europe, Russia, China etc. can persuade Iran that it's still worth continuing the deal. That however would leave the US very isolated, potentially leading to other problems.
That was my thought tonight. The UK, France and Germany have already declared commitment to the deal. It could of course have the effect of increasing the rhetoric between Iran and Trump, and given his fragile ego and complete lack of diplomacy, increase the tensions further.
Post by: nweber on May 09, 2018, 12:25:40 AM
It's starting to look like a good time to stop letting the US "lead" the way for the rest of the world
It's been a good time for many years.
The fact that he thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize is ridiculous.
That prize was completely discredited, if it hadn't been already, when it was given to Barack Obama, who had done nothing to earn it at the time (his own words), and subsequently became quite expert at extrajudicial assassination.
The espionage indictment from the United States Department of Justice is a more prestigious award for service to humanity, although the prize that comes with the Nobel is better.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 16, 2018, 11:50:57 AM
I did not expect children to be separated from their parents and thrown into internment camps. Disgusting.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180616/d740f3b2c1223b9fdb601d0a4c48138b.jpg)
Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
Post by: molesworth on June 16, 2018, 05:50:00 PM
I expected corruption. I expected sanctions to be lifted from Russia. I expected the EPA to be dismantled.It's absolutely appalling, and hasn't escaped notice in the rest of the world. I cannot understand how anyone can either sanction or carry out these "orders" with a clear conscience. The conditions the children are being held in are terrible, and now they're planning on using tents to accommodate even more!
I did not expect children to be separated from their parents and thrown into internment camps. Disgusting.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180616/d740f3b2c1223b9fdb601d0a4c48138b.jpg)
Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
The fact that he's blaming the Democrats for the policy, and is refusing to sign a bill to stop it* makes the whole situation even worse. (I'm not going to get into the "religious justification for it" issue, which is also appalling, at least not on a public forum.)
[ * or at least according to reports I've read - it's hard to tell truth from fiction in the media these days ]
Post by: LionKing on June 22, 2018, 07:02:24 AM
This is too much. .he is a crazed monster and should be made to resign
Post by: raven on June 22, 2018, 11:48:11 AM
https://www.facebook.com/100002127357968/posts/1725908540823374/Link does not work.
This is too much. .he is a crazed monster and should be made to resign
Post by: gillianren on June 22, 2018, 01:19:09 PM
Post by: jfb on June 22, 2018, 03:31:46 PM
https://www.facebook.com/100002127357968/posts/1725908540823374/
This is too much. .he is a crazed monster and should be made to resign
I've said it before, Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom of the problem.
There is a significant fraction of American voters who like what he is doing and want him to do more of it, either because of like-minded cruelty, gob-smacking ignorance and stupidity, or just plain nihilism. Honest-to-God white nationalists and Nazis are gaining power in Congress and state houses for the same reason. If the Democrats fail to flip either the House or the Senate this fall (which is likely, because Democrats don't vote in the midterms), hang on to your socks. We may be seeing reruns of 1968-level domestic violence.
Of course, this is all Newt Gingrich's fault. He's the one who started the whole toxic partisanship shitball rolling. In another 100 years his name will be in the history books as one of the chief architects of America's collapse.
15 years ago I blasted anyone who thought of giving up their US citizenship and moving to another country - running away wasn't going to fix anything. Now, I'm halfway seriously considering it myself, because I don't think things can be fixed anymore.
Post by: raven on June 22, 2018, 03:53:56 PM
Of course, that's become much more difficult for those of low income levels, because the State Department greatly increased the cost of renouncing US citizenship shortly after Trump's election. Funny that.
15 years ago I blasted anyone who thought of giving up their US citizenship and moving to another country - running away wasn't going to fix anything. Now, I'm halfway seriously considering it myself, because I don't think things can be fixed anymore.
Post by: gillianren on June 22, 2018, 04:59:15 PM
Post by: Glom on June 22, 2018, 05:53:09 PM
Post by: molesworth on June 22, 2018, 07:39:13 PM
In fact the rise of nationalism, attacks on immigration, and general dislike or distrust of anything "different" seems to be happening in just about every country at the moment. I sometimes despair at humanity, having moved so far towards something approaching worldwide fairness, acceptance and inclusion, we're now turning back and throwing it all away >:(
Post by: Peter B on June 23, 2018, 11:57:47 AM
I'm currently reading "Silent Invasion" by Clive Hamilton. It's about how China has been systematically infiltrating Australia's political and social structures for two decades, with the aim of splitting Australia from its American alliance (and who knows what else after that). In the meantime, the Australian government has been passing beefed up legislation relating to the espionage threat the Chinese pose, and splashing out some extra aid money among Pacific island nations in the hope of slowing the spread of Chinese influence in the region. *
And as I read the book, I'm coming to the conclusion that China is a bigger threat to the USA than the Soviet Union ever was: the Soviet era Russians were hamstrung by their ideology; by contrast the Chinese are ruthless, pragmatic and, above all, patient. David Wingrove's novels may turn out to be close to the mark.
Of course, on top of that, the USA is facing an increasing threat from a Russia whose leader looks to be out for revenge for defeat in the Cold War. I've just been watching parts of an Australian ABC report about Russian meddling in the USA: look for Trump/Russia at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/ and if you can't watch the videos for whatever reason, the web pages for each of the shows include transcripts.
Grim reading...
* Back in 2000 I attended an Australian Skeptics conference in Sydney, which doubled as an international Skeptics conference. One of the speakers (with an interpreter) was Chinese skeptic Sima Nan. He described his efforts in trying to stamp out superstitious beliefs in China and the dangers he'd faced from outraged charlatans and their hired thugs. He also spoke about the wacky beliefs of followers of Falun Gong (which at the time was gaining popularity in Australia), and the absurd claims of its leader, Li Hongzhi. After the talk I was able to get his autograph (which I still have somewhere among my Skeptics papers), for which I was able to thank him with about the only Chinese I know.
These days, however, I see that Sima Nan is now a loyal advocate for the Chinese government and noisy critic of everything Western or Liberal or American (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sima_Nan). I have to say it's a strange feeling to dislike a fellow atheist skeptic because he in turn dislikes the intellectual tradition which gave birth to Western liberalism and skepticism.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 23, 2018, 02:05:07 PM
I've said it before, Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom of the problem.
I agree, and I think that cancer is spreading north.
Here in Ontario we just elected Doug Ford to be our next Premier (you might remember his late brother Rob, the former mayor of Toronto... think of Chris Farley with a Canadian accent). There are a lot of rumours surrounding Doug's past, like that he was a drug dealer back in the 1980s. He comes from a wealthy family and has publicly supported Donald Trump in the past. His diehard supporters ("Ford Nation") barely hide their racism. There is nothing at all likeable about him, but for some reason enough people voted for him. It's probably because he claimed to be fighting for "the little guy", despite the fact that he's going to cancel the planned minimum wage increase from the previous government. One of his few campaign promises was to bring back "$1 beer", and you just know that was enough to swing some votes his way.
He hasn't even been sworn in yet, but he has already promised to scrap a program that gives people a rebate when they make "green" home renovations and upgrades. He is going to also scrap the carbon cap & trade system. But hey... at least we'll have $1 dollar beer to drown our sorrows in while the environment turns to shit. ::)
Quote
If the Democrats fail to flip either the House or the Senate this fall (which is likely, because Democrats don't vote in the midterms), hang on to your socks. We may be seeing reruns of 1968-level domestic violence.
I think you'll see that happen even if the Democrats do win in November because Trump supporters aren't going to just sit back and do nothing if they move to impeach him, or block any of his policies
Post by: nweber on June 24, 2018, 04:38:11 AM
I'm coming to the conclusion that China is a bigger threat to the USA
I realise the US is a country that's been crapping its pants for close to twenty years because less than 0.1% of the murders there were committed by Muslims, but it's going to be a long long time before China poses anything like the threat to the US that the US currently poses to China.
How exactly is China a threat to the US?
by contrast the Chinese are ruthless, pragmatic and, above all, patient
Yes, the Americans only have the first one of those.
Of course, on top of that, the USA is facing an increasing threat from a Russia
Again, I recognise the extreme paranoia that exists in the US, but what is the threat from Russia? Russia isn't even much of a threat to the rest of Europe, a region which has several times its population and about ten times its economy, and which could easily defend itself against any potential threat from Russia, if they didn't prefer to freeload off the Americans.
whose leader looks to be out for revenge for defeat in the Cold War
They tried an American puppet for a while, it didn't work very well.
I've just been watching parts of an Australian ABC report about Russian meddling in the USA
It would be interesting to see whether they have a report on US meddling in Russia, which kept Boris Yeltsin in power. A few decades earlier, the US helped bring a puppet to power in Iran; that one bit them in the arses badly twenty six years later. The lesson appears not to have been learned.
These days, however, I see that Sima Nan is now a loyal advocate for the Chinese government and noisy critic of everything Western or Liberal or American (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sima_Nan). I have to say it's a strange feeling to dislike a fellow atheist skeptic because he in turn dislikes the intellectual tradition which gave birth to Western liberalism and skepticism.
You probably won't like me very much either then. I'm not an advocate for the Chinese government, and I'm not even Chinese, but there's no way I'm going to be an advocate for the American government. The gravest threat to the US is the American people, who are militantly rejecting the western liberal tradition referenced above. If the US becomes some ultra-****y authoritarian hellhole, my money is on it having nothing to do with Russia or China, except for their use as scapegoats.
Post by: Glom on June 24, 2018, 05:18:22 PM
I know this is tangential but I am curious.
Post by: gillianren on June 25, 2018, 01:29:03 PM
There are a couple of states that split their electoral college votes by congressional district with the remaining two being state wide. Why don't all states do this?
I know this is tangential but I am curious.
In theory, keeping all your state's votes together gives your state more influence, instead of the people. There are several states who have now passed laws saying that the winner of the popular vote will get their EC votes. The original purpose of the Electoral College was to give smaller states more influence in the grand state of things; it benefited New Hampshire and Delaware at the expense of Pennsylvania and Virginia. I actually used to have a defense for it, but after having two elections go against the popular vote in my voting lifetime (and I've only been voting about half my life at this point), I'm done with it.
Post by: Obviousman on June 25, 2018, 05:08:09 PM
PRC moves regarding various disputed islands in the South China Sea (e.g. Spratlys) are an example. They disregard international rulings and unilaterally decide to claim islands. They claim no military intent but meantime islands are being upgraded to support military operations: runways, ports, air defence systems. They are even now making moves to find reason why international freedom of navigation rules can be ignored and exclusion zones established.
This is a dangerous time. We have a corrupt clown as the US President; the PRC has a leader who is trying to establish himself as 'president for life' 9and by all accounts succeeding); the PRC heavily influences the DPRK - who itself is run by a ruling dynasty - and is quite adept at playing the bait & switch game regarding nuclear capability and intent; a Russian leader with frightening criminal connections who has also managed to become 'dictator for life' and wants to re-establish Russia as a superpower; the PRC is making massive loans to small nations throughout the Asia-Pacific region who will not be able to repay them and that come with strings attached; and the PRC itself faces a looming financial crisis with growth slowing markedly.
There are so many destabilising influences.
Post by: jfb on July 01, 2018, 06:19:56 PM
The fact that he thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize is ridiculous.
That prize was completely discredited, if it hadn't been already, when it was given to Barack Obama, who had done nothing to earn it at the time (his own words), and subsequently became quite expert at extrajudicial assassination.
Ahem.
HENRY. FREAKING. KISSINGER.
Post by: jfb on July 02, 2018, 10:05:48 AM
But, some primary results in New York are not encouraging, and if the Democrats really are going to base their fall campaign around abolishing ICE, well...
Fortunately Obama told a bunch of Democrats at a fundraiser to basically get the eff over themselves and start doing things that will make a difference (vote, get other people registered and voting, support good candidates, etc.). We should have stopped the damned navel-gazing on 1 Feb 2017 and started work right then on getting people elected.
Yeah, gerrymandering and voter suppression are a thing. Get people registered and voting anyway, as many as possible, in as many places as possible, and get them voting as early as possible. Politics is a numbers game, and when you're playing from a negative position as Democrats are right now, you have to throw everything you have into it and then some. Ending voter suppression means winning state houses, so don't skimp on that effort.
Post by: gillianren on July 02, 2018, 12:58:39 PM
Post by: nickrulercreator on July 10, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
IMHO it could've been worse, but of course it's still awful. Dude doesn't believe a sitting president can be indicted, and we're not really sure what he'll due to R.v.W. yet. He's also a 2A enthusiast.
Luckily for R.v.W, he believes precedent holds, so maybe he won't overturn it.
Maybe.
Dems need to fight like hell to oppose this nominee.
Post by: jfb on July 11, 2018, 12:12:23 PM
How's everyone feeling about this SCOTUS nominee?
IMHO it could've been worse, but of course it's still awful. Dude doesn't believe a sitting president can be indicted, and we're not really sure what he'll due to R.v.W. yet. He's also a 2A enthusiast.
Luckily for R.v.W, he believes precedent holds, so maybe he won't overturn it.
Maybe.
Dems need to fight like hell to oppose this nominee.
It could be worse - it could be Harriet Miers again.
Being recommended by the Federalist Society means that he's not a total spaz as a jurist, but it also means I know that some of his positions will be deeply worrying.
Honestly, though, Democrats need to focus on midterms and winning as many seats as possible. Which means GOTV efforts need to be ramping up into high gear now. Winning the majority means controlling the House and/or Senate judiciary committees. Since we currently don't control either house, we can't pull a Mitch and just put off the vote until after the election.
Post by: gillianren on July 11, 2018, 12:17:29 PM
Post by: jfb on July 11, 2018, 02:47:22 PM
I've seen a lot of posts from my friends about being sure you're registered to vote in time for our primary next month. Though my friends for the most part already were, I'm sure!
Our primary (TX) came and went back in March, and turnout was, once again, disappointing. Beto O'Rourke has it nailed - we're not a red state as much as we are a non-voting state. Texas "has been on the verge of turning blue" for well over a decade, but we never do, because Texas Democrats can't be bothered to show up when it matters.
Sure, after the election they're all over the place. After the election they're out front whining and bitching. But, you know, they couldn't actually be bothered to vote because their particular unicorn wasn't running. Got forbid they vote for someone who's not perfect. Better to just stay home.
Although, my favorite excuse came from some Democrats who couldn't vote for Sanders in 2016 because they didn't know he was running until a week before the primary, and by then it was too late to register (which was unfair and suppressive).
My somewhat intemperate response was how could you not know who was running for President? How is this is a surprise for you? What are you doing to actively avoid any news source, be it MSM or social media or the Weekly World News, so as to not know who was actually running for President? It happens every four years like clockwork, it's all over the news...how can this be a surprise?
This is what we're fighting - not just apathy, but willful ignorance. And short of slapping these idiots with a tire iron, I'm not sure what the solution is.
Post by: Obviousman on July 11, 2018, 05:26:19 PM
...Texas "has been on the verge of turning blue" for well over a decade, but we never do, because Texas Democrats can't be bothered to show up when it matters...
Pretty simple, isn't it? Decisions are made by people who show up.
Post by: nickrulercreator on July 11, 2018, 05:30:01 PM
I wish I was 18. I’m so mad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: gillianren on July 12, 2018, 11:42:55 AM
Post by: Obviousman on July 12, 2018, 05:30:26 PM
More on the Australian perspective:
Quote
But Trump is unpicking America's position in Asia. And there's not much that Mattis or the remaining "adults in the room" can do about it. So far this year the President has imposed punitive tariffs on Asian allies and partners, legitimised Kim Jong-un's despotic regime without securing any denuclearisation goals, failed to consult allies before cancelling joint military exercises in north-east Asia, and started a trade war that will harm the entire region.
This assault on America's leadership role in the Indo-Pacific couldn't come at a worse time for Australia and its regional partners. As power is shifting from the US to China, Canberra's preferred mode for regional order – the maintenance of an American "security umbrella" – is no longer realistic.
Middle powers like Australia and Japan are thus struggling to advance an Indo-Pacific strategy in which like-minded nations take on greater responsibilities for helping the US maintain a "balance of power" vis-a-vis China. But while America's national security establishment is on board with this strategy, Trump's wrecking ball approach to the region is making an Indo-Pacific balance harder to achieve.
https://afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/trumps-pacific-wrecking-ball-20180712-h12ktp
Post by: twik on July 18, 2018, 10:50:26 AM
Also EXTREMELY interesting that in the shot of his notes, he'd crossed out by hand the bit about bringing those responsible to justice.
Post by: smartcooky on July 18, 2018, 05:18:45 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-time-for-americans-to-face-worst-case-scenario-on-trump-1278891587866 (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-time-for-americans-to-face-worst-case-scenario-on-trump-1278891587866)
Could Putin really have some dirt on Trump, sufficient to to effectively make Trump his bitch!
Now, I am aware that Rachel Maddow is biased and very Liberal leaning news presenter. However, I am also aware that she was delivering EXACTLY what is in that indictment, quoted word for word. I know this because I have read the entire thing. You can read all 29 pages of the indictment here.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568806/mueller-russia-intelligence-indictment-full-text (https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568806/mueller-russia-intelligence-indictment-full-text)
or download it from here...
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download (https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download)
There is no other word for it but staggering. In these circumstances, I doesn't matter what the presenter's bias is, the wording of the indictment doesn't change and is there for all to see. The degree of detail is astonishing.
Post by: jfb on July 18, 2018, 06:07:03 PM
Is America really facing the nightmare scenario, a president who beholden to a foreign power, and is acting in the best interests of that foreign power?
Not just the President. Based on their behavior, a good chunk of GOP Congressmen and Senators are on the take as well.
Things are getting scary. Apparently Putin has asked Trump to provide former diplomats Michael McFaul and Bill Browder for "questioning". The right answer to that is "not NO but HELL NO and piss off for even asking the question", but apparently Trump's answer was, "we'll think about it and get back to you."
At Helsinki, Trump, the big, strong, manly daddy figure of the big hands and large dingus to the white trash in America's heartland, rolled over like a puppy for Putin to scratch his belly. I've been reluctant to use the "T" word before now out of fear of sounding hyperbolic. No more.
This President and his inner circle personally benefited from a years-long psyop campaign waged by a long-time geopolitical adversary, and is now returning the favor by undoing decades of American leadership and foreign policy, at the expense of longtime allies and American citizens alike. This President is apparently willing (or, not immediately discounting the request as ridiculous) to turn American citizens over to this same longtime adversary because they asked nicely.
Honest-to-God spies (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44865626) have wormed their way in to the personal and professional lives of policy makers and lobbyists. This is Joe McCarthy's nightmare scenario writ large, and the Republicans are up to their goddamned eyeballs in it. The reason congressional Republicans have been reluctant to protect Mueller? They know that if this investigation goes on long enough, they'll start appearing in the indictments themselves.
GEORGE FREAKING WILL is telling everyone to vote Democrat in November. Even if that Democrat is the most horrible person you can imagine. The House and Senate must be turned over completely.
Post by: Zakalwe on July 19, 2018, 02:43:34 AM
There is no other word for it but staggering. In these circumstances, I doesn't matter what the presenter's bias is, the wording of the indictment doesn't change and is there for all to see. The degree of detail is astonishing.
Indeed. Mueller seems to be a worthy adversary with an eye for the detail. His investigation so far appears to be incredibly thorough.
At this stage I cannot see how there can be any confusion over Russian interference. Couple that to Trump publicly calling for them to hack the DNC and it being hacked within 24 hours, along with Guccifer2.0 being in active discussions with Trump's advisers then the case for collusion becomes stronger.
Roger Stone...You're next to be indicted.
This is worth a read. If even half of it is true then there's suspicion to believe that Trump may have been under Russian influence for decades. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html
Regardless of where you stand on Putin, I think that it's fair to say that he is playing an absolute blinder. He has absolute control over his country. He can invade other countries with impunity. Through a many-years long campaign he has massively de-stabilised the Western world, driven a wedge into the EU by influencing Brexit and the far right in former USSR countries. All he's missing is a lair under a volcano and a white cat.
Post by: smartcooky on July 19, 2018, 05:52:17 PM
All he's missing is a lair under a volcano and a white cat.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tzr52ub2xc9y6dj/Putin-Blofeld.jpg?raw=1)
Post by: twik on July 20, 2018, 11:29:24 AM
But Trump was apparently officially told about the Russian attacks two weeks before the inauguration. Since then, he has repeatedly attacked investigations into them as "witch hunts." I do not believe any person who loves their country would behave in this manner.
If I wanted to get into more speculative territory, it appears that after Trump was informed of incontrovertible evidence, including e-mails and texts from high government sources, Putin purged a number of high officials who might have been in a position to leak such things to the US. If connected, that could mean that Trump informed Putin of US assets, possibly leading to their arrest and/or execution. That, to my mind, would be undeniable treason.
Furthermore, his behaviour with regards to Helsinki seems to indicate that he has no regard for even the appearance of impropriety. His consideration of turning Browder and especially McFaul over for Russian interrogation should have been enough to have him impeached immediately in normal times.
As it is, his supporters have started to shift from "there's not evidence of collusion" to "well, if Russia affected the election, hey, they were just helping Make America Great Again, so yay Russia!"
I suspect that if one of the Trump children is indicted, things will explode. How, I'm not sure, but Trump is already showing signs of not coping with the stress.
Post by: gillianren on July 20, 2018, 01:11:36 PM
Post by: smartcooky on July 20, 2018, 07:04:51 PM
- He was told by Attorney General Sally Yates that his National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn was a security risk because he had been compromised by Russia and had been having secret talks with them. Instead of firing him immediately (or at least suspending him), Trump waited two and a half weeks (during which time Flynn still had access to top security information) before he did anything about him. For a man who had previously acted decisively with regard to executive orders and knee-jerk tweeting, he sure dropped the ball on this one, big time.
- He then fired said Attorney General, presumably because he didn't like the advice she gave him and didn't like being forced to fire his appointee. He actually has routinely fired anyone who doesn't tell him what he wants to hear.
- He makes policy on the hoof. Yesterday, he announced that his new buddy, Vlad, is going to visit The White House in the fall. The first that the US Chief of Intelligence, Dan Coats, knew about it was when he was told during a live interview at a security conference. I mean what the actual f**k!!? Coats should have been the FIRST person to know about that, not the last!
- He has called the news media "enemies of the people". This is a very bad mistake. Its the sort of thing that brutal dictators have done; Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao Zedong. Here's CNN's Chris Cuomo's take, which pretty much aligns with my own.
https://youtu.be/srV2IHAZg5I (http://)
- He has crapped all over his allies, while cuddling up to his new best buddy, a criminal & brutal dictator
Trump is a liability to the US, and IMO, a danger to everyone on the planet, both within and outwith the USA
Post by: smartcooky on July 20, 2018, 08:51:03 PM
1. Superiority and entitlement. Tells everyone how good they are. Be the best, the most right, and the most competent; do everything their way; own everything; and control everyone.
2. Exaggerated need for attention and validation. Has to be at the centre of everything that is going one
3. Need to control. A sense of entitlement makes it seem logical to them that they should be in control.... of everything.
4. Lack of responsibility, blaming others and deflecting criticism. Never accept responsibility for the results of their action. Generalising blame; all police, all bosses, all teachers, all Democrats etc.
5. Lack of boundaries. Like 2-year-olds, believe that everything belongs to them and that no-one can refuse their demands.
6. Lack of empathy. Inability to empathise with the suffering of others. Selfish and self-involved and are usually unable to understand what other people are feeling.
7. Highly attuned to perceived threats and anger from others. Nearly blind to the feelings of the people around them. May even misperceive comments as an attack. Likely to misinterpret sarcasm as actual agreement, and misinterpret joking from others as personal criticism.
8. Emotional reasoning. Make most of their decisions based on how they feel about something. Always expecting everyone to go along with their “solutions,” and react with irritation and resentment if they don’t.
9. No shame Feels no guilt because they think they are always right.
10. An inability to communicate effectively or work as part of a team. Dismissive of the opinions of others who don't agree with him. If in a position to do so, will get rid of these people and draw in people who will.
Any of this look at all familiar. Well, they are good fit for Trump's behaviour.... they are also some of the key symptoms of NPD - Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
(PS: I'm sorry if these observations offends those who don't like us discussing mental health here, but I'm simply reporting what I have observed)
Post by: Jason Thompson on July 21, 2018, 12:01:08 PM
He's elbowed other people out of the way to be in front (despite being taller than all of them so therefore easily visible wherever he stands), constantly overstated his importance, and generally just acted like a bully on the world stage. He's been criticised for failing to obtain any agreements from Kim Jong-Un during the summit meeting, but that assumes he was actually interested in doing anything but making history as the first US President to meet the head of the North Korean state.
The most frustrating part of this whole deal is that he is actually making good on a lot of his election promises. It's just a shame that a lot of what he promised to do is such a bad idea from so many perspectives.
Post by: nweber on July 22, 2018, 03:50:18 AM
Yesterday, he announced that his new buddy, Vlad, is going to visit The White House in the fall.
"Vlad" is short for "Vladislav".
Post by: Zakalwe on July 22, 2018, 07:00:38 AM
He's elbowed other people out of the way to be in front (despite being taller than all of them so therefore easily visible wherever he stands),
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiA9dzhX0AE7TYz.jpg:large)
Witness this picture. Trump, with his usual shit-eating grin, has been positioned in front of the Queen with his wife even further back. No doubt this was to make him appear physically larger.
His narcissistic ego is soooooo frail.
Post by: Zakalwe on July 22, 2018, 07:01:39 AM
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/19/17586942/queen-elizabeth-brooch-warfare-trump-obama-code
Post by: raven on July 22, 2018, 12:04:14 PM
I loved these little details, which are waaaay too subtle for Trumplethinskin to work out.Sometimes a broach is just a broach, to paraphrase, but, on the other hand, I would not put it past her.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/19/17586942/queen-elizabeth-brooch-warfare-trump-obama-code
She's a smart old biddy.
Post by: smartcooky on July 22, 2018, 04:34:29 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-biographer-tony-schwartz-trump-lies-1282979907553
Post by: Glom on July 31, 2018, 02:08:55 PM
Here's a real political problem and it involves maths.
What do you get when you take 52% of voters in an advisory referendum who voted to leave the European Union, then you take maybe about 80% of those voters who voted that way to control immigration, then you take maybe 60% of those who want to do so at any cost?
a) About a quarter of all voters.
b) The Will of the People.
Post by: raven on July 31, 2018, 02:59:40 PM
Post by: jfb on August 02, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Quote
Democracy gives [the beatification of mediocrity] a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world—that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters—which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy.
Quote
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 02, 2018, 05:23:12 PM
Mencken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken) had our number 90 years ago:QuoteDemocracy gives [the beatification of mediocrity] a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world—that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters—which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy.QuoteAs democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
He had some abhorrent views in many areas, but by gosh he sure nailed it with those two statements!
Post by: smartcooky on August 02, 2018, 06:04:58 PM
Mencken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken) had our number 90 years ago:QuoteDemocracy gives [the beatification of mediocrity] a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world—that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters—which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy.QuoteAs democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
I've pinched that last quote to make it my temporary sig. at ISF.
Post by: LionKing on October 20, 2018, 12:36:44 PM
Post by: LionKing on October 21, 2018, 06:18:33 AM
Apart from that,what a coward crime indeed.. and what a pathetic explanation from KSA. The Saudi regime should be punished, also the Syrian regime who has killed thousands like Khashoggi, but there is no one to pressure them as should
Post by: Zakalwe on October 21, 2018, 07:46:37 AM
And now he changes his mind after he saw the pressure from everyone
Apart from that,what a coward crime indeed.. and what a pathetic explanation from KSA. The Saudi regime should be punished, also the Syrian regime who has killed thousands like Khashoggi, but there is no one to pressure them as should
Their not getting punished for killing hundreds of thousands in Yemen. Why should one more make a difference?
I paraphrase Stalin- A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
Post by: LionKing on October 21, 2018, 07:53:08 AM
And now he changes his mind after he saw the pressure from everyone
Apart from that,what a coward crime indeed.. and what a pathetic explanation from KSA. The Saudi regime should be punished, also the Syrian regime who has killed thousands like Khashoggi, but there is no one to pressure them as should
Their not getting punished for killing hundreds of thousands in Yemen. Why should one more make a difference?
I paraphrase Stalin- A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
Well, if they get severely punished for this one it will do justice for the rest..of course considering that the premise for the punishment is that killing one is like killing millions.
Post by: gillianren on October 21, 2018, 12:08:15 PM
Post by: raven on October 22, 2018, 06:31:26 PM
To paraphrase Pink Floyd, all in all its another kick in the balls. I would not be surprised if they start denying changes to ID for folks like me after this if this goes through.
Post by: Zakalwe on October 23, 2018, 02:28:51 AM
At this stage it appears that one of the most toxic things on Earth is the over-60 white Republican.
Post by: nweber on October 23, 2018, 09:17:43 AM
So Trump believes that Khashoggi was killed in a fight now while all the world stands laughing at the Saudi story :D
Perhaps he accidentally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving.
But, maybe he is still alive, he was videotaped walking out the back door, wearing different shoes, and with considerably more hair on his head than when he went it. If you are looking at a hair transplant, and want quick results, the Saudi consulate seems like the place to go.
Post by: nweber on October 23, 2018, 09:21:57 AM
Their not getting punished for killing hundreds of thousands in Yemen. Why should one more make a difference?
Yes, but those victims are Yemenis.
Which was the greater tragedy, fewer than three thousand killed in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, or several hundred thousand killed in Iraq? The answer is obvious, unless you take the absurd position that Iraqis are actually people.
This chap was a refugee, a resident of the US, who might have been applying for a green card, and with three children who were US citizens. So he's got to be worth at least as much as a few million Yemenis. Unless he did something the US doesn't like (looks like he won't have the opportunity now), in which case he might have been executed by the US instead.
Post by: gillianren on October 23, 2018, 11:00:45 AM
Post by: Ranb on October 23, 2018, 09:53:02 PM
I like voting by mail. Haven't stepped in a polling place since 1982.
Post by: Peter B on October 24, 2018, 12:41:49 AM
Talking about 1631, 1634 and 1639?
I like voting by mail. Haven't stepped in a polling place since 1982.
Ooh, got to say I like voting at a polling place, you know.
Here in Australia most polling places are primary schools, and most schools take advantage of election day to have a fund-raising sausage sizzle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_sausage).
One interesting little tweak is that for Territory elections, party touts are banned from handing out How-To-Vote cards, while for Federal elections they're allowed. This means that you have to run the gauntlet of the touts in order to enter the polling place, and end up with half a dozen How-To-Vote cards. The funny thing at the last Federal election was that when I went to vote in the morning the touts were all stiffly polite with each other, but by the afternoon when I went to help with the sausage sizzle they were all chatting like old friends, presumably having been lubricated by rounds of coffee in the meantime.
Post by: gillianren on October 24, 2018, 11:20:26 AM
Talking about 1631, 1634 and 1639?
Oh, yes. There are signs up all over telling us to vote no on 1639, saying it "criminalizes self-defense." Because it includes a provision that you have to properly store your assault rifle, should you have one, and that you are liable for the commission of a crime with it. Not at the same charge, but you are still guilty of not properly securing your weapon. And clearly that means you can't Protect Your Family.
Apparently our cops also strongly oppose 940, which would do things like mandate deescalation and mental health training and change the standard for use of lethal force; our laws on that latter are the most police-friendly in the country and make it almost impossible to prosecute.
Post by: twik on October 25, 2018, 11:57:10 AM
And now he changes his mind after he saw the pressure from everyone
Apart from that,what a coward crime indeed.. and what a pathetic explanation from KSA. The Saudi regime should be punished, also the Syrian regime who has killed thousands like Khashoggi, but there is no one to pressure them as should
Their not getting punished for killing hundreds of thousands in Yemen. Why should one more make a difference?
I paraphrase Stalin- A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
That was the Saudi mistake, forgetting this psychological truth. People blip over the war in Yemen as "too big for us to contemplate." It's a statistic, as the saying goes. But one guy pulled into an embassy and cut up alive? People can put themselves into his shoes. They visualize the saw. They hear the screams. They say, "that could have been me."
If you're going to kill large groups of people, it's bad strategy to let the outside world focus on one. It turns personal.
Post by: raven on October 25, 2018, 02:44:23 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/health-department-removes-gender-from-its-civil-rights-page-d60f33814b8e/
Post by: Ranb on October 26, 2018, 12:47:26 PM
Oh, yes. There are signs up all over telling us to vote no on 1639, saying it "criminalizes self-defense."Yeah, that's why it's a good thing to actually read about the initiative. Not just reading the summary included in the voter guide which can be incomplete. This year the initiative summaries are greatly improved.
Quote
Because it includes a provision that you have to properly store your assault rifle, should you have one, and that you are liable for the commission of a crime with it.I know that some gun owners were especially put off by the provision that all semi-auto rifles would be defined as assault rifles. It was part of the slippery slope. Later on "they" will say they only want to ban assault rifles. That is when you find out grandpa's hunting rifle is actually a weapon of terror and not a family heirloom. :)
I used to be able to speak with the WAGR, but they're rather xenophobic. I was promised answers to my questions for a long time before I finally gave up.
Post by: gillianren on October 27, 2018, 11:22:58 AM
Post by: Ranb on October 27, 2018, 05:53:21 PM
Quote
Top Donors supporting I-139:The $5 billion donated by supporters is much greater than the $600K donated by the NRA and others who oppose I-1639
Paul Allen: $1,226,036
Nicolas Hanauer: $713,018
Leslie Hanauer: $713,018
Connie Ballmer: $600,000
Steven Ballmer: $500,000
It will also amend RCW 9.41.094 which now reads;
Quote
Waiver of confidentiality.Semiautomatic assault rifles will be included along with pistols where the waiver is concerned.
A signed application to purchase a pistol shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.
Post by: gillianren on October 28, 2018, 11:03:32 AM
Post by: Ranb on October 28, 2018, 12:39:05 PM
So basically, your mental health history would be considered relevant in your permit request?Yes.
Quote
Meaning the NRA push poll I got on our last initiative for gun control, that it would be better to keep guns out of the hands of "dangerous mentally ill people," might actually happen?It is supposed to be happening now with pistol purchases from FFL's.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on October 30, 2018, 07:29:44 AM
Post by: gillianren on October 30, 2018, 11:01:47 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on October 30, 2018, 03:28:13 PM
Post by: raven on October 30, 2018, 11:37:27 PM
Post by: Peter B on October 31, 2018, 08:11:17 AM
And now he's saying he can change the US Constitution with an Executive Order, and is planning to. If he pulls that off, the US is effectively a dictatorship, since it means the US Constitution can be changed at the whims of one person.
Is this seriously an issue? I mean, in the article in which I read about Trump's thought bubble, it also mentioned that Paul Ryan had already dismissed it on the grounds that this wasn't how you lot change your Constitution.
But in reading it, and the reaction to this matter and the heap of others in the recent months and years, some thoughts began to crystalise in my thinking.
Even across the Pacific Ocean I worry about what Trump says and does as much as most of you on this forum. But I also worry that people are falling into a reflexive pattern of behaviour - Trump says something stupid, the progressive side of the Internet lights up, and Trump supporters point and laugh...wash, rinse, repeat.
There's another thread I think on this forum (golly, it may even be somewhere in this thread) where someone said that the 9/11 attacks on the USA produced a massive anaphylactic reaction from the American people. I wonder now that progressive Americans are reacting to Trump exactly the same way - he says his next stupid thing, and like clockwork comes the outraged response. Sure it's easy to Like a clever meme or even to create one yourself, but no amount of Likes counts for even one vote.
So perhaps it's time to tune out of listening to what he says and turn instead to the hard, unglamorous and slow work of building the Democratic Party from the grassroots up - getting people to volunteer, finding good candidates, encouraging people to register to vote and then actually vote - in other words, rebuild the people's direct involvement in democracy.
And when I say good candidates, I don't mean people who will as an equally predictable response crank up the outrage in Congress and do whatever they can to block the latest Republican or Trumpian agenda. Instead, I mean people who are willing to sigh and wave it through, and show to the American people that at least the Democratic Party is trying to get the Congress working again. At the moment, from what little I see of how things are going in Congress, Democratic leaders seem to think a series of minor tactical successes in blocking confirmations or legislation represents a coherent strategy, without considering how that makes them look to the American people.
The other thing to keep in mind is that tens of millions of people voted for Trump and Republican candidates. They're not traitors and they're not idiots; many have said they held their noses when they voted for Trump, many said they felt he had the better policies, and others said they thought long and hard about which candidate to vote for. But in general they're just as patriotic as you are.
Also consider there are still many millions of Americans who sit in the political centre; and unless you're rather more politically blinkered than I think most of you are, you don't actually oppose every policy move Trump makes, any more than those who voted for him support every policy move he makes, which makes most Americans centrists to at least some extent. There are also many millions of people who are currently turned off by the outrage (on both sides, sure) who could be engaged in politics if they were just given a good enough reason to vote. Why not give them every reason to vote Democratic?
But patriotism is the key thing here. People like Trump come and go, but (IMO) the USA is facing two external threats which are far more serious than him and which will continue as threats long after he's gone, and the current deep divisions in American society and insularity will only weaken any attempts to respond to them. Russia is led by a man who's never got over America's victory in the Cold War, and he's doing his best to bring the USA undone; the troll farms and their fake news are classic Russian maskirovka, and it's working a treat. And China is playing a very long game (described as a "hundred-year marathon") to displace the USA as the major power in the world, and they're pretty much committing their entire economy to the task; I recommend you read Clive Hamilton's "Silent Invasion", which, although it looks at the issue from an Australian point of view, has lessons relevant to the USA.
We Australians love to make fun of Americans, as do many people around the world. But, warts and all, I'd prefer living in the USA to just about any other country in the world (apart from Australia: we're pretty much perfect!); your democracy and the rights you have as citizens are a beacon of hope to people everywhere. Please don't get so caught up in the latest Trump dumbness that you forget that. It would be a tragedy if people around the world looked at the USA and decided they preferred the authoritarianism of China or Russia - I don't want to live in the world of David Wingrove's "Chung Kuo" novels.
Post by: gillianren on October 31, 2018, 12:12:21 PM
Post by: raven on October 31, 2018, 03:15:18 PM
Post by: raven on November 01, 2018, 04:03:19 PM
Post by: twik on November 01, 2018, 04:26:23 PM
Post by: Ranb on November 07, 2018, 12:10:28 AM
I-1639 is passing 60/40 like I-594 did a few years ago. This means I have to pay for a training class to buy any semi-auto rifle. Being a range safety officer, trained military and a certified shooting coach does not count. This initiative will probably cause a run on semi-auto rifles until July 2019.
I-1634 is passing to prohibit new local taxes on food/beverages. Increasing those taxes was just going to be another way to make the WA tax scheme less progressive. I'd like to see a state income tax replace some of the other taxes in WA.
Post by: gillianren on November 07, 2018, 09:40:20 AM
Post by: Ranb on November 08, 2018, 09:02:46 AM
Post by: gillianren on November 08, 2018, 09:06:11 AM
Post by: jfb on November 08, 2018, 02:30:48 PM
And now he's saying he can change the US Constitution with an Executive Order, and is planning to. If he pulls that off, the US is effectively a dictatorship, since it means the US Constitution can be changed at the whims of one person.
No. He can't. Amending the US Constitution is hard. You need approval by two thirds of Congress (both houses) or two thirds of all state legislatures just to propose an amendment, and ratification requires 3/4 of all state legislatures. Granted, given the political balance among the states right now, that's not outside the realm of possibility, but it's not something I'd lose sleep over.
Trump is an idiot, he's surrounded himself with idiots, and that's the only reason he hasn't done any more harm than he has up until now. Problem is the Senate will approve any goddamned appointment and stupid idea of his because the Republican leadership, while not composed exclusively of idiots, is stunningly corrupt, amoral, and likely compromised out the wazoo by the Russians.
At least with a Democratic House, there will be some pushback. The problem is that Democrats are like cats, impossible to organize and get going in the same direction. They'll start 20 different investigations, each geared more for publicity than actual oversight, and they'll all step on each other's and the Special Counsel's work. It's gonna be a shitshow for the ages.
But, we have a divided government now, which will put the brakes on some of the worst nonsense.
Post by: Obviousman on November 08, 2018, 06:45:18 PM
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-09/sarah-sanders-accused-of-sharing-doctored-jim-acosta-video/10480486
They vote in a dead man?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-08/dead-pimp-dennis-hof-wins-seat-in-nevadas-state-parliament/10475946
And he's bankrupting the country, just like he has done with all his business ventures:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/trump-s-2-1-trillion-deal-with-the-devil-has-failed-20181108-p50eom.html
Seriously, what is going on with US voters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on November 08, 2018, 11:15:21 PM
Seriously, what is going on with US voters?
The way I see it, there are two types of Republican voters: 1) the ones who just aren't smart enough to know better, 2) the ones who do know better, but think "winning" is more important than doing what is best for the country.
I can forgive people who voted for Trump in 2016 because they gave him the benefit of the doubt. But now they have no excuse for continuing to support him. He is obviously corrupt and I can't wait to see him removed from office. I just hope Mueller's investigation (and the evidence he has collected) can be protected long enough for that to happen.
Post by: gillianren on November 09, 2018, 09:55:17 AM
Post by: jfb on November 09, 2018, 11:34:15 AM
Most of the time.
Sometimes, the voter may not be aware that the candidate is dead (not every voter is terribly well-informed). Sometimes, the voter is ... well, crazy, and doesn't think that death is a barrier to serving in office.
Post by: jfb on November 09, 2018, 01:49:10 PM
Seriously, what is going on with US voters?
The way I see it, there are two types of Republican voters: 1) the ones who just aren't smart enough to know better, 2) the ones who do know better, but think "winning" is more important than doing what is best for the country.
I can forgive people who voted for Trump in 2016 because they gave him the benefit of the doubt. But now they have no excuse for continuing to support him. He is obviously corrupt and I can't wait to see him removed from office. I just hope Mueller's investigation (and the evidence he has collected) can be protected long enough for that to happen.
Do not underestimate the strong undercurrents of fascism in the US. It's always been there (Henry Ford thought Hitler was a swell guy), but it's been steadily growing over the decades as more and more people realize that being white, Christian, and male is no longer sufficient for being the guy in charge. Mediocre white men have been losing positions of power and economic superiority to women and minorities, and that's Just Not Right.
Then you have the crime-has-never-been-higher, brown-people-are-coming-to-murder-us-in-our-sleep bedwetters, who are the kind of people whom Ben Franklin was talking about when he said, "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." These are the people who are just fine with the kind of wanton brutality Joe Arpaio and David Clarke subjected their inmates to.
Way too many Americans want a strong daddy figure to make all the scary monsters go away, and for some incomprehensible reason they have decided that's Trump. He's a poor man's idea of a rich man, a stupid man's idea of a smart man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.
A divided government will slow him down, but he still has the Senate to approve his appointments and any further SCOTUS nominees (pray to whatever gods you believe in that RBG doesn't kick before 2020). The last few months have shown us that there aren't that many built-in legal protections against a President going apeshit (yes, there's the 25th amendment, but that requires the VP and a majority of the Cabinet to sign off, and if they're all loyalists, they won't). The only thing that stopped previous Presidents from wrecking the whole system was a sense of shame.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on November 09, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
To be fair, the Democrats once voted in a dead man, back in 2000.Dead Man Running was a plot in The West Wing.
He's a poor man's idea of a rich man, a stupid man's idea of a smart man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.He's the anti-Bartlet.
Post by: Obviousman on November 09, 2018, 04:32:19 PM
"I'm sorry Sir but you are too stupid to vote".
Post by: Zakalwe on November 10, 2018, 04:45:44 AM
Do not underestimate the strong undercurrents of fascism in the US. It's always been there (Henry Ford thought Hitler was a swell guy), but it's been steadily growing over the decades as more and more people realize that being white, Christian, and male is no longer sufficient for being the guy in charge. Mediocre white men have been losing positions of power and economic superiority to women and minorities, and that's Just Not Right.
Then you have the crime-has-never-been-higher, brown-people-are-coming-to-murder-us-in-our-sleep bedwetters, who are the kind of people whom Ben Franklin was talking about when he said, "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." These are the people who are just fine with the kind of wanton brutality Joe Arpaio and David Clarke subjected their inmates to.
Way too many Americans want a strong daddy figure to make all the scary monsters go away, and for some incomprehensible reason they have decided that's Trump. He's a poor man's idea of a rich man, a stupid man's idea of a smart man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.
A divided government will slow him down, but he still has the Senate to approve his appointments and any further SCOTUS nominees (pray to whatever gods you believe in that RBG doesn't kick before 2020). The last few months have shown us that there aren't that many built-in legal protections against a President going apeshit (yes, there's the 25th amendment, but that requires the VP and a majority of the Cabinet to sign off, and if they're all loyalists, they won't). The only thing that stopped previous Presidents from wrecking the whole system was a sense of shame.
This is simultaneously the most comprehensively sensible and terrifying piece that I have read on the current state of affairs in a long time.
Post by: gillianren on November 10, 2018, 11:04:14 AM
The fact that some people not just voted for this man but actually support him makes me want some type of entrance exam for voting.
"I'm sorry Sir but you are too stupid to vote".
The problem with that is that it is all too often used as a way to prevent minorities from voting. Now, a test for candidates, I can support!
Post by: Obviousman on November 10, 2018, 05:12:10 PM
The fact that some people not just voted for this man but actually support him makes me want some type of entrance exam for voting.
"I'm sorry Sir but you are too stupid to vote".
The problem with that is that it is all too often used as a way to prevent minorities from voting. Now, a test for candidates, I can support!
Yeah i know. Even the best of intentions will (not can) be corrupted and used to unfairly discriminate against some group or another.
It was just a small Utopia moment for me.....
Post by: molesworth on November 10, 2018, 06:10:12 PM
He also tweeted that he was "...getting ready to celebrate the end of World War One.". "Celebrate"?!?! Words fail me...
Post by: jfb on November 13, 2018, 09:54:40 AM
I was saddened, although not too surprised, to read that Trump decided not to go to the Armistice Remembrance at the main US War Grave site in France, because it was raining, and sent his deputies instead. He seems totally disconnected from reality, and completely lacking in any understanding of the historical context or importance of the occasion.
He also tweeted that he was "...getting ready to celebrate the end of World War One.". "Celebrate"?!?! Words fail me...
It's not that he's disconnected from anything - he just doesn't care. Seriously. Trump being disconnected from reality would be an improvement on the current state of affairs.
Everybody needs to remember, he wasn't supposed to win. He was supposed to lose ungraciously and continually question the legitimacy of a Clinton presidency.
And everybody also needs to remember he's not the problem, he's merely a symptom of the problem. The problem is that we Americans are a bunch of infantile whiny crybabies who expect things to always go our way because we say so, and when they don't we can pitch a blue-lipped fit to rival any two-year-old. Trump is the American id made real.
Post by: ka9q on November 15, 2018, 08:02:34 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter
All he had to do was to label his opponent (who had a conveniently foreign-sounding name) as a terrorist...
Post by: Glom on November 16, 2018, 06:03:08 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on November 16, 2018, 09:45:50 AM
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on January 12, 2019, 02:13:44 PM
Post by: jfb on January 18, 2019, 02:15:24 PM
Between the Buzzfeed report (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=bfnsplash) that Trump personally directed Cohen to lie to Congress in his testimony about the Moscow Tower project and the news that that White House leaked travel plans (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/us/politics/pelosi-donald-trump-cancel-travel.html) for a Congressional delegation to Afghanistan, we're reaching a point where the House pretty much has to start impeachment proceedings. Suborning perjury is part of what got Nixon, and leaking sensitive data (which can get people killed) as a spite move should instantly disqualify anyone from holding an office that has anything to do with security.
I'm sure Pelosi et al. would prefer to wait until Mueller releases his report, but we've reached a point where they shouldn't need it to justify starting the process. Granted, the Senate would never vote to remove him from office; too many Republicans are either similarly compromised (along with at least a couple of Democrats) or willing to put party unity ahead of literally everything else. But that shouldn't prevent the House from laying out the case.
We've known he was unfit for office from day 1. We've always suspected he was a security risk, and that case has been getting stronger with each new revelation. The emoluments case is also bubbling in the background, so we may hit the trifecta of Treason, Bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Post by: Echnaton on January 18, 2019, 05:03:56 PM
However it plays into a mosaic of misconduct theory that might be enough for the Democrats to start impeachment process. It's anyone's guess if it will be enough for the Senate to find him guilty.
I used to think that we'd be better off let Trump run out his four years. I thought that the cult of personality surrounding him would be best left without a martyr or cause to rally around. But now I'm not sure it would be. It would really be great if he would just do us all a favor and keel over.
Post by: raven on January 18, 2019, 07:58:24 PM
I used to think that we'd be better off let Trump run out his four years. I thought that the cult of personality surrounding him would be best left without a martyr or cause to rally around. But now I'm not sure it would be. It would really be great if he would just do us all a favor and keel over.Pence may not be quite as embarrassing in a very easily mockable way, but his religious conservatism, in my opinion, is no doubt behind many of Trump's more outright bigoted moves. I'd rather not see him as President. VP is bad enough!
Post by: Peter B on January 19, 2019, 03:20:39 AM
1. He's still extremely popular with voters across large sections of the USA. The swing against Trump and the Republicans in the mid-term elections was modest, and there are still plenty who buy into his version of populism. Any attempt to remove him would mobilise supporters across the country as he goes on a Twitter bender.
2. There's no realistic prospect that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to get rid of him. Republican Senators would only need to see how much voter support Trump has to know that voting him out of office would see the end of their own careers, and the Tea Party pretty much take over the Republican Party.
3. Removing Trump would make Pence the President. On the grounds that it's better to be led by a scoundrel than a fanatic, I think a lot of Democrats might look back fondly on a Trump Presidency in comparison with Pence. Based on an article I've read in the "New Yorker" magazine, Pence is a dangerously ambitious Christian extremist who is pretty much in the pocket of the Koch brothers.
The article suggested that research funded by the Koch brothers confirmed that populist anger with the wealthy elite of the USA (of which the Koch brothers are notable examples) is a major force on both sides of American politics, but the intriguing part of the article was the suggestion that the Koch brothers were attempting to co-opt that populism for their own ends. Thus, the ironic situation that Republican populists voting for Trump are effectively supporting a shadowy political movement controlled by the very people they despise, and which is determined to act for the benefit of that elite, not the populists who voted for them.
In this regard I can see some similarities between Trump and, of all people, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela: Chavez gained power because of his ability to mobilise the masses with promises of improving their circumstances, but was maintained in power by a rich elite who had no intention of giving up their wealth to help the poor, and when the poor complained about Chavez's failure to deliver on his promises he simply blamed the middle class (and the USA). Likewise, sadly, I can see people continuing to vote for Trump even as his administration makes life tougher for them while the elite get richer, and Trump will get away with it by blaming Democrats and the Chinese.
What's the solution? I don't know. Maybe the Democrats need to embrace Bernie Sanders's style of Democrat populism.
But in the meantime, let Mueller get on with his work and concentrate on creating an optimistic alternative to Trump.
Post by: Obviousman on January 19, 2019, 03:41:42 AM
"They are both shitty candidates but we'll recover from Trump quicker."
I can't help but look back at them and shake my head.
Post by: Echnaton on January 19, 2019, 07:47:40 AM
I used to think that we'd be better off let Trump run out his four years. I thought that the cult of personality surrounding him would be best left without a martyr or cause to rally around. But now I'm not sure it would be. It would really be great if he would just do us all a favor and keel over.Pence may not be quite as embarrassing in a very easily mockable way, but his religious conservatism, in my opinion, is no doubt behind many of Trump's more outright bigoted moves. I'd rather not see him as President. VP is bad enough!
I agree to some point. My main concern is that Trump is moving toward his own power mad extremism. His call for "emergency" confiscation of private property along the border is really over the top for me. He will get a lot of resistance for that here in Texas.
Post by: Echnaton on January 19, 2019, 08:05:20 AM
Based on an article I've read in the "New Yorker" magazine, Pence is a dangerously ambitious Christian extremist who is pretty much in the pocket of the Koch brothers.
When the New Yorker starts talking about the Koch Brothers, run for cover. The magazine and the left in general use them as their version of an existential threat to some undefined "democracy." The Nancy MacLean Democracy in Chains conspiracy theory rant of a book is an example of where this all leads.
The Kochs were early and large opponents of Trump and have never cared for institutionalized big government/religion types like Pence. They are not obviously religions.
In this regard I can see some similarities between Trump and, of all people, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela:
No doubt. Populist demagogues all basically run on the same script of developing an existential threat out of problem and use it to maintain their own popularity. Well all politicians do this, some are more willing than others to take it to extremes and at carry campaign rhetoric into governance. Trump and Chavez are notable examples.
I had a discussion with a long time friend of mine the other night who is a big supporter of the border wall. The number of obvious factual errors he said were stunning. Including things like illegal immigrants don't pay taxes so their children shouldn't be in schools. Texas doesn't have an income tax, but collects sales and property taxes, which are paid by everyone that buys anything or lives somewhere. So in fact, they support the Texas tax base just like citizens do.
Trump's border wall is just despicable.
Post by: gillianren on January 19, 2019, 11:50:02 AM
Post by: nomuse on January 19, 2019, 01:53:27 PM
Post by: Peter B on January 19, 2019, 07:47:33 PM
Based on an article I've read in the "New Yorker" magazine, Pence is a dangerously ambitious Christian extremist who is pretty much in the pocket of the Koch brothers.
When the New Yorker starts talking about the Koch Brothers, run for cover. The magazine and the left in general use them as their version of an existential threat to some undefined "democracy." The Nancy MacLean Democracy in Chains conspiracy theory rant of a book is an example of where this all leads.
Point taken. Though the article had sources for every statement they made. And I still think my reasons for not wanting to impeach Trump still stand - for political and pragmatic reasons I think it's a bad idea, at least at the moment.
Quote
The Kochs were early and large opponents of Trump and have never cared for institutionalized big government/religion types like Pence. They are not obviously religions.
Again, I take your point. But isn't it practical to use the tools which are available? Compromise happens all the time in politics - in theory it lies at the heart of the American system. If Pence is ambitious and needs funds, and if the Kochs have money and need a candidate, then it makes sense that they bond over what they have in common and quietly ignore what they don't.
Post by: Peter B on January 19, 2019, 08:09:44 PM
I think Pence will be hamstrung by the whole thing--for one thing, he'll be battling a Democratic House the whole way. I would also, to be honest, be quite surprised if there isn't enough evidence to get him, too.
In a way I think this might even be worse, depending on the order events take place. American democracy just about survived the departure of Agnew followed by Nixon, largely because Gerald Ford was widely respected. If Trump had to replace Pence I doubt his ability to make as good a selection.
Quote
I also think this shutdown is helping to fracture Trump's base in a way nothing else would. The military isn't getting paid. I'm deeply concerned about getting my Social Security check next month and was frankly shocked to get it this month. (I don't make enough on my Patreon to cover more than about a single meal a month.) Any economic growth that was happening is getting destroyed by the number of people affected by the shutdown. The quote that I think sums up what's damaging his support is the guy who said it was "hurting the wrong people."
I hope you're right. Because Trump's ability to rouse his base with Twitter despite whatever pain they're experiencing seems pretty impressive from this side of the Pacific.
Post by: Echnaton on January 19, 2019, 08:23:09 PM
And I still think my reasons for not wanting to impeach Trump still stand
Absolutely. It has been also mine opinion until lately when Trump has made me more worried. It is a judgement with no right answer.
Though the article had sources for every statement they made.
So did Nancy Maclean. It is just that her sources didn't say what she said they did. I haven't read the article in question so I can't address that in specific though. It is just that there is so much propaganda about the Kochs from the left that it takes a lot to get me interesting in reading anything. Bashing the Kochs is a major fundraising tool for them.
if the Kochs have money and need a candidate
Need a candidate?
Post by: Echnaton on January 19, 2019, 09:41:34 PM
I also think this shutdown is helping to fracture Trump's base in a way nothing else would.
It has started to in Texas, where it would have the greatest impact. Most of the Texas border is private property. Ranchers rely on the Rio Grande for watering cattle. There is one National Park and one National Recreation Area that make use of the Rio Grande. Several State Parks and wildlife management areas are also on the border. I'd certainly like to see the environmental impact report on this. Border city mayors are opposed, though they are largely Democrats.
We all have to live with this and it seems that as Trump gets more and more hell bent on this, some people, other than maybe my bigoted friend, are starting to take a closer look. I think if Trump tries his emergency power strategy, it will further fracture his coalition in Texas, I hope.
Post by: Al Johnston on January 20, 2019, 11:12:50 AM
.. largely because Gerald Ford was widely respected.
As evidenced by "... played too much football with his helmet off" and "... can't walk and chew gum at the same time" :D
Post by: gillianren on January 20, 2019, 12:20:25 PM
I've read that not one Representative from a district along the border supports the wall. That includes Texas Republicans.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 21, 2019, 07:14:53 AM
Congratulations to all for doing more damage and potential damage to their countries than the thing the supposedly damaging thing they are trying to prevent ever would....
Post by: twik on January 21, 2019, 11:28:13 AM
Post by: gillianren on January 21, 2019, 11:56:30 AM
Post by: Peter B on January 21, 2019, 07:06:22 PM
I have a friend whose husband is an air traffic controller. He's missed two paychecks now, and they're worried about making their mortgage. But, yes, he's expected to work every day anyway.
Once the shutdown finishes would he get back-pay for the time he's been working without pay?
Post by: Echnaton on January 21, 2019, 11:00:59 PM
I have a friend whose husband is an air traffic controller. He's missed two paychecks now, and they're worried about making their mortgage. But, yes, he's expected to work every day anyway.
Once the shutdown finishes would he get back-pay for the time he's been working without pay?
This has happened during past shutdowns. But is not guaranteed.
I was surprised the FAA is skipping paychecks. It is my understanding that ATC is funded with user fees not appropriations. It's becoming more of a problem.
Post by: Echnaton on January 21, 2019, 11:08:12 PM
Hey, Gerald Ford had the best attendance record on the Warren Commission!There are four Congressional Districts along the Rio Grande in Texas. The three Democrats can naturally be expected to be in opposition. The one Republican, whose huge and mostly rural district covers the longest stretch of the Rio Grande of all four districts, is adamantly opposed.
I've read that not one Representative from a district along the border supports the wall. That includes Texas Republicans.
Post by: gillianren on January 22, 2019, 12:40:15 PM
I have a friend whose husband is an air traffic controller. He's missed two paychecks now, and they're worried about making their mortgage. But, yes, he's expected to work every day anyway.
Once the shutdown finishes would he get back-pay for the time he's been working without pay?
Some people probably will. Some people probably won't. Government employees are supposed to get their back pay. Government contractors are not. But if they stop going to work, they'll lose their jobs.
Post by: raven on January 22, 2019, 01:09:52 PM
"Imperative public importance" my fat tuckus. I have no desire to serve in any military, but this is ridiculous on so many levels.
Post by: Glom on February 09, 2019, 06:13:58 PM
Apparently the Brits are seriously looking into rumors that some of the same skullduggery that aided the Hamberdler was also behind Brexit. Not that the Orangeman (as my Irish-leaning dad calls him) needed outside help. I'm unhappily willing to believe my countrymen are just that destructive.Is that intentionally an Irish sectarian reference?
Good thing our air traffic control is privitised.I have a friend whose husband is an air traffic controller. He's missed two paychecks now, and they're worried about making their mortgage. But, yes, he's expected to work every day anyway.
Once the shutdown finishes would he get back-pay for the time he's been working without pay?
This has happened during past shutdowns. But is not guaranteed.
I was surprised the FAA is skipping paychecks. It is my understanding that ATC is funded with user fees not appropriations. It's becoming more of a problem.
Post by: Ranb on February 10, 2019, 12:16:13 AM
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4716589/trump-take-guns-first-due-process-second
It's about protection orders; people can obtain a court order to have guns taken away from those who may be a threat to themselves or others. Several states have them on the books already.
Trump wants to rush things by taking the guns before any due process. I'm not sure how the police would sort out the genuine threats from the mere disputes. Since Trump was talking about curtailing the rights of gun owners, most people don't really have any opinion on the matter.
I did find out that calling Trump a gun grabber has shown me who my true "friends" are on facebook though. :)
Post by: Echnaton on February 10, 2019, 02:13:23 PM
Good thing our air traffic control is privitised.
It seems painfully apparent to me that ATC should not be a government function. But there is a large contingent in the USA which holds that things run better under government ownership. When it is transparency and accountability that typically make services run smoother.
Post by: gillianren on February 10, 2019, 03:46:19 PM
Post by: raven on February 10, 2019, 10:37:26 PM
Funnily enough, transparency and accountability are higher under government control than corporate control.There is certainly situation where a profit motive creates better results, but a matter of public safety like that? I don't see it.
Post by: gillianren on February 11, 2019, 12:30:29 PM
Post by: Echnaton on February 11, 2019, 01:02:29 PM
Funnily enough, transparency and accountability are higher under government control than corporate control.
Not necessarily so.
Quote
I mean, we just found out that Johnson & Johnson had been lying for years about the presence of asbestos in baby powder!
How much impropriety in government atomic energy research has been hidden? Medical experiments? Drone wars? Etc. Neither form of ownership by itself provides of a guarantee of transparency. Private ownership has the advantage of having the regulated and the regulator not being controlled by the same entity.
Post by: Glom on February 12, 2019, 05:37:43 AM
That's an important and often overlooked point.Funnily enough, transparency and accountability are higher under government control than corporate control.
Not necessarily so.QuoteI mean, we just found out that Johnson & Johnson had been lying for years about the presence of asbestos in baby powder!
How much impropriety in government atomic energy research has been hidden? Medical experiments? Drone wars? Etc. Neither form of ownership by itself provides of a guarantee of transparency. Private ownership has the advantage of having the regulated and the regulator not being controlled by the same entity.
One point from the Cullen Report into the Piper Alpha disaster was that the Department of Energy was responsible for both encouraging exploitation of the North Sea as well as regulation of safety of the industry. Clearly this was a conflict of interest that led to a lax attitude to safety.
An outcome was that these functions were split up with the HSE taking responsibility for regulating safety and a separate ministerial department, which changes its identity once a fortnight, responsible for exploitation.
The thing is that the main drivers that cause the private sector to he reckless with safety also applies to the public sector. The public sector may not have profits to worry about, but it does have budgets.
What's more the complacency of believing you'll be able to get away with it anyway can be even stronger in the public sector where there are no consequences to getting it wrong. I'm always befuddled when I hear NHS trusts have been fined for failures. What good is that going to do? Shareholders at least notice fines if they're strong enough.
But my original point was that NATS don't operate at Her Majesty's Pleasure so an impasse on supply won't affect them (well not as fundamentally anyway).
Post by: gillianren on February 12, 2019, 10:52:08 AM
Post by: Echnaton on February 12, 2019, 09:24:58 PM
But my original point was that NATS don't operate at Her Majesty's Pleasure so an impasse on supply won't affect them (well not as fundamentally anyway).
ATC in the US should really be moved to a non-profit with directors appointed by industry and government with funding coming from user fees. It would make capital budgeting much easier. The financial reporting could then be published according to the same GAAP used for other businesses. And it wouldn't be subject to His Orange's pleasure.
Post by: smartcooky on February 13, 2019, 05:11:20 AM
Good thing our air traffic control is privitised.
Ever listened to David Gunson's hilarious after dinner speech?
"Air Traffic Controllers work for the government, therefore we are Civil Servants. The government leases the controllers to the airfield and the oddity is that I work at West Midlands airport, which is owned by the taxpayers. I pay my rates to the West Midlands Authorities, and therefore I own the airfield... And therefore I am a self-employed Civil Servant. There aren't many of us around, but those who are have got their pensions stitched up a treat, I can assure you."
Post by: Kiwi on March 01, 2019, 08:55:46 PM
Please limit your reply to fewer than 2,000 words. ;)
Quote
Manawatu Standard, Tuesday 30 October 2018, page 12"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell – I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.’’ – Donald Trump, February 1, 2016
Reality always has last word
Leonard Pitts Jr, The Miami Herald
‘‘I’d like to punch him in the face.’’ – Donald Trump, February 22, 2016
‘‘You know, part of the problem... is nobody wants to hurt each other any more, right?’’ – Donald Trump, March 11, 2016
‘‘Any guy that can do a body slam... He’s my guy.’’ – Donald Trump, October 18, 2018, praising Republican representative Greg Gianforte, who was convicted of assaulting a reporter.
‘‘We have to come together and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message that threats or acts of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America.’’ – Donald Trump, October 24, 2018
Lord, this guy...
He just can’t help himself, can he? Seems like every time he opens his mouth, out falls the bovine excreta, great lumps of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.
He was at it again last Wednesday. The mind reeled as Trump, arguably America’s most enthusiastic proponent of political violence, made a statement deploring political violence. This, as investigators sought the person who sent explosive devices to CNN as well as to Barack and Michelle Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder and other prominent critics of Trump’s chaos presidency.
No, Trump isn’t the first president to say something at sharp variance with what he said before. Obama once claimed he never said: ‘‘If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’’ George W Bush once claimed his administration never advocated ‘‘stay the course’’ in Iraq.
But this guy, Lord, this guy, with him, it’s not a sometime thing. Rather, it is every day, all the time, as if in his world, words have no fixed meaning and people, no memory.
So that what he said with seeming sincerity on Tuesday can be demolished by what he says with seeming sincerity on Wednesday and he doesn’t care – indeed, he marvels that anyone does – because, hey, Tuesday’s gone. And Thursday’s coming.
This ongoing insult of reality, this daily denigration of truth, is epidemic among Trump’s people. Unable to face what is, they live in a kingdom of lies, seek sanctuary down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. Indeed, Trump cultists – Lou Dobbs, James Woods, Rush Limbaugh, Candace Owens and more – suggested the bombs were part of a Democratic plot to sway the coming election.
Meantime, this guy, this morally deformed 72-year-old brat, had a theory of his own. After bombs were sent to people he has spent years insulting – ‘‘low IQ’’, ‘‘crooked’’, ‘‘ignorant’’ – and to a network he has spent years condemning – ‘‘enemies of the people’’ – Trump tweeted that the ‘‘anger’’ in our society is a result of media’s ‘‘false and inaccurate reporting’’.
So in other words, if reporters would just stop challenging him, stop questioning him, stop behaving as if words have meaning and people, memories, all will be well. He probably even believes that.
But the issue here is not news media. Nor is it civility or Republicans being yelled at in restaurants. No, the issue is reality and the fact that it becomes no less real because you don’t acknowledge it.
That’s what the Trump cult has never figured out. Reality will always have the last word.
And you may run from it, but you can never escape.
Not even down a rabbit hole, not even in a kingdom of lies.
Post by: ka9q on March 02, 2019, 02:22:41 AM
Post by: Peter B on March 02, 2019, 02:47:58 AM
Well, one thing has changed for the better since then. The Democrats took the House and now they have majorities on all the relevant investigative committees.
That may be so, but understand the possibility that Trump has so much poisoned the well when it comes to his rusted-on supporters that they'll simply reject any findings the committees make. We only need to look at how Republicans behaved on that committee that Michael Cohen gave evidence to: apparently rather than point out inconsistencies * in his evidence they just called him a liar - barely a step above sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La-la-la, I can't hear you!".
And this is the problem with the editorial: continue on down this path and reality may come back to bite the USA in revenge, but the price could be catastrophically high for the USA, for liberal democracy everywhere, and potentially the world.
Having said that, it's fun to point out that Trump can be called a supporter of socialism: Venezuelan Juan Guaido's party apparently holds centrist social-democratic views...
* Inconsistencies: at one point Cohen said that Trump didn't intend to win the Presidency, merely gain some free publicity in the process; at another point he said that Trump was willing to do anything to win the election.
Post by: ka9q on March 03, 2019, 03:27:16 AM
Post by: gillianren on March 03, 2019, 11:18:25 AM
Post by: Echnaton on March 05, 2019, 12:02:38 AM
* Inconsistencies: at one point Cohen said that Trump didn't intend to win the Presidency, merely gain some free publicity in the process; at another point he said that Trump was willing to do anything to win the election.
Trump wants attention more than anything else. In some ways, he is like the hoax believers we get around here. He and they are cranks the talk nonsense then complain about being mistreated. It would be no surprise to me if he did it for a publicity stunt. Kind of the counterpart to Robert Redford's character in The Candidate.
Post by: twik on March 05, 2019, 09:54:51 AM
Frankly, given his personality, the idea of not going all-out to win even if you don't want to seems unlikely to have occurred to him.
Here's my own take on Trump pre-election. It wasn't his plan to win. At the beginning he didn't expect to win. The idea of running was originally to get lots of publicity, play the victim of "deep state" forces when he lost, and set up a media empire as "the guy who *really* knows what's going on," and build that Trump Tower Moscow he'd been dreaming of.
But then, as the months went by, he realized he had a legitimate chance. Russians were giving him the wink and the nod, "Any help you need, comrade? We can make it happen, no?" He realized he could win, crush his enemies and remake America in his own image. He certainly wasn't going to throw the chance away.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 07, 2019, 12:30:59 PM
US objections to wording on climate change prevented Arctic nations signing a joint statement at a summit in Finland, delegates said.
It is the first time such a statement has been cancelled since the Arctic Council was set up in 1996.
A Finnish delegate, Timo Koivurova, said "the others felt they could not water down climate change sentences".
There is international concern that Arctic temperatures are rising twice as fast as in the rest of the world.
On Monday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo addressed the forum in Rovaniemi, northern Finland, with a speech welcoming the melting of Arctic sea ice, rather than expressing alarm about it.
"Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade," he said. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days."
"Arctic sea lanes could become the 21st-Century Suez and Panama Canals," Mr Pompeo said.
At short notice he cancelled talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin on Tuesday, in a surprise move.
“Opening new trade routes??” What an idiotic viewpoint.
Post by: Zakalwe on May 07, 2019, 01:53:47 PM
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
The GOP really is toxic...
Post by: raven on August 23, 2019, 03:53:00 AM
Post by: Obviousman on August 23, 2019, 08:35:05 AM
Post by: Peter B on August 23, 2019, 07:39:50 PM
And, for me, this is problem with a lot of critics of Trump - the people who are so opposed to him that they oppose whatever he says, does or proposes, regardless of whether it's sensible or not. As they say in Australian Rules football, "Play the ball, not the man." In other words, respond to the statement or the policy, not to the fact that Trump said it, and give him credit when he says or does something good.
Hyper-partisanship isn't going to help the USA in the long term, which is why I think the best Democrat Party candidate for beating Trump is a moderate.
Post by: ka9q on August 24, 2019, 02:08:03 AM
Post by: gillianren on August 24, 2019, 11:19:44 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on August 24, 2019, 01:26:09 PM
What do you think he's done right?I was wondering the same thing. The only thing Trump could claim as a success was the economy... and even if you ignore the signs that point to an impending recession, I think it is safe to say that the economy was doing well despite Trump not because of him.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Post by: smartcooky on August 24, 2019, 04:15:30 PM
We can only hope that Western leaders will be mature enough to follow their strategic interests rather than react personally.
And, for me, this is problem with a lot of critics of Trump - the people who are so opposed to him that they oppose whatever he says, does or proposes, regardless of whether it's sensible or not. As they say in Australian Rules football, "Play the ball, not the man." In other words, respond to the statement or the policy, not to the fact that Trump said it, and give him credit when he says or does something good.
Hyper-partisanship isn't going to help the USA in the long term, which is why I think the best Democrat Party candidate for beating Trump is a moderate.
Like what, for example?
Post by: Obviousman on August 24, 2019, 06:08:19 PM
We can only hope that Western leaders will be mature enough to follow their strategic interests rather than react personally.
And, for me, this is problem with a lot of critics of Trump - the people who are so opposed to him that they oppose whatever he says, does or proposes, regardless of whether it's sensible or not. As they say in Australian Rules football, "Play the ball, not the man." In other words, respond to the statement or the policy, not to the fact that Trump said it, and give him credit when he says or does something good.
Hyper-partisanship isn't going to help the USA in the long term, which is why I think the best Democrat Party candidate for beating Trump is a moderate.
I know where you are coming from and normally it would make sense however we have some unique circumstances here.
In other times, you'd just ride out the rocky relationship, knowing it was only temporary. In this case though, not only does being passive reinforce President Trump's ego but it also presents a facade to his supporters (and possibly to the wider US voter community) that what he is doing is working; that his adversarial, volatile and juvenile behaviour is actually paying off.
The last thing in the world we want to do is validate his conduct, especially with voters!
Instead, the too-often parochial average voter must be made to question their President's actions, and see the harm it is doing to their country.
OH, and reference the economy: I am not sure about this but didn't the economy start to grow under the Obama administration? If I am right (and this is simply based on something I think I saw) President Trump is simply taking credit for the work done by previous administrations.
Post by: grmcdorman on August 24, 2019, 09:41:28 PM
OH, and reference the economy: I am not sure about this but didn't the economy start to grow under the Obama administration? If I am right (and this is simply based on something I think I saw) President Trump is simply taking credit for the work done by previous administrations.That is my understanding as well. He's also laying the groundwork for not taking the blame if/when things go sour with his attacks on the Federal Reserve.
Post by: Peter B on August 24, 2019, 10:43:11 PM
What do you think he's done right?
Not many things, for sure, but some:
- Confronting China on trade, currency and intellectual property problems it's causing, and backing the Hong Kong protesters;
- Leaning on NATO partners to shoulder their burden of defence spending rather than having them sit back and rely on the USA;
- Making agreements with both parties in Congress over debt limits ('good' in the sense that it shows he's perfectly capable of making agreements with the Democrats and isn't always mindlessly criticising them);
- Confronting Russia and backing Russia's neighbours;
- Arguably, making a deal with Kim Jong-un (sure, the deal hasn't achieved much, but 'good' in the sense that it gave Kim Jong-un the publicity he wanted without giving too much away); and
- Arguably, pulling out of the Iran deal ('good' in the sense that I've heard credible commentators criticising the original deal as made).
Another thing to consider is that Trump has maintained his power-base even though it contains groups which theoretically have conflicting objectives (for example, the foreign policy hawks vs the isolationists, or the moral conservatives vs the libertarians). This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it's a thing to be aware of. People who've supported him or worked for him have later criticised him (Anthony Scaramucci, Ann Coulter and Chris Christie all come to mind) and yet it seems to have no major effect on his popularity. However, the more noise that's made about impeaching him, the more strongly his base supports him.
Post by: Allan F on August 25, 2019, 08:43:02 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on August 25, 2019, 09:57:28 AM
What do you think he's done right?
Not many things, for sure, but some:
- Confronting China on trade, currency and intellectual property problems it's causing
Confronting China on trade would be good if he was going about it properly. But imposing tariffs on imports from China hurts Americans far more than it hurts China. And it's hardly a good thing if Trump's trade wars lead to a recession.
Quote
and backing the Hong Kong protesters;
He is only backing the protesters because they are opposing China and he wants to be seen as tough on China. He doesn't care WHY they are protesting, and if those types of protests happened in the US he would behave far more like China than a democratically elected leader should.
Quote
- Leaning on NATO partners to shoulder their burden of defence spending rather than having them sit back and rely on the USA;
The spending levels that Trump is referring to (but doesn't understand) is not money that is paid into NATO. They aren't membership dues that go into NATO's bank account. They are defense spending goals. For example, Canada isn't meeting the goal of spending 2% of our GDP on our military. That is a goal that we agreed to meet as part of being a member of NATO... but that money isn't going to NATO.
And frankly, Canada does a lot to defend the United States. We often have to intercept Russian bombers that fly through our airspace. In a war those bombers would probably ignore Canadian targets because their goal would be to reach the US. So all of that spending we have done on air defenses and early warning radar installations in our far north has been to benefit the US.
Quote
- Making agreements with both parties in Congress over debt limits ('good' in the sense that it shows he's perfectly capable of making agreements with the Democrats and isn't always mindlessly criticising them);
I'm not sure if this has actually happened. Trump's $1.5 trillion tax break to the wealthy makes me doubt he cares about debt limits.
Quote
- Confronting Russia and backing Russia's neighbours;
Again, I don't think this has ever actually happened. If it has it has been more like "Hey Putin... don't attack your neighbours. ;) ;) ;)"
Sanctions were imposed on some Russians after Trump took office, but he resisted doing so.
Quote
- Arguably, making a deal with Kim Jong-un (sure, the deal hasn't achieved much, but 'good' in the sense that it gave Kim Jong-un the publicity he wanted without giving too much away);
This is another one of those things that I agree would be great if it was actually working as intended. But so far all that Trump has accomplished is giving Kim Jong Un more legitimacy on the world stage. How does it look to have Kim Jong Un standing next to the President of the United States as an equal, and then ignoring demands to denuclearize?
Quote
- Arguably, pulling out of the Iran deal ('good' in the sense that I've heard credible commentators criticising the original deal as made).
I don't see how a deal (any deal) is worse than no deal at all. A lot of the criticisms of the deal coming from the right are nonsense.
Quote
Another thing to consider is that Trump has maintained his power-base even though it contains groups which theoretically have conflicting objectives (for example, the foreign policy hawks vs the isolationists, or the moral conservatives vs the libertarians). This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it's a thing to be aware of. People who've supported him or worked for him have later criticised him (Anthony Scaramucci, Ann Coulter and Chris Christie all come to mind) and yet it seems to have no major effect on his popularity. However, the more noise that's made about impeaching him, the more strongly his base supports him.
Yes, he has his base under some kind of magic spell. The racist man who has committed adultery on all 3 of his wives, slept with porn stars, sexually assaulted women (and possibly children), has never read the bible, never goes to church, and is frequently blasphemous has somehow convinced the evangelicals that he was chosen by God.
The fact that he has the magic ability to hold onto his base even though he is a walking example of every one of the 7 deadly sins, doesn't make him a good leader.
Post by: LunarOrbit on August 25, 2019, 10:01:02 AM
He's not real popular in Denmark right now, with him cancelling his visit, because our prime minister said she wouldn't consider selling Greenland.
Your Member of Parliament Ida Auken is awesome. I just saw this tweet she made:
https://twitter.com/IdaAuken/status/1163873544658403329?s=20
Post by: gillianren on August 25, 2019, 11:40:16 AM
Post by: Zakalwe on August 25, 2019, 03:36:24 PM
He's not real popular in Denmark right now, with him cancelling his visit, because our prime minister said she wouldn't consider selling Greenland.
I think that it's more to do with Obama announcing that he was visiting Denmark shortly after Trump's scheduled visit.
people want to buy tickets to hear Obama. In comparison, they are queuing up to protest at Trump.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/860160/coincidentally-obama-visiting-denmark-late-september
The orange shitgibbon's ego wouldn't be able to stand the comparisons.
Post by: Allan F on August 25, 2019, 06:04:46 PM
Trump doesn't.
Post by: rocketman on August 27, 2019, 07:12:00 AM
Ex-president Obama comes across as a decent human being.
He probably committed a lot fewer murders than his predecessor. I don't have statistics on Trump at-the-ready.
Post by: Glom on August 28, 2019, 05:25:00 PM
Post by: Obviousman on August 28, 2019, 06:08:09 PM
I must apologise. I have previously had quite a condescending view of the American system. I was always thinking it was nowhere near as good as Americans like to think it is. Well, stones and glass houses. So far, it has kept a wannabe dictator at bay for nearly three years. Our system has crumbled in a month. We are now officially a dictatorship. So America wins (again).Do you think there will be a 'no-confidence' motion?
Do you think the general public will protest this action?
Post by: jfb on August 28, 2019, 08:00:53 PM
I must apologise. I have previously had quite a condescending view of the American system. I was always thinking it was nowhere near as good as Americans like to think it is. Well, stones and glass houses. So far, it has kept a wannabe dictator at bay for nearly three years. Our system has crumbled in a month. We are now officially a dictatorship. So America wins (again).
The "system" hasn't done squat - our only saving grace is that Trump is an incompetent who's surrounded himself with incompetents ("A's hire B's, B's hire C's, Trump hires Omarosa"). If half of these people had half a clue of what they were doing we'd be in deep doo-doo.
The only thing that's kept the Republic from crumbling to dust so far has been that previous generations of politicians had a sense of shame.
Post by: gwiz on August 29, 2019, 05:43:26 AM
Do you think there will be a 'no-confidence' motion?Possibly, but that might just mean that parliament is dissolved and the election comes after the Brexit deadline.
Quote
Do you think the general public will protest this action?There were several thousand protesting in Westminster yesterday evening, plus spontaneous protests in other cities across the country.
Post by: Obviousman on August 29, 2019, 05:15:53 PM
Post by: Allan F on August 29, 2019, 06:44:41 PM
Post by: grmcdorman on August 29, 2019, 07:02:18 PM
The Danish Queen Margrethe? She's apolitical, but extends invitations to state visits on request. And an american president - no matter what or who - is a state visit.I think he's referring to Queen Elizabeth with respect to proroguing the UK Parliament.. Again, though, she's nominally apolitical, and the request to prorogue is (usually) just a formality.
Post by: Peter B on September 01, 2019, 04:29:28 AM
Yeah, that's the thing--everything cited as something good he's done is missing a lot of context that shows that, no, it actually isn't. For example, "making agreements with both parties" implies that he's been successful at it. He hasn't. Literally every agreement has been reached in spite of him, not because of him, because he insists that funding for his stupid, pointless wall be part of budget agreements. And the Democrats won't agree to that, because it's stupid and pointless and the money would pretty much be better spent being set on fire to heat federal buildings. And if he were really confronting Russia, mightn't he consider saying something about how they definitely interfered in the election?
Perhaps another way of putting what I said earlier would be this: Could you say with a straight face that you disagree with literally every decision Trump has made since he became President?
If not, then there must be some decisions you agree with.
In that case, praise him for it in ways that Trump supporters hear you: it makes it a little harder for them to unthinkingly criticise you each time you say something.
Oh, and while I think about it, assuming Trump wins the next election (which I see no particular reason to doubt at the moment), what all Americans need to worry about is this: that he'll lean on the Republicans to nominate one of his kids to be candidate in 2024 (presumably Don Jr). The way I see it, there's a portion of the population (around 3-5% I think) who'd happily vote for any Trump family member, and I suspect the Republican Party leadership would accept Trump candidates for a while to come if that means they can lock in Republican control of the White House for two or three decades.
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 01, 2019, 10:25:01 AM
Perhaps another way of putting what I said earlier would be this: Could you say with a straight face that you disagree with literally every decision Trump has made since he became President?
If not, then there must be some decisions you agree with.
I struggled to find one good decision that he has made. He seems to support NASA, I guess.
But I'm not going to ignore:
- the children in cages,
- the sexism, racism, and bigotry,
- the terrible environmental policies,
- the inaction when it comes to stopping gun violence,
- the corruption,
- the stacking of the courts with unqualified judges that will support him,
- the fascist tendencies,
- the cruelty and indifference towards the suffering of others,
- the narcissism,
- the arrogance,
- the lying,
- the phony religiousness,
- the propaganda and spreading of conspiracy theories,
- the attacks on the free press and justice system,
- the attacks on anyone (even other Republicans) who criticizes him,
- the incompetence,
- the bullying of US allies and trading partners,
- the coziness he has with some of the worst people in the world (Putin, Mohammad Bin Salman, Jeffrey Epstein)
I can't ignore all of that just because he might support one thing that I want, like returning humans to the Moon or going to Mars in my lifetime. I would rather the US had a President who is indifferent towards NASA but who at least believes climate change is real.
It's not like he has good intentions and I just don't like him because he is a Republican. He is a horrible person who is going to hurt a lot of people until he is out of office.
Quote
In that case, praise him for it in ways that Trump supporters hear you: it makes it a little harder for them to unthinkingly criticise you each time you say something.
Many of his policies will have a negative effect on the US (and the world) for years after he is gone, so I'm not going to pretend he has good qualities just to appease his supporters.
Quote
Oh, and while I think about it, assuming Trump wins the next election (which I see no particular reason to doubt at the moment),
Considering his poor approval ratings I think there is plenty of reason to doubt his re-election. People just need to get off their butt and vote.
Quote
what all Americans need to worry about is this: that he'll lean on the Republicans to nominate one of his kids to be candidate in 2024 (presumably Don Jr).
If that happens then Republicans might as well just call it a day because I don't believe Americans would support that. But if more Trumps get elected the US might as well call it a day. Game over.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on September 01, 2019, 10:37:42 AM
Post by: gillianren on September 01, 2019, 10:39:27 AM
Post by: jfb on September 01, 2019, 07:14:22 PM
Yeah, that's the thing--everything cited as something good he's done is missing a lot of context that shows that, no, it actually isn't. For example, "making agreements with both parties" implies that he's been successful at it. He hasn't. Literally every agreement has been reached in spite of him, not because of him, because he insists that funding for his stupid, pointless wall be part of budget agreements. And the Democrats won't agree to that, because it's stupid and pointless and the money would pretty much be better spent being set on fire to heat federal buildings. And if he were really confronting Russia, mightn't he consider saying something about how they definitely interfered in the election?
Perhaps another way of putting what I said earlier would be this: Could you say with a straight face that you disagree with literally every decision Trump has made since he became President?
If not, then there must be some decisions you agree with.
Whether there are any or not, it doesn’t really matter. The man is a menace to national security (tweeting classified imagery that tells our adversaries exactly what our surveillance capabilities are), an embarrassment on the international stage (legitimizing Kim, carrying Russia’s water at the G7, effing Greenland), a danger to US citizens (normalizing white supremacy and nationalism, giving aid and comfort to mass murderers), an economic disaster (“trade wars are good and easy to win”), and a straight up criminal (fraud, tax evasion, sexual assault, etc.).
We both dig taco bowls. So bloody what? It doesn’t begin to make up for the other crap.
Quote
In that case, praise him for it in ways that Trump supporters hear you: it makes it a little harder for them to unthinkingly criticise you each time you say something.
Trump supporters are a cult (or part of the con). Evangelicals see him as a sign of an impending Rapture, so naturally they want to keep him around. Literally nothing you say to them will make a damned bit of difference, and trying to reach them at this point is worse than a waste of time. Better to motivate Democrats and independents to get off their asses this time around and vote.
Trump’s floor is 35%, but at best his ceiling is just over 50%. He only wins if people don’t show up.
Quote
Oh, and while I think about it, assuming Trump wins the next election (which I see no particular reason to doubt at the moment), what all Americans need to worry about is this: that he'll lean on the Republicans to nominate one of his kids to be candidate in 2024 (presumably Don Jr). The way I see it, there's a portion of the population (around 3-5% I think) who'd happily vote for any Trump family member, and I suspect the Republican Party leadership would accept Trump candidates for a while to come if that means they can lock in Republican control of the White House for two or three decades.
I really want a Constitutional amendment that forbids immediate family members of past Presidents to run for office themselves. No sibs, no spouses, no sprog.
Beyond that, the Republican party is gone. Dead. Kaput. They have abandoned every principle they ever claimed to have. Their entire worldview can be summed up as follows:
There is an out-group that the law binds but does not protect, and an in-group that the law protects but does not bind.
Everything beyond that is theater.
Post by: molesworth on September 07, 2019, 04:11:22 PM
Four automakers bucked Trump policy on emissions. Now they are under antitrust investigation (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/06/business/automakers-antitrust-investigation/index.html)
Quote
The Justice Department has opened an antitrust investigation into four major automakers who have rejected the Trump administration's relaxed air pollution and mileage regulations.
The four automakers — Ford (F), Honda (HMC), Volkswagen and BMW — agreed in July to meet the tougher standards set by the California Air Resources Board rather than the Trump administration's rules, which would roll back standards put in place under former President Barack Obama.
Although the California rules would require automakers to build more costly cars, they gave the companies an advantage: The automakers would have to meet only one national standard, rather than one weaker standard for most of the country and one tougher standard for California and 13 other states that follow its rules. Those 14 states account for about 40% of the US population.
Surely the new regulations specify the minimum required level of pollution and mileage, and any vehicle exceeding those is acceptable. OK, it may mean the cars cost more to buy (but perhaps not to run), but then consumers always have the choice to go with a different, cheaper brand. It may even be that by not having to make two different engine types for the two different state-based requirements, the cost wouldn't actually be higher.
Perhaps because my understanding of US anti-trust laws is lacking, but I'm surprised they're being prosecuted for this.
(I'm also baffled by Trump's claims that more pollution and less efficiency makes cars safer, but that's another discussion...)
Post by: gillianren on September 08, 2019, 11:38:17 AM
Post by: molesworth on September 08, 2019, 12:57:06 PM
There's a long difference between "investigated" and "prosecuted." Nixon liked having people "investigated" when he was mad at them, too.Ah, indeed. I should have read more carefully. It seems that our leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are thrashing about and creating a lot of distractions from their failings at the moment.
Post by: raven on September 08, 2019, 07:49:34 PM
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 08, 2019, 08:17:54 PM
Up north of the Yanks, I really hope Andrew Scheer doesn't win. He'd been recorded as saying he doesn't think gay marriages are valid, and he seems intent on slashing societal infrastructure, much like Canada's Trump, Premier Doug Ford.Same here. I feel like I live in some kind of Twilight Zone episode where people think bad is good and good is bad.
The Conservatives have been using the same tactics that Republicans used against President Obama for 8 years... I'm surprised they haven't said Justin Trudeau was born in Kenya. I guess the closest we got to that was when they claimed he was actually fathered by Fidel Castro.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Post by: Glom on September 09, 2019, 04:59:02 PM
Also, looking from the bank of the Ottawa to the West, Parliament looks like Hogwarts.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on October 10, 2019, 05:57:48 PM
Copied from Steve Hedley:
I would like to congratulate President Trump in reaching a new previously undreamed of plateau of ridiculousness and inanity. His justification for abandoning the Kurds “because they didn’t fight with us in Normandy” (world war 2), not only sums up his own imbecility perfectly but also exposes beyond repair the rapacious capitalist imperialism that he represents. Unlike Obama who attempted to put glitter on the turd that is capitalism, Trump is its unvarnished embodiment discarding previous allies as dispensable unashamedly in public and orchestrating their massacre. Obama gave liberals an excuse to see something progressive in the USA, Trump has destroyed any such illusions.
Post by: smartcooky on October 10, 2019, 06:39:24 PM
Trump is now on record as defending a diplomat's wife who fled the UK after killing a British Citizen when she drove on the wrong side of the road. He's also abandoned former allies, the Kurds, who fought against ISIS.
Copied from Steve Hedley:
I would like to congratulate President Trump in reaching a new previously undreamed of plateau of ridiculousness and inanity. His justification for abandoning the Kurds “because they didn’t fight with us in Normandy” (world war 2), not only sums up his own imbecility perfectly but also exposes beyond repair the rapacious capitalist imperialism that he represents. Unlike Obama who attempted to put glitter on the turd that is capitalism, Trump is its unvarnished embodiment discarding previous allies as dispensable unashamedly in public and orchestrating their massacre. Obama gave liberals an excuse to see something progressive in the USA, Trump has destroyed any such illusions.
Unsurprising from someone who thinks there were airports during the American Revolutionary War!
Trump is utterly clueless about international politics. Any grade school history student could have predicted what would happen once American troops pulled out of Northern Syria. There is now going to a period of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Kurds that will make what the Serbs did in Bosnia look like a summer picnic...and Trump will be directly responsible for it.
Post by: jfb on October 11, 2019, 10:55:04 AM
Trump is now on record as defending a diplomat's wife who fled the UK after killing a British Citizen when she drove on the wrong side of the road. He's also abandoned former allies, the Kurds, who fought against ISIS.
Copied from Steve Hedley:
I would like to congratulate President Trump in reaching a new previously undreamed of plateau of ridiculousness and inanity. His justification for abandoning the Kurds “because they didn’t fight with us in Normandy” (world war 2), not only sums up his own imbecility perfectly but also exposes beyond repair the rapacious capitalist imperialism that he represents. Unlike Obama who attempted to put glitter on the turd that is capitalism, Trump is its unvarnished embodiment discarding previous allies as dispensable unashamedly in public and orchestrating their massacre. Obama gave liberals an excuse to see something progressive in the USA, Trump has destroyed any such illusions.
There is a growing "eat the rich" sentiment in the US, which the national media is desperately trying to pretend isn't there or is only on the fringes. I've been wanting to scream at everyone bitching about "wealth redistribution" or "class warfare" that wealth redistribution and class warfare have been ongoing for decades now - wealth is being redistributed into the hands of the wealthy few, and the rich have been beating up on the poor. Every year it gets less subtle and more overt, and now they're starting to say the quiet parts out loud. We're getting damned close to pitchforks and torches time.
Trump himself is an Adderall-addled Tony Soprano wannabe, up to his eyeballs in debt to the Russians, aided and abetted by the larger GOP. I've been seeing claims (unsubstantiated so far, but if true would explain so much) that the Russians have been laundering money through US congressional campaigns.
Post by: gillianren on October 11, 2019, 11:11:49 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on October 11, 2019, 11:34:32 AM
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on October 11, 2019, 01:35:52 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/pX47QDS/88-B068-E1-4221-49-DD-B1-A3-3-FEFA8-DF415-A.jpg) (https://ibb.co/h826c5S)
Post by: Obviousman on October 11, 2019, 05:31:51 PM
He hasn't started a war (yet).
Well, he has just invited attacks on the US from disaffected Kurds et al.
Post by: raven on October 11, 2019, 05:40:27 PM
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on January 03, 2020, 05:06:40 AM
Wow, this could cause a serious escalation in the region and encourage a new wave of terrorism.
Post by: LionKing on January 03, 2020, 05:53:51 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50979463
Wow, this could cause a serious escalation in the region and encourage a new wave of terrorism.
Indeed. I am particularly wary that Hizbollah in Lebanon will do some retaliation acts,which can reflect back on us. A pretty bad start for the year!
Post by: gillianren on January 03, 2020, 12:23:29 PM
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on January 03, 2020, 05:27:53 PM
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2020, 05:58:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/b1OXr21.jpg)
I bet those aren't the sons of Donald Trump or his donors.
Post by: MBDK on January 04, 2020, 03:53:03 AM
First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion. However, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false. That said, I won't defend his many faults, but I still feel it is important to maintain the standards we want in our Apollo discussions, by NOT using out-of-context evidence, false narratives and hearsay in lieu of facts and reason.
So, to provide an example of what I am talking about, I want to ask Lunar Orbiter a question (or two) regarding his very FIRST post in this topic of discussion.
Lunar Orbiter, You stated:
(quote) Trump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences. (unquote)
As previously mentioned, I have not read through the bulk of the posts, but I ask you - do you still stand by that post? And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2020, 11:58:10 AM
Lunar Orbiter, You stated:QuoteTrump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.
As previously mentioned, I have not read through the bulk of the posts, but I ask you - do you still stand by that post? And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?
I stand by what I said 100%. Why would I retract it?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body)
He has ignored Congressional subpoenas, called the House's constitutional power of impeachment unconstitutional, and the Republicans in the House and Senate have made it clear that the "checks and balances" are failing.
And now Trump is in the process of starting a war with Iran without Congressional approval.
So where am I wrong?
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2020, 12:09:37 PM
However, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist...
Please give an example of "manufactured flaws".
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Post by: gillianren on January 04, 2020, 12:37:17 PM
Post by: MBDK on January 04, 2020, 03:21:08 PM
I stand by what I said 100%. Why would I retract it?Are you claiming a good president SHOULDN'T allow that to happen?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body)
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2020, 03:50:31 PM
Yes, that should be obvious. And I'm sure your next post will be about how Trump reversed the decision to dismantle the Office of Congressional Ethics... "See, Trump isn't bad, he cares about ethics!"I stand by what I said 100%. Why would I retract it?Are you claiming a good president SHOULDN'T allow that to happen?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body)
But the thing is, he only reversed the decision after there were people marching in the streets over it. Republicans voted in the middle of the night to gut an ethics watchdog, people noticed, and then Trump pretended he was against it all along to save face.
He doesn't get credit for putting out a fire that he created.
If Trump cared about ethics he would not have ripped off people who performed work for him before he became President. He wouldn't have operated a fraudulent "university", or stolen money from his fake charity. He wouldn't use the Presidency to enrich himself or his businesses. He would pay his taxes.
People who know Trump warned voters that he was corrupt before the election. People have been aware of it for years. We didn't need to manufacture any flaws, he wears them with pride (ie. evading taxes makes him smart).
Why would anyone believe that someone who was so blatantly corrupt years ago would suddenly be so squeaky clean that they were handpicked by God to be President now?
Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
Post by: MBDK on January 04, 2020, 04:20:51 PM
Post by: MBDK on January 04, 2020, 04:24:28 PM
I'd also like it demonstrated that the Democrats are this flawed. Flawed, yes, but this?"Flawed" is undoubtedly a projection of our own criteria. The major ones for me is the constant name-calling, redefinition of terms to fit an agenda, and slander of those with opposing opinions.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2020, 05:55:13 PM
No matter how you spin it, he still made what you think is the right call.
He made the right call after they were caught and it became an embarrassment. Would he have made that same call if the vote to dismantle the Office of Congressional Ethics had gone unnoticed by the public? What reason is there to believe he would have, based on all of his past corrupt behaviour?
Quote
Despite direct evidence otherwise, you are now following the illogical path of every conspiracy theorists by claiming to know what others are thinking,
It is not illogical to believe that his past corruption would follow him to the White House where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in office. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire adult life would suddenly care about ethics now.
Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet? Or to believe that a pyromaniac can't be trusted with a box of matches? Trump has a long, well documented, history of corrupt behaviour. He has gone to court over his fake university and charity, and lost both times. Every time he visits one of his properties his bank account benefits at the taxpayers expense... some would call that embezzlement. So it's unbelievable that you are still expecting people to give him the benefit of the doubt after 3 years of this. We know who he is, and anyone that continues to believe that he is the second coming of Christ is deluding themselves.
Quote
and denying that direct evidence (i,e,. "He doesn't get credit for putting out a fire that he created") with unsubstantiated conjecture.
Even IF Trump didn't specifically ask for the ethics office to be dismantled, do you really think the Republicans would have done so if they didn't believe he would support it? They saw the opportunity to do something that would only benefit unethical people, and they took it. Believe me, I am by no means saying that Trump is the only corrupt Republican, so I'm not hanging this all on him.
Quote
You are chasing your prey down the rabbit hole, because of your own prejudicial binders.
And you're burying your head in the sand. The difference between you and me is that if I'm wrong, I've only encouraged ethical behaviour. If you're wrong, you've stood by while Trump and the other Republicans tried to dismantle every form of ethical oversight they could get their hands on. I'm concerned about protecting ethics in government, and you're on the side of letting Republicans get away with murder.
Quote
Just like the last 3 years of supposed Russian interference.
There is nothing "supposed" about it. It was verified by 17 US Intelligence agencies. It was admitted to by Facebook, who I believe was (at best) an unwitting accomplice. Denying it at this point would be ridiculous.
Quote
You have already decided innocence and/or guilt, so, like a CT,, you rationalize the irrational. THAT is my point, and if you can't see it, then you may as well claim we never landed on the Moon.
I'm siding with the verified facts, just like I do when I defend Apollo. I'm siding with protecting your country (which is not even my own country), just like I do when I protect it from the misinformation spread by Apollo conspiracy theorists. Trump and many of his friends are conspiracy theorists. So I don't get your comparing me to a conspiracy theorist.
Post by: MBDK on January 04, 2020, 11:49:04 PM
Example: Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -
"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."
Also, your comment "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" is easily answered with you have just asked the wrong question to logically compare the situations. What YOU have done in the first post on this subject thread is come home to find the cabinet empty, but have deemed the alcoholic guilty with nothing for proof but knowledge of his past. THAT is not logical. Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.
I could go on, but I feel I am beating a dead horse here. Again, I am not here to defend him, but to point out the parallels in your (and others') rhetoric on this subject as a cautionary tale. Your blanket refusal to honestly consider that (to this point) is a little disturbing to me.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2020, 06:35:26 AM
Lunar Orbiter, I am sorry, but if you would take the time to replace the subject of the president with any CT, you just MIGHT be able to see what I am talking about. Right now, you ARE as lost as they are with your prejudice.
Example: Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -
"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."
Bad example, for a number of reasons, not the least being the von Braun's membership of the Nazi party was always a matter of necessity rather than shared sympathy with the movement.
Quote
Also, your comment "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" is easily answered with you have just asked the wrong question to logically compare the situations. What YOU have done in the first post on this subject thread is come home to find the cabinet empty, but have deemed the alcoholic guilty with nothing for proof but knowledge of his past. THAT is not logical.
Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list, and b) if I came home and found it empty having done so, I would consider the alcoholic the prime suspect unless he has a good explanation for how someone else got the keys or otherwise gained access. Both of these are reasonable based on the evidence. What would be unreasonable would be convicting him in the face of evidence that he actually didn't go into the cabinet and someone else took the keys and stole my liquor.
Quote
Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.
It is not hearsay to say that Trump has boasted about his evasion of taxes or how bypassing the rules makes him smart. It is not hearsay to point out that he has been taken to court over his financial affairs. It is not hearsay to point out the huge number of lies and the vast amount of hypocrisy he displays. It is not hearsay to point out that he has declared thigs that are actually written in the consititution as phony or unconstitutional. He is open about it.
He and his allies are working very hard to build a narrative whereby the trust in everything but them is eroded. They are trying to create a place where it is somehow reaosnable to consider people summoned under the rules of the constitution to testify under oath are liars and frauds, while those who refuse to testify and defy court orders to produce documents are somehow above suspicion. If he actually had nothing to hide, why hide it? If his records prove him to be squeaky clean, why refuse to release them and end the 'harrassment' once and for all?
Trump is fundamentally unfit for office, has demonstrated time and again a willingness to not give a toss about anyone else but him and his cronies, constantly claims himself an expert on anything and everything (despite clearly being anything but), will deny having done things that are a matter of record (even his own record, denying saying things that are clearly written and preserved on his Twitter feed), and has a very obviously demonstrated pathological inability to admit any kind of mistake or culpability. If it's good he will take credit even if it wasn't his to take, and if it is bad it is always someone else's fault. This is not speculation or hearsay, this is his own behaviour, demonstrated by his words and his social media presence.
Post by: gillianren on January 05, 2020, 01:02:09 PM
Post by: gillianren on January 05, 2020, 01:05:16 PM
Post by: MBDK on January 05, 2020, 01:50:15 PM
Bad example, for a number of reasons, not the least being the von Braun's membership of the Nazi party was always a matter of necessity rather than shared sympathy with the movement.
That can be argued to be as much conjecture as the original anti-Trump quote is, and therefor remains a prime example of the continued use of CT tactics by some of the posts written here.
Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list, and b) if I came home and found it empty having done so, I would consider the alcoholic the prime suspect unless he has a good explanation for how someone else got the keys or otherwise gained access. Both of these are reasonable based on the evidence. What would be unreasonable would be convicting him in the face of evidence that he actually didn't go into the cabinet and someone else took the keys and stole my liquor.
a) is out-of-context with the OP I used as an example, just as CT use out-of-context methods.
b) considering someone a suspect does not make them automatically guilty, as was the OP's logically fallacious conclusion. You have just confirmed your unrecognized (by you) agreement with me on this point.
Quote
Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.
It is not hearsay to say...
Things that were not brought up in the OP. Okay. Maybe, unlike CT tactics to veer off, stay on topic?
He and his allies are...
All bad with ill-intentions towards the rule of law. I get it, but that is still conjecture. No matter how many people agree with you, even if i did, claiming to know their actual intent is fundamentally untrue.
Post by: MBDK on January 05, 2020, 02:03:11 PM
Also, it is not slander to say that people who side with Trump are siding with literal Nazis and the KKK. Because people who call themselves Nazis are proud, passionate supporters of the current administration, and the KKK endorsed him in 2016. So what slander are we talking, here?
Actually, it is. If YOU support a candidate, cause, etc., you have no control over who else does, including reprehensible people. When someone then claims you and such reprehensible people have forged a bond because of such an association, they have slandered you by making a false analogy.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 05, 2020, 02:43:36 PM
Even they show better decorum and public speaking skills than this President ...
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2020, 03:26:43 PM
Bad example, for a number of reasons, not the least being the von Braun's membership of the Nazi party was always a matter of necessity rather than shared sympathy with the movement.
That can be argued to be as much conjecture as the original anti-Trump quote is, and therefor remains a prime example of the continued use of CT tactics by some of the posts written here.
No, that's a conclusion drawn by people who knew him, his own words, the content of a biography or two, and the conclusions drawn by the US intelligence agencies who interviewed him extensively after Operation Paperclip and put him and his colleagues to work on US military projects.
Quote
Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list, and b) if I came home and found it empty having done so, I would consider the alcoholic the prime suspect unless he has a good explanation for how someone else got the keys or otherwise gained access. Both of these are reasonable based on the evidence. What would be unreasonable would be convicting him in the face of evidence that he actually didn't go into the cabinet and someone else took the keys and stole my liquor.
a) is out-of-context with the OP I used as an example, just as CT use out-of-context methods.
b) considering someone a suspect does not make them automatically guilty, as was the OP's logically fallacious conclusion. You have just confirmed your unrecognized (by you) agreement with me on this point.
The OP did not conclude guilt. Actual words used were is "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" There is nothing in there about concluding guilt, only in lacking trust, which is reasonable.
Quote
Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.
It is not hearsay to say...
Things that were not brought up in the OP. Okay. Maybe, unlike CT tactics to veer off, stay on topic?
That is on topic. Very much so. Trump's behaviour is literally the entire topic. Just because I added a few other examples to the original doesn't make it 'off-topic'. I shall conclude from your attempt to suggest otherwise that you have no actual comeback to those points and you concur that he does indeed behave in those ways.
Quote
He and his allies are...
All bad with ill-intentions towards the rule of law. I get it, but that is still conjecture. No matter how many people agree with you, even if i did, claiming to know their actual intent is fundamentally untrue.
So, what conclusion should I draw from their actions? They are smearing their opponents, portraying themselves as the victims of something 'unconsitutional' which is in fact following the letter and spirit of the constitution. Trump's attorney has literally claimed he can get away with cold blooded murder as long as he is President. Even if I don't know their intent for sure (frankly Trump's irrationality makes me wonder if there is actually any intent at all beyond paranoid crybaby whining about unfair treatment), there's not much wiggle room in the interpretation.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2020, 03:33:54 PM
Lunar Orbiter, I am sorry, but if you would take the time to replace the subject of the president with any CT, you just MIGHT be able to see what I am talking about. Right now, you ARE as lost as they are with your prejudice.
Example: Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -
"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."
Also, your comment "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" is easily answered with you have just asked the wrong question to logically compare the situations. What YOU have done in the first post on this subject thread is come home to find the cabinet empty, but have deemed the alcoholic guilty with nothing for proof but knowledge of his past. THAT is not logical. Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.
I could go on, but I feel I am beating a dead horse here. Again, I am not here to defend him, but to point out the parallels in your (and others') rhetoric on this subject as a cautionary tale. Your blanket refusal to honestly consider that (to this point) is a little disturbing to me.
I wasn't alive at the time, but I think it would have been perfectly reasonable to not trust Werner von Braun, and I'm sure it took years for him to earn whatever amount of trustworthiness that he had. He most likely had people watching him closely until the day he died.
Donald Trump has done nothing to earn our trust, instead he has only confirmed that he is dishonest, rude, impulsive, reckless, self-centered, thin-skinned, weak, narcissistic, and unethical. This isn't speculation or "manufactured flaws", it's all observed behaviour. I really don't understand why you are defending him.
Using your logic, even the worst criminal should be trusted and their past ignored... because hey, today is a new day, and the past doesn't matter. Donald Trump might have lied a thousand times yesterday, but you can trust him today. That is exactly what con men like Trump want from people like you... gullibility.
I have no loyalty to the Democratic or Republican party because I am Canadian. I speak out against Donald Trump because he is dangerous, not just to the United States but to the entire planet. If you can't see it then you either aren't paying close enough attention, or you are blinded by loyalty.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2020, 04:00:27 PM
Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list
a) is out-of-context with the OP I used as an example, just as CT use out-of-context methods.
How is it out of context? When you elect the President of the United States, do you not take into consideration how much you trust them? I would not give an alcoholic the keys to a liquor cabinet, and I would not give Donald Trump the keys to the nuclear codes... because I can't trust either of them to act responsibly.
Quote
b) considering someone a suspect does not make them automatically guilty
It's not about being able to accuse them after the fact. It's about preventing something bad from happening before accusations of guilt are even necessary. Like I said, it's a matter of trust. Donald Trump has proved to me that he can't be trusted.
Quote
Things that were not brought up in the OP. Okay. Maybe, unlike CT tactics to veer off, stay on topic?
How about you leave the moderation to me.
Quote
All bad with ill-intentions towards the rule of law. I get it, but that is still conjecture. No matter how many people agree with you, even if i did, claiming to know their actual intent is fundamentally untrue.
I'll say it again. It's about trust. Trust isn't automatic, it has to be earned. And if someone has given you countless reasons to NOT trust them, you don't give them a clean slate every morning.
I was willing to cut the people who voted for him in 2016 some slack because they were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is unbelievable to me that people still trust him after 3 years in office. It's like the old Peanuts cartoon where Lucy pulls the football away right before Charlie Brown kicks it... every time... and he never learns. At some point you have to stop trusting habitual liars.
Post by: gillianren on January 05, 2020, 08:47:30 PM
Also, it is not slander to say that people who side with Trump are siding with literal Nazis and the KKK. Because people who call themselves Nazis are proud, passionate supporters of the current administration, and the KKK endorsed him in 2016. So what slander are we talking, here?
Actually, it is. If YOU support a candidate, cause, etc., you have no control over who else does, including reprehensible people. When someone then claims you and such reprehensible people have forged a bond because of such an association, they have slandered you by making a false analogy.
No. No, that's wrong. If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis. That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them. And if you are . . . .
Post by: MBDK on January 06, 2020, 02:10:28 PM
I understand there has not been a lot of time since her posts. but I also notice no one else is calling gillianren out on her logical fallacy. Latest example:
No. No, that's wrong. If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis. That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them. And if you are . . . .
Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here? From all your posts in the CT forum, you darn well should.
Regardless, as I mentioned before, I am not here to defend Trump, which most replies have ignored, rather to point out SOME similarities in your posts with CTs' tactics. My point has been made to anyone with non-prejudiced critical thinking skills, and I am not here to argue incessantly with those who refuse, or are unable, to acknowledge my observation as described.
That said, I am willing to elaborate further on ONE point of contention, of your choice, should you so desire, or I can just drop out of this discussion altogether. It really doesn't matter to me. But, to be clear, I ask for only ONE (at a time, at least) point, to prevent shotgunning, and to bring some sort of closure to an item prior to moving on (if we do, indeed, move on).
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 06, 2020, 02:52:53 PM
I am a little surprised by the EXTENT to which you will argue regardless of the hypocrisy inherent in your methods vs your disdain for CT methods, which mirror your own in some ways.
I think I'll just sit back and enjoy the irony inherent in the amount of 'hits' in the apollohoax bingo card that follow this statement....
Quote
Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here?
Saying 'it's obvious' and using caps. That's two.
Quote
My point has been made to anyone with non-prejudiced critical thinking skills,
That's another.
Quote
and I am not here to argue incessantly with those who refuse, or are unable, to acknowledge my observation as described.
Refuse to engage. That's four...
Quote
That said, I am willing to elaborate further on ONE point of contention, of your choice, should you so desire,
Attempting to dictate how the discussion may continue. That's five...
And overall, failure to grasp how conclusion and argument can be diferent in different circumstances also noted. Continuing refusal to engage in points already raised (like the fact that Trump and von braun are not comparable for many reasons, not the least being that von Braun's Nazi past was a very specific and very short part of his life overall, while Trump's behaviour and attitude is an ongoing and consistent phenomenon) also noted. The score is pretty high. not sure if I've got a bingo yet...
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 06, 2020, 03:45:01 PM
Wow. This has been a VERY enlightening window into the human psyche. Not totally unexpected at face value, rather I am a little surprised by the EXTENT to which you will argue regardless of the hypocrisy inherent in your methods vs your disdain for CT methods, which mirror your own in some ways.
Your issue with my original post seems to be that I never actually heard Trump ask for the Office of Congressional Ethics to be dismantled, so I'm just speculating. Therefore, I'm acting like a conspiracy theorist.
You're right, I wasn't in the private meetings held between Trump and the other Republicans prior to that shady vote. But I don't need to personally witness these discussions to know that the Republicans would not have made such a controversial move if they thought the President wouldn't support it. But sure... since that is all I had to go on, it only proves that everyone in the Republican party is corrupt except Trump.
But we knew he was corrupt before he ever ran for President. People and small businesses that did work for the Trump Organization were stiffed, and some went bankrupt. We knew he ran a phony university that scammed poor people who were desperate to turn their lives around. We knew he stole from a charity. None of those things were speculation leading up to the election. We knew who he was, and still is, and yet some people are okay with electing a crook.
I don't know about you, but I need to be able to trust the people I vote for. Trump has repeatedly proved that he can't be trusted.
Quote
I understand there has not been a lot of time since her posts. but I also notice no one else is calling gillianren out on her logical fallacy.
Latest example:
No. No, that's wrong. If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis. That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them. And if you are . . . .
Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here? From all your posts in the CT forum, you darn well should.
Going back to before the election, Trump was asked to disavow the endorsement of David Duke and groups like the KKK. It should be pretty easy to do for anyone who is not a racist, but Trump would not do it. Why? Was winning the election so important to him that he was not willing to lose the votes of racists? Or is he racist too? Is there are difference?
Will Trump condemn white supremacists? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft9zgLT6Nss)
To paraphrase Andrew Gillum... Trump might not be a racist, but the racists think he's a racist.
If you are willing to overlook all of Trump's corrupt behaviour just because you like one or two of the good things that he has done (or taken credit for) then I think it says something about you. You might not be a racist, but it certainly doesn't look good when you support a man who is.
There are other people who can do the job just as good or better than Trump without all of the negatives that come with him.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 06, 2020, 06:05:05 PM
Lunar Orbiter, You stated:QuoteTrump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.
As previously mentioned, I have not read through the bulk of the posts, but I ask you - do you still stand by that post? And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?
Wait a second. I just went back and re-read my original post in this thread. Here is the FULL quote of what I said:
I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress.
For starters: remember when Trump (and the Republican party) ran on the promise to "drain the swamp"? Remember when I expressed concern about Trump's behaviour and was told that "he didn't really mean the things he was saying", and even if he did there are "checks and balances" in place to prevent it? Well, ha ha, funny story...
With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office - NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)Quote"Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."
- Nancy Pelosi
Trump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.
I think you're being dishonest, MBDK (a trait of conspiracy theorists). I never even blamed the vote to gut the OCE on Trump. I said it was done by the Republicans. And that is 100% true, regardless of whether or not Trump directed them to do it. And it doesn't matter if the decision was reversed, they still wanted to do it, and that should tell you all you need to know about their corrupt intentions.
I also started the thread by saying "I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress."
So tell me again... what exactly do I need to retract?
Post by: MBDK on January 07, 2020, 02:26:51 AM
Wait a second. I just went back and re-read my original post in this thread.I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress.
For starters: remember when Trump (and the Republican party) ran on the promise to "drain the swamp"? Remember when I expressed concern about Trump's behaviour and was told that "he didn't really mean the things he was saying", and even if he did there are "checks and balances" in place to prevent it? Well, ha ha, funny story...
With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office - NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)Quote"Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."
- Nancy Pelosi
Trump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.
I think you're being dishonest, MBDK (a trait of conspiracy theorists). I never even blamed the vote to gut the OCE on Trump. I said it was done by the Republicans. And that is 100% true, regardless of whether or not Trump directed them to do it. And it doesn't matter if the decision was reversed, they still wanted to do it, and that should tell you all you need to know about their corrupt intentions.
I also started the thread by saying "I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress."
So tell me again... what exactly do I need to retract?
*sheepishly looks down at feet and toes the ground*
Nothing...
Somehow I missed your reply #10, where you admitted the independent ethics body had NOT been eviscerated and acknowledged that Trump had intervened. So, upon my re-read of that post, I retract my questions (listed: do you still stand by that post? And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?), as that was the crux of my original (mis)observation.
*straightens up, thumbing suspenders to exaggerate a puffed out chest*
However, I do stand by my other criticisms to the responses I have received, and as an inconsequential side note - Congress is not controlled by the Republicans, as they only control the Senate.
Post by: VQ on January 07, 2020, 04:30:09 AM
as an inconsequential side note - Congress is not controlled by the Republicans, as they only control the Senate.
Oh, really... and who controlled congress on January 03, 2017 when the words you are quoting were written?
Post by: gillianren on January 07, 2020, 11:07:07 AM
Post by: VQ on January 07, 2020, 11:40:51 AM
Example: Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -
"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."
Since you mention it - yes, Braun's former Nazi membership would have absolutely disqualified him from public office in my opinion as a voter. That doesn't automatically make either Braun or Trump guilty of any specific crime/conspiracy theory, it just means that they are unfit to be president.
Post by: MBDK on January 07, 2020, 01:27:46 PM
Oh, really... and who controlled congress on January 03, 2017 when the words you are quoting were written?No one.
https://www.mic.com/articles/161913/who-controls-the-house-of-representatives-here-s-what-house-will-look-like-in-2017
Post by: MBDK on January 07, 2020, 01:35:29 PM
Okay, here's a point I'd like. If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.
Post by: MBDK on January 07, 2020, 01:37:49 PM
Since you mention it - yes, Braun's former Nazi membership would have absolutely disqualified him from public office in my opinion as a voter. That doesn't automatically make either Braun or Trump guilty of any specific crime/conspiracy theory, it just means that they are unfit to be president.Not sure what you are trying to say by including Trump in this particular way. Since he has never been a Nazi, how does this relate?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 07, 2020, 01:42:51 PM
Oh, really... and who controlled congress on January 03, 2017 when the words you are quoting were written?No one.
https://www.mic.com/articles/161913/who-controls-the-house-of-representatives-here-s-what-house-will-look-like-in-2017
What are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress)
Quote
The One Hundred Fifteenth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It met in Washington, D.C. from January 3, 2017, to January 3, 2019, during the final weeks of Barack Obama's presidency and the first two years of Donald Trump's presidency.
House Majority: Republican
Senate Majority: Republican
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 07, 2020, 01:53:19 PM
Okay, here's a point I'd like. If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.
People aren't objecting to the assassination of a General in Iran's military because it was ordered by a Republican President and the Democrats are just contradicting whatever he does for political reasons. They object to it because we haven't even wrapped up the last 19 years of costly (in money and blood) war, and now Trump is going to start another endless war. It was a shortsighted and reckless decision that is going to have terrible consequences.
Trump and his team of idiots have been pushing for a war since before the election. Iran was moving towards peace before he came along and made a mess of it.
I'll ask you the same thing I have been asking other Trump supporters: are you going to go fight in the Iran war? Will you send your children to enlist in the military? Or do you just want other people to sacrifice their lives on your behalf? It's easy to support a war when it poses no risk to you or your family.
Post by: MBDK on January 07, 2020, 02:03:34 PM
What are you talking about?Some alternate universe, apparently. Somehow I got 2017 and 2019 mixed up. I am not going to claim this as an excuse, but I think it is in my (and clarity's) best interest to refrain from further discussion until I have conquered this cold I am fighting, get off the associated meds, and catch up on my sleep. My apologies for the mistake, and inconvenience.
Oh, and thank you for the much needed corrections.
Post by: VQ on January 07, 2020, 03:03:37 PM
Not sure what you are trying to say by including Trump in this particular way. Since he has never been a Nazi, how does this relate?
I was modifying your analogy to be accurate. To recap, the associations are:
Braun: former Nazi.
Trump: misogynist narcissist swindling boor.
You correctly noted that the CT hypothesis of Braun, former Nazi then NASA career something something HOAX!!!, is inaccurate. I agree that:
a. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior does not make him automatically guilty of any specific malfeasance in office, just like Braun didn't automatically fake the moon landings because he once was a Nazi.
But no one is claiming that it does, so (a) is a straw man. I then modified the analogy to make it germane:
b. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior precludes him from being fit for elected public office (in my opinion as a voter), just as Braun's pre-NASA behavior would have precluded him from being fit for elected public office (in my opinion as a voter).
I am not going to claim this as an excuse, but I think it is in my (and clarity's) best interest to refrain from further discussion until I have conquered this cold I am fighting, get off the associated meds, and catch up on my sleep. My apologies for the mistake, and inconvenience.
I hope you feel better. Once you are back to 100% and reading this, can I suggest that maybe you could have jumped to some other conclusions prematurely in this thread, along with the ones we've already highlighted?
Post by: gillianren on January 07, 2020, 03:47:58 PM
Okay, here's a point I'd like. If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.
So if another country had considered our leadership guilty of war crimes for what we have done--"enhanced interrogation," etc.--would they be justified in assassinating our leaders?
Post by: VQ on January 07, 2020, 03:48:23 PM
I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.You say you are no fan of Trump, but you sure do spout the party line predictably.
Soleimani was commander of the Quds force. As such he was not a friend of the United States, but that doesn't make him a "dedicated killer of Americans". He (more specifically, the force he commanded) trained Shia militias in Syria and Iraq, some of which have subsequently attacked Americans. Those same militias also fought in coordination with the Americans (or more specifically, American air power) against ISIS. The various situations in the Middle East are complex and dangerous.
Historically, assassinating commanders of irregular forces hasn't been an effective strategy: it turns the leaders into martyrs, while there are always more personnel available to take on the leadership role. Assassinating a general of organized special forces doesn't seem to be likely to be any more effective, and has far more significant strategic and grand strategic drawbacks (ie, the loss of the Iraqi government as a regional ally). So Trump gets criticized for the apparently unnecessarily inflammatory and destabilizing action.
As we are not at war with Iran, it is illegal under US and international law to assassinate its military leadership with one key exception - if done in self defense against an imminent attack. The Republicans have vaguely alluded to an imminent attack, but haven't provided details publicly. All indications are that they haven't provided an imminent justification to Congress internally, either. So, Trump gets criticized for the apparently illegal action.
The timing of the attack, the day after the release of devastating (and previously redacted with no legal basis) emails regarding Trump and Ukraine, also stinks.
So no, I don't think that in this example the Democrats are just as bad.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 07, 2020, 04:49:56 PM
I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.
Whether you consider it a good thing or not is largely irrelevant, since the point is that the way it was done was illegal, and that Trump flat out stated the US would merrily commit war crimes in retaliation. 'They can kill our people but we can't touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way', he said. Well actually it does work that way, as explicitly stated in UN agreements on the rules of military conflicts that were drawn up precisely because previously that was just the kind of thing that people did, and just the kind of thing ISIS were doing and being condemned for not so long ago.
A recurring pattern of this last three years has been Trump saying he will do something, a whole bunch of his officials pointing out that actually they can't do that thing, and him repeating the statement that they will do it.
Personally I consider killing leading figures pointless, because it's a classic trope from fiction that doesn't hold in reality. If the organisation exists and the means for it to carry on doing what it does exist, it will carry on because someone else will fill the gap. Tell me you've eradicated a threat by wiping out weapons caches, training facilities, military establishments, fine. Tell me it's a big victory because you killed one person and I'll wonder which boy's own comic you've been reading instead of getting sound military advice. Would killing Trump eredicate the republican party? No, of course not. So why should killing this one general end a supposed threat? All it's done is make a martyr and further piss off Iran. How is that a good thing?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 07, 2020, 04:58:51 PM
a. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior does not make him automatically guilty of any specific malfeasance in office, just like Braun didn't automatically fake the moon landings because he once was a Nazi.
I still stand by my point when comparing these two men that von Braun's controversial past was a short chapter in his life that was well and truly over by the time he rose to prominence as the man who helped put humankind on the Moon, while Trump's pattern of behaviour has been ongoing hsi entire life. Let's say hypothetically that von Braun were running for office at the same age as Trump was when he ran. While I would consider both of them unfit for office, I'd be far more willing to let a man who had a short period of his life in the Nazi party but had subsequently built a history showing no sympathy with their policies and become a respected member of his community and widely liiked around the world take office than someone with a long, uninterrupted, consistent pattern of behaviour showing him to have no real interest in anything except personal achievement and fame, a clearly racist, misogynistic and bigoted attitude to all and sundry, and a total disdain for anyone less well off than himself. A man who has done something to advance humanity's achievements versus someone only interested in his own.
My biggest issue with the whole business of Trump as President is that his attitude and behaviour were clear to everyone, and so naturally we get more of the same while he is in office, now made worse by his belief that he is unassailable in his position and can do what the hell he wants. Does that make him incapable of making 'good' choices and doing good deeds with his positon? Not at all. It does make it surprising, however.
Post by: gillianren on January 08, 2020, 11:01:57 AM
Post by: MBDK on January 11, 2020, 12:48:08 PM
Posters in this discussion topic sometimes use untrue, illogical and/or exaggerated claims, as well as other tactics often used by CTs, and should be mindful of such actions.
A couple of recent examples:
But I don't need to personally witness these discussions to know that the Republicans would not have made such a controversial move if they thought the President wouldn't support it. But sure... since that is all I had to go on, it only proves that everyone in the Republican party is corrupt except Trump.Claiming to "know" something that differs from actual evidence is a prime illustration of my point. This is even clearer when your "insight" into what really went on differs 180 degrees from this article by what can be considered a political ally of yours, one of the left-leaning news outlets -
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html
Post by: MBDK on January 11, 2020, 12:54:50 PM
He was convicted, twice, in a court of law of not renting to black people.His company SETTLED twice, with no admission of guilt. That is not a conviction, nor does it necessarily indicate his personal view(s).
Making what I assume to be an honest mistake, yet still an untrue statement only shows how facts can get twisted inside our heads. Happened to me a couple of times in this discussion.
Post by: MBDK on January 11, 2020, 12:57:47 PM
You correctly noted that the CT hypothesis of Braun, former Nazi then NASA career something something HOAX!!!, is inaccurate. I agree that:Which is my point.
a. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior does not make him automatically guilty of any specific malfeasance in office, just like Braun didn't automatically fake the moon landings because he once was a Nazi.
But no one is claiming that it does, so (a) is a straw man.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 11, 2020, 01:10:27 PM
He was convicted, twice, in a court of law of not renting to black people.His company SETTLED twice, with no admission of guilt. That is not a conviction, nor does it necessarily indicate his personal view(s).
His company settled after a countersuit was thrown out. Now why settle out of court if there is no case to answer?
When you reach a certain level of wealth, legal fines and penalties just become fees. Who gives a toss about a fifty grand lawsuit when one has billions in the bank? Trump is one of a small group of people in this world with enough money to buy his way out of legal issues, and has demonstrated time and time again that admission of guilt is something he is simply incapable of doing even if it is blatantly obvious he is guilty. He won't even admit a simple mistake, much less cuplability in any criminal or civil proceeding.
Post by: MBDK on January 11, 2020, 01:20:50 PM
As for Trump, I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here, but not always to the extent they have been taken. He is not a very likable person, has many faults and this country deserves better leadership. Still, In my opinion, he is not the demon leftists make him out to be, either. His major tactic is a salesman's one I mentioned to my friends prior to taking office. Ask for the sea, when all you really want is a drop - anything more is a win (to the salesman).
So, as I have no real interest in discussing a lot of things at length, I am going to withdraw from this topic, unless there is something of particular importance you feel should be mentioned. Thank you.
Post by: rocketman on January 12, 2020, 09:41:59 AM
No. No, that's wrong. If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis. That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them. And if you are . . . .
Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here?
I'm not sure what the contradictory message is here, but the "logic" used is discussed here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
under "Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy".
I found some statements by Gillianren that are rather complimentary of Hillary Clinton. If we assume that she voted for Clinton, then she is "willing to side with them", "them" being the other 65,841,141 Clinton voters. But Gillianren is not responsible for the beliefs and actions of those 65,841,141 people; she is responsible for her own. Similarly, a Trump voter is not responsible for what the 62,976,216 other Trump voters believe or do; s/he is responsible for his/her own beliefs and actions.
If supporting Trump (or Clinton, or anyone else for that matter) is objectively a bad thing, then one should be able to show that without examining the moral qualities of other people who support Trump (or Clinton or whomever).
For what it's worth, I'm going to make myself really popular by quoting one of your earlier statements, that seems to have kicked off this whole flurry:
Quote
However, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.
I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember. I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy. I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing. Etc.
Why anyone would find your observation in the least bit objectionable is beyond me. The sentiment "I don't like Trump" (substitute anyone else you like) does not require one to reach the conclusion "every criticism of Trump is a valid one", or "no critic of Trump is ever hypocritical". Furthermore, arguing that some criticisms of Trump are invalid, or that some critics of Trump are hypocritical, does not make one a Trump supporter. And yet internet logic frequently comes up short of real logic :(
Post by: VQ on January 12, 2020, 10:00:26 AM
Which is my point.
Your point is that you agree no one is making the claim you are debunking?
Post by: gillianren on January 12, 2020, 12:20:52 PM
And why assume his stated preference for not renting to black people was an honest mistake?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 12, 2020, 12:46:23 PM
Okay, I am much better, health-wise, except for a few infrequent times when I cough like a bad engine. So, to elaborate somewhat on my point, which to be clear is:
Posters in this discussion topic sometimes use untrue, illogical and/or exaggerated claims, as well as other tactics often used by CTs, and should be mindful of such actions.
A couple of recent examples:But I don't need to personally witness these discussions to know that the Republicans would not have made such a controversial move if they thought the President wouldn't support it. But sure... since that is all I had to go on, it only proves that everyone in the Republican party is corrupt except Trump.Claiming to "know" something that differs from actual evidence is a prime illustration of my point. This is even clearer when your "insight" into what really went on differs 180 degrees from this article by what can be considered a political ally of yours, one of the left-leaning news outlets -
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html
Which, again, he only did after there was a public outcry. So his actions after getting caught don't necessarily reflect his true beliefs.
The President has to sign any bill put forward by Congress before it can become law. So like I said, the Republicans wouldn't have made a move like that if they thought Donald Trump wouldn't support it. Is that speculation? Sure... but to say it is illogical is a stretch. Why would Congress put forward any laws that they didn't expect the President to support, especially when both the majority of Congress and the President are from the same party? It seems to me that it is your argument that is illogical.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 12, 2020, 02:17:10 PM
I found some statements by Gillianren that are rather complimentary of Hillary Clinton. If we assume that she voted for Clinton, then she is "willing to side with them", "them" being the other 65,841,141 Clinton voters. But Gillianren is not responsible for the beliefs and actions of those 65,841,141 people; she is responsible for her own. Similarly, a Trump voter is not responsible for what the 62,976,216 other Trump voters believe or do; s/he is responsible for his/her own beliefs and actions.
I don't want to speak for Gillianren, but I think you're misunderstanding her. She isn't saying "Joe the Trump Voter" is responsible for the behaviour of other Trump voters. He might have voted for Trump for a variety of perfectly normal reasons, such as the economy or loyalty to the Republican party. But if a large group of racists endorse Donald Trump and he refuses to disavow them it makes it appear that he agrees with their racist beliefs, which if true, would make him a racist. At that point "Joe the Trump Voter" is now supporting a racist President, even if that's not why he supports him.
If you are willing to ignore that the President is racist when you vote for him... well, I guess it means you don't consider Trump being a racist to be a deal breaker.
There are other Republicans who can do the job without bringing racism to the table. You don't need to vote for Donald Trump just to give the Republican party the win.
Quote
If supporting Trump (or Clinton, or anyone else for that matter) is objectively a bad thing, then one should be able to show that without examining the moral qualities of other people who support Trump (or Clinton or whomever).
If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people", then I would agree that it would be unfair to associate him with those racists. And I would agree that it would be unfair to associate the non-racist Republicans with the racist ones. But as I explained above, if Trump supports racists and you support Trump, it means you're supporting a racist.
Quote
For what it's worth, I'm going to make myself really popular by quoting one of your earlier statements, that seems to have kicked off this whole flurry:QuoteHowever, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.
This "whole flurry" was kicked off by MBDK taking what I said out of context. I stated in my original post that I wanted this thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions of Trump and the Republican controlled Congress. I gave as an example a vote held by Republicans just hours earlier that aimed to dismantle an independent ethics office. I posted about it before the vote was eventually reversed, but regardless, I still think it says a lot about Republicans that that was their first action upon being sworn in. But MBDK wants you to believe I was unfairly pinning this on Donald Trump, that it was all unfair speculation that was not based on fact... like a conspiracy theorist.
The FACT that the Republicans voted to gut the OCE is undeniable. It is perfectly logical to believe the Republicans would have only done it if they though the President would support it since the President must sign bills before they can become law. It would be illogical to believe that they would try something like that if they had known Trump would reject it.
Since MBDK has failed to explain why I need to retract my original post, maybe you would like to take a crack at it.
Quote
QuoteHowever, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember. I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy. I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing. Etc.
I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past. As an outsider looking in, I can only say that I see no equivalence between the two parties.
Republicans have been trying for decades to smear the reputation of the Clintons, Obamas, and other Democrats. There have been countless investigations into the Clintons, and the latest one just quietly wrapped up without finding anything. The best the Republicans ever came up with was Bill's adultery. Republicans have even sunk so low as to spread fake rumours about Hillary running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant that doesn't have a basement. Republicans flock to people like Alex Jones who spread garbage like the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory. They perpetuate birtherism and other racist conspiracy theories about the Obamas. They even made a big deal out of President Obama wearing a tan suit for some reason.
Meanwhile, all the Democrats have done is investigate the mere possibility that Trump is (either wittingly or unwittingly) working to benefit the Russians. It is not unreasonable to want to protect your country from foreign influence, and whether you believe it or not, Trump has given plenty of reasons why he can't be trusted. It is clear that he is, at the very least, vulnerable to being coerced by foreign agents due to his financial debts and personal lifestyle. He has already had a lot of secrets come out (ie. Stormy Daniels, the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) so it's not difficult to believe he has more secrets that the Russians could use against him. He has also had business dealings in Russia that make him susceptible to their influence. These are perfectly reasonable things to be concerned about, and he even feeds those concerns by being more friendly to dictators than he is to the democratically elected leaders of your closest allies. He will gladly insult Justin Trudeau or Angela Merkel, but has nothing but praise for Vladimir Putin.
So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.
Post by: MBDK on January 12, 2020, 03:11:49 PM
I'm not sure what the contradictory message is here, but the "logic" used is discussed here,Her contradictory message is the thinly veiled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
under "Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy".
I'm not saying you're a _____, but you're a ______.
Although, by her latest post, she still doesn't seem to get it (the association fallacy). Perhaps she hasn't had time to review your link?
Regardless, I thank you for showing understanding of what I was getting at, and want to re-emphasize that I have been and can be as guilty as anyone of doing the very things I mentioned. I just think being aware of, and on guard for, such unintentional (I assume) logical lapses can make us all better thinkers, writers and doers.
Post by: MBDK on January 12, 2020, 06:11:56 PM
Which, again, he only did after there was a public outcry. So his actions after getting caught don't necessarily reflect his true beliefs.Except when you want them to. Still, conjecture by you. Even liberal CNN had a different opinion, as stated in the link I previously provided. At least be honest enough to admit it.
Post by: MBDK on January 12, 2020, 06:46:48 PM
If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people"Which he has, but since you are now so invested in your position, why would YOU bother to honestly check the facts? Took me less than 5 seconds for video of KKK position.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?
The Nazi thing is also entirely out-of-context and untrue. But, it is so ingrained in the media, I had to spend 10 whole seconds to find his actual words.
From - (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html)
(quote)
Here are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:
“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:
“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
(unquote)
then I would agree that it would be unfair to associate him with those racistsWell?
it was all unfair speculation that was not based on fact... like a conspiracy theorist.I only used the term "speculation". Unless you are talking pure fantasy, ALL speculation involves some facts...JUST like a CT's argument.
Since MBDK has failed to explain why I need to retract my original post, maybe you would like to take a crack at it.Did you forget, or not even read Reply#636? My response to your question regarding retraction(s) from your OP? In case you missed it, here is the relevant portion of my concession:
Somehow I missed your reply #10, where you admitted the independent ethics body had NOT been eviscerated and acknowledged that Trump had intervened. So, upon my re-read of that post, I retract my questions (listed: do you still stand by that post? And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?), as that was the crux of my original (mis)observation.
*straightens up, thumbing suspenders to exaggerate a puffed out chest*
However, I do stand by my other criticisms to the responses I have received
So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.That is your prerogative, but I think evidence (as previously listed) does indicate some significant prejudice on your part.
Post by: rocketman on January 12, 2020, 08:43:21 PM
I found some statements by Gillianren that are rather complimentary of Hillary Clinton. If we assume that she voted for Clinton, then she is "willing to side with them", "them" being the other 65,841,141 Clinton voters. But Gillianren is not responsible for the beliefs and actions of those 65,841,141 people; she is responsible for her own. Similarly, a Trump voter is not responsible for what the 62,976,216 other Trump voters believe or do; s/he is responsible for his/her own beliefs and actions.
I don't want to speak for Gillianren, but I think you're misunderstanding her. She isn't saying "Joe the Trump Voter" is responsible for the behaviour of other Trump voters. He might have voted for Trump for a variety of perfectly normal reasons, such as the economy or loyalty to the Republican party. But if a large group of racists endorse Donald Trump and he refuses to disavow them it makes it appear that he agrees with their racist beliefs, which if true, would make him a racist. At that point "Joe the Trump Voter" is now supporting a racist President, even if that's not why he supports him.
These things are quite simple.
Either Trump is a racist, or he isn't. How do we know whether he is a racist or not? We can examine his public statements, his policies, his private actions, etc., for evidence of racism, however we choose to define it.
If one concludes that he is not racist, or that he is racist but it is OK to vote for him for other reasons, or that he is racist but being racist is perfectly OK for presidential candidates, or whatever other reason, then what difference does it make who the KKK or the Nazis do or do not support? If David Duke runs for the presidency and the KKK and the Nazis support him instead, is it suddenly more palatable to vote for Trump, because look at me, there aren't as many racists standing next to me! If there are non-racist Trump supporters, should the KKK and the Nazis take pride in the way they are standing with non-racists?
If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people", then I would agree that it would be unfair to associate him with those racists.
Trump calling Nazis marching in the streets "fine people" is not an example of Nazis supporting Trump; it is an example of Trump supporting Nazis. Here is what Gillianren said:
Quote
No. No, that's wrong. If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis. That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them. And if you are . . . .
If you change "also supported by . . . Nazis" to "who supports Nazis", the logical fallacy disappears. If you want to argue that Trump is a racist, that seems a much more palatable solution to me than attempting to defend the logical fallacy.
Regarding the first one, I can speculate that the reason Trump doesn't condemn KKK supporters is because he supports them. I could also speculate that he doesn't condemn them is because he wants to win an election, and has concluded condemning them harms his chances. (Also note that the two explanations are not exclusive.) Perhaps there are other explanations as well.
Oddly enough, it seems Trump has common cause with Muslims here, who are routinely accused of supporting terrorism whenever there is a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims, and they fail to condemn it with sufficient vigour. (And sometimes even when they do condemn the attack.)
Personally, I feel there is so much direct, unambiguous evidence on this point, I'm astounded that anyone would feel they have to resort to a logical fallacy to try to make the case.
This "whole flurry" was kicked off by MBDK taking what I said out of context. I stated in my original post that I wanted this thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions of Trump and the Republican controlled Congress. I gave as an example a vote held by Republicans just hours earlier that aimed to dismantle an independent ethics office. I posted about it before the vote was eventually reversed, but regardless, I still think it says a lot about Republicans that that was their first action upon being sworn in. But MBDK wants you to believe I was unfairly pinning this on Donald Trump, that it was all unfair speculation that was not based on fact... like a conspiracy theorist.
Fair enough, if the statement was made in a specific context, then perhaps it is incorrect.
If it's a general statement, then I happen to agree with it.
I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past.
Perhaps it would be better to focus on what I said, rather than what you suspect my motives might be.
Here's what I actually said.
Quote
I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember. I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy. I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing. Etc.
I've read it again, and I stand by every part of that statement. Do you have any objection to what I actually said?
So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.
Have a read about another type of logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 12, 2020, 09:00:42 PM
Which, again, he only did after there was a public outcry. So his actions after getting caught don't necessarily reflect his true beliefs.Except when you want them to. Still, conjecture by you. Even liberal CNN had a different opinion, as stated in the link I previously provided. At least be honest enough to admit it.
I have said multiple times already that my belief that Trump supported the vote to gut the OCE was based on conjecture. But I also said in my original post (the one that triggered you) that the purpose of this topic is to chronicle corruption and bad decisions by the President AND the Republicans in Congress. Gutting an independent ethics body is the act of someone who wants to commit corrupt acts without oversight. So I really don't see the problem with what I said.
If you believe that people should always be trusted despite their past corrupt behaviour, then good for you. Most people would not forgive repeat offenders as easily as you do.
Not trusting politicians (especially the ones that have given us multiple reasons to not be trusted) is hardly a trait unique to conspiracy theorists. If I had said "Trump has a secret room full of Illuminati and Free Mason artifacts" I could understand your accusations that I was acting like a conspiracy theorist. But my distrust of Trump is grounded in reality, and based on verifiable and observed behaviour on his part. I'm not making anything up, I'm responding to his public actions (or inaction) and words (or silence when words should flow easily), and the fact that he has been taken to court on multiple occasions for his corrupt behaviour.
Do you know what IS a trait of a conspiracy theorist? Ignoring overwhelming evidence that conflicts with a preconceived belief. There is a mountain of evidence that Donald Trump is corrupt and can't be trusted, but you are ignoring it because of some kind of loyalty.
If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people"Which he has, but since you are now so invested in your position, why would YOU bother to honestly check the facts? Took me less than 5 seconds for video of KKK position.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?
Your link doesn't work. I'll assuming it's a video of Trump disavowing racists groups, or a racist group expressing disapproval of something Trump did.
I already linked to a CNN interview with Trump in which he refused to disavow David Duke's endorsement prior to the 2016 election. I'm sure he has learned since then that that is a bad look for him, so he probably won't make the same mistake twice. But I think anyone ought to know who the KKK is at this point, so his pretending to not be aware of them was pretty ridiculous. And how hard is it to just say "I don't support what they stand for, and I disavow their endorsement."?
Quote
The Nazi thing is also entirely out-of-context and untrue. But, it is so ingrained in the media, I had to spend 10 whole seconds to find his actual words.
From - (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html)QuoteHere are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:
“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:
“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
Oh, so he suddenly knows who Nazis and white supremacists are now? Why did he pretend to not know anything about them when Jake Tapper asked him to disavow their endorsement?
I would be more willing to believe Trump misspoke or was misunderstood if it was the only example of him being racist. But since his immigration policies have been extremely harsh for anyone that isn't white, I'll lean towards believing he is. He could also make it easier to believe he isn't a racist if he fired Stephen Miller, who unquestionably IS a racist.
Quote
So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.That is your prerogative, but I think evidence (as previously listed) does indicate some significant prejudice on your part.
All of my reasons for distrusting Trump come from his known behaviour, and the fact that he has been taken to court multiple times for it. What I don't get is how anyone can see how he has behaved in the past and still trust him enough to manage a paper route, nevermind the country.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 12, 2020, 09:35:51 PM
I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past.
Perhaps it would be better to focus on what I said, rather than what you suspect my motives might be.
Here's what I actually said.QuoteI happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember. I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy. I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing. Etc.
I've read it again, and I stand by every part of that statement. Do you have any objection to what I actually said?
I'm objecting to the idea that anything the Democrats have ever done (at least in my lifetime) has even come close to the levels of blatant corruption exhibited by Republicans, especially the current Trump Republicans. This is specifically what I'm replying to:
Quote
I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.
When did the Democrats block a Supreme Court nomination the way McConnell blocked Merrick Garland? When did a Democrat President make almost weekly visits to a golf club that they owned in order to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense? When did a Democrat President ever permanently tarnish the reputations of the Department of Justice, FBI, and national intelligence agencies in order to cast doubt on their investigations into them? When did a Democrat President ever call into question the House's constitutional oversight duties or power to impeach? When has a Democrat President ever acted more friendly to a hostile dictator than they did to an ally?
Post by: gillianren on January 13, 2020, 11:13:50 AM
Also, you want documentation of Trump's racism? Have an entire Wikipedia page with information going back to the '70s. I didn't start calling Trump racist because he was President or Republican or anything like that. I started calling him racist because, pretty much as soon as I knew anything about him, it became clear he was racist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
Post by: gillianren on January 13, 2020, 11:15:27 AM
Post by: jfb on January 13, 2020, 01:02:05 PM
I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past.
Perhaps it would be better to focus on what I said, rather than what you suspect my motives might be.
Here's what I actually said.QuoteI happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember. I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy. I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing. Etc.
I've read it again, and I stand by every part of that statement. Do you have any objection to what I actually said?
I'm objecting to the idea that anything the Democrats have ever done (at least in my lifetime) has even come close to the levels of blatant corruption exhibited by Republicans, especially the current Trump Republicans. This is specifically what I'm replying to:QuoteI've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.
When did the Democrats block a Supreme Court nomination the way McConnell blocked Merrick Garland? When did a Democrat President make almost weekly visits to a golf club that they owned in order to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense? When did a Democrat President ever permanently tarnish the reputations of the Department of Justice, FBI, and national intelligence agencies in order to cast doubt on their investigations into them? When did a Democrat President ever call into question the House's constitutional oversight duties or power to impeach? When has a Democrat President ever acted more friendly to a hostile dictator than they did to an ally?
Democratic. Democratic Party. Democratic President.
Sorry, pet peeve. That's all. Back to your regularly scheduled freakout.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 13, 2020, 01:20:35 PM
Yeah, the thing about "oh, they weren't calling themselves Nazis" is that they were explicitly calling themselves Nazis, before Trump said they didn't. It was explicitly a Nazi protest. Everyone knew that except, I guess, Trump. And the people who want me to put his statement in context who are themselves missing the broader context of the known facts of the time.
I'm willing to give Trump a little bit of wiggle room in this case because the protests might have started peacefully, with a small number of people merely objecting to the removal of the statues, and I wouldn't necessarily put them in the same group as Nazis or the KKK. They might have believed the statues had historic value and shouldn't have been removed despite the negative racial connection. And Trump might have been trying to be diplomatic by trying not to put all of the blame on one side. But still, it's clear that on the day of the riots the people who wanted to keep the statues and weren't outright Nazis would have been very small, and the only reason the counter protesters showed up was because Nazis were marching in the streets.
But it's irrelevant, because like you said, it's hardly the only example of Trump being racist.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 13, 2020, 01:50:25 PM
Democratic. Democratic Party. Democratic President.
Thanks. I thought the Democrat/Democratic were interchangeable, but according to Wikipedia "Democrat" is really just an epithet used by Republicans. Good to know.
Quote
Back to your regularly scheduled freakout.
I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.
Post by: jfb on January 13, 2020, 03:39:29 PM
Democratic. Democratic Party. Democratic President.
Thanks. I thought the Democrat/Democratic were interchangeable, but according to Wikipedia "Democrat" is really just an epithet used by Republicans. Good to know.QuoteBack to your regularly scheduled freakout.
I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.
Trump didn't do that. McConnell and Ryan did that. Trump's only caused as much damage as he has because he had willing partners in Congress and on the courts. McConnell will not let Trump be removed from office.
I used to think it was because the Russians had dirt on McConnell and other senior Republicans, but I don't believe that anymore - I think it's simply the notion of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Trump's a nitwit, but as long as he's President, McConnell can basically get anything he wants.
As I keep saying, Trump isn't the disease, he's merely a symptom of it. The dismantling of the US as a functioning democracy began decades ago. Blame television, blame cable news, blame social media, blame Newt Gingrich, truth is the GOP drove the car off the cliff in the '80s, we just haven't hit the bottom of the ravine yet.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 13, 2020, 04:08:31 PM
I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.
Trump didn't do that. McConnell and Ryan did that. Trump's only caused as much damage as he has because he had willing partners in Congress and on the courts. McConnell will not let Trump be removed from office.
I used to think it was because the Russians had dirt on McConnell and other senior Republicans, but I don't believe that anymore - I think it's simply the notion of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Trump's a nitwit, but as long as he's President, McConnell can basically get anything he wants.
As I keep saying, Trump isn't the disease, he's merely a symptom of it. The dismantling of the US as a functioning democracy began decades ago. Blame television, blame cable news, blame social media, blame Newt Gingrich, truth is the GOP drove the car off the cliff in the '80s, we just haven't hit the bottom of the ravine yet.
Oh, believe me, I agree that McConnell and all of the other Republicans who are protecting Trump (especially Lindsey Graham, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, Matt Gaetz, Bill Barr, and Doug Collins) are a big part of the problem. They might even be a bigger problem than Trump. But Trump isn't innocent. He's the one who Tweets 100 times a day about how you can't trust the DoJ, FBI, intelligence agencies, Congress, the free press, whistle blowers, career diplomats, decorated war veterans, or pretty much anyone else that tries to expose his corruption. He pushes the ridiculous "deep state" conspiracy theory. Those are the kinds of attacks on the "checks and balances" that I'm talking about.
And when I said Trump exposed the "ineffectiveness of the checks and balances" it means a lot of different things. The authors of the Constitution didn't seem to anticipate that the majority of Congressmen would circle around a corrupt President to protect him. That would require the entire majority party to be corrupt.
Post by: MBDK on January 13, 2020, 05:11:00 PM
I started calling him racist because, pretty much as soon as I knew anything about him, it became clear he was racist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_TrumpConfirmation bias? Democratic hypocrisy? Both sides have their points.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/repeat_with_me_leftists_trump_is_not_a_racist.html
Post by: MBDK on January 13, 2020, 05:28:28 PM
Your link doesn't work.Sorry about that.
Just shows how the left ignores reality and keeps pressing lies with impunity.
I already linked to a CNN interview with Trump in which he refused to disavow David Duke's endorsement prior to the 2016 election.I suggest you re-watch that link, and put it in its proper context with the one I just provided, then search your soul to see if you have enough integrity to admit you were wrong and/or fooled.
I would be more willing to believe Trump misspoke or was misunderstood if it was the only example of him being racist.How many of your old CT friends did you employ to help you move your goalposts? SMH
All of my reasons for distrusting Trump come from his known behaviour, and the fact that he has been taken to court multiple times for it. What I don't get is how anyone can see how he has behaved in the past and still trust him enough to manage a paper route, nevermind the country.Confirmation bias. On both side.
EDIT: And as a side note, from the evidence in this post, do you still wonder why there are concerns about "fake news"?
Post by: jfb on January 13, 2020, 06:56:05 PM
I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.
Trump didn't do that. McConnell and Ryan did that. Trump's only caused as much damage as he has because he had willing partners in Congress and on the courts. McConnell will not let Trump be removed from office.
I used to think it was because the Russians had dirt on McConnell and other senior Republicans, but I don't believe that anymore - I think it's simply the notion of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Trump's a nitwit, but as long as he's President, McConnell can basically get anything he wants.
As I keep saying, Trump isn't the disease, he's merely a symptom of it. The dismantling of the US as a functioning democracy began decades ago. Blame television, blame cable news, blame social media, blame Newt Gingrich, truth is the GOP drove the car off the cliff in the '80s, we just haven't hit the bottom of the ravine yet.
Oh, believe me, I agree that McConnell and all of the other Republicans who are protecting Trump (especially Lindsey Graham, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, Matt Gaetz, Bill Barr, and Doug Collins) are a big part of the problem. They might even be a bigger problem than Trump. But Trump isn't innocent. He's the one who Tweets 100 times a day about how you can't trust the DoJ, FBI, intelligence agencies, Congress, the free press, whistle blowers, career diplomats, decorated war veterans, or pretty much anyone else that tries to expose his corruption. He pushes the ridiculous "deep state" conspiracy theory. Those are the kinds of attacks on the "checks and balances" that I'm talking about.
And when I said Trump exposed the "ineffectiveness of the checks and balances" it means a lot of different things. The authors of the Constitution didn't seem to anticipate that the majority of Congressmen would circle around a corrupt President to protect him. That would require the entire majority party to be corrupt.
Yeah.
The framers didn't anticipate a lot of things. There's a reason Senators originally were not chosen by popular vote.
I mean, yeah, Trump's got issues, but in a sane country he wouldn't have been elected President in the first place. He wouldn't have made it into the primaries, much less be the nominee. Yeah, the GOP is fantastically corrupt (on the national level, at least), but the voters put Trump in office.
This mess is on the people of the United States. This is on the people who voted for McConnell, Ryan, Nunes, etc., the people who voted for Trump, and the Democrats who stayed home because their favored unicorn didn't win. Okay, and the Democratic National Committee.
Oh yes, there's a special place in Hell for a certain segment of Sanders supporters (not all of them, but a good chunk). They bear as much responsibility for Trump getting elected as anyone else. I'm an easy-going guy, but there were times at the state and county conventions where I wanted to take a tire iron to some of these people. Ignorant and entitled, such a lovely combination.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 13, 2020, 07:41:35 PM
Just shows how the left ignores reality and keeps pressing lies with impunity.
The left ignores reality? The left? You found a compilation of Trump disavowing the KKK after he was criticized for publicly refusing to do so. He only disavowed them when he realized it could cost him the election if he didn't.
You're also ignoring ALL of the other examples of his racism. Like the fact that for years he was a proponent of birtherism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdELrNvI9m4). He publicly accused Barack Obama of not being an American for no reason other than the fact that he has brown skin and a Muslim sounding name... because he thinks people with brown skin and Muslim names aren't "real Americans". My dad wasn't born in Canada... but strangely no one has ever asked me for my birth certificate when I applied for a job. Could it be because I have white skin and look like "a real Canadian"?
The Laura Ingraham Show, March 2011:
Quote
“He doesn’t have a birth certificate, or if he does, there’s something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me—and I have no idea whether this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be—that where it says ‘religion,’ it might have ‘Muslim.’ ” -- Donald Trump
He opposed the construction of a mosque new Ground Zero (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n4BKdfW5R4) because he believes the entire religion is responsible for the terrorism committed by some of it's followers.
He told 4 Democratic congresswomen to "go back to where they came from" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZnemqsCdI) even though 3 of them were born in the United States... because he thinks people with brown skin are not real Americans.
He tried to ban all Muslims from entering the United States (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo_nYQ6ItWM)... because he thinks all Muslims are terrorists.
He took out a full page ads in 4 major New York newspapers in 1989 calling for the death penalty for five black and Latino teens who were falsely accused of raping a white woman. They spent 15 years in prison before being exonerated by DNA evidence and the confession of the actual rapist. But Donald Trump called the settlement they were given "a disgrace", and during the 2016 campaign he insisted they were guilty (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-says-central-park-five-are-guilty-despite-dna-n661941).
Just because a racist says they aren't racist doesn't mean it's true. Actions speak louder than words.
Quote
I would be more willing to believe Trump misspoke or was misunderstood if it was the only example of him being racist.How many of your old CT friends did you employ to help you move your goalposts? SMH
I don't know, how many of your CT friends did you employ to help you ignore the tons of evidence that conflicts with your belief that Trump isn't racist?
Quote
All of my reasons for distrusting Trump come from his known behaviour, and the fact that he has been taken to court multiple times for it. What I don't get is how anyone can see how he has behaved in the past and still trust him enough to manage a paper route, nevermind the country.Confirmation bias. On both side.
Yes, there is certainly confirmation bias on your side. "Trump says he isn't racist. Case closed!"
Quote
EDIT: And as a side note, from the evidence in this post, do you still wonder why there are concerns about "fake news"?
Fake news like you find on Fox? Or maybe the fake news about Obama not being an American? Or the fake news that Obama was going to impose Sharia Law and take all your guns? Or the fake news about Hillary running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant? Yes, that is a concern.
Post by: MBDK on January 13, 2020, 08:19:37 PM
The left ignores reality? The left? You found a compilation of Trump disavowing the KKK after he was criticized for publicly refusing to do so. He only disavowed them when he realized it could cost him the election if he didn't.What an odd thing to say. Obviously you didn't watch and/or comprehend the link I provided, as his FIRST disavowal was from 2000.
So exactly WHO is denying reality...again?
You're also ignoring ALL of the other examples of his racism.How did I do that? MY comment included quoting the link that contained almost everything you just mentioned. That is actually the opposite of ignoring them. All I pointed out was a counter-argument, that clearly shows you have no smoking gun, and confirmation bias IS a very real thing.
I don't know, how many of your CT friends did you employ to help you ignore the tons of evidence that conflicts with your belief that Trump isn't racist?Since I am kind of a bulldog for science and reason, I don't really have any friends that are CT. And here YOU are claiming I ignored tons of evidence (which I didn't, as stated above), all the while ignoring the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts, yourself. Are you beginning to see a familiar pattern here?
Yes, there is certainly confirmation bias on your side. "Trump says he isn't racist. Case closed!"Denial of the other evidence i provided in my links is willful ignorance.
Fake news like you find on Fox? Or maybe the fake news about Obama not being an American? Or the fake news that Obama was going to impose Sharia Law and take all your guns? Or the fake news about Hillary running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant? Yes, that is a concern.Yes it is. Do you not agree the fake news from the liberal side is also of a concern?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 13, 2020, 08:55:54 PM
The left ignores reality? The left? You found a compilation of Trump disavowing the KKK after he was criticized for publicly refusing to do so. He only disavowed them when he realized it could cost him the election if he didn't.What an odd thing to say. Obviously you didn't watch and/or comprehend the link I provided, as his FIRST disavowal was from 2000.
Gee, for someone who isn't a racist, he sure has had to respond to people saying he's racist a lot, eh?
Quote
You're also ignoring ALL of the other examples of his racism.How did I do that? MY comment included quoting the link that contained almost everything you just mentioned.
What are you even talking about? What link? The one in your reply to Gillianren?
If that's the case, all I see it someone who is even more brainwashed than you basically saying "See, Trump can't be racist! He did something good for a black person!". None of it directly responds to the examples of his racism that I mentioned.
Quote
Since I am kind of a bulldog for science and reason, I don't really have any friends that are CT.
For the last 19 years I have spent much of my time debunking conspiracy theorists using science and reason, including here in this forum that I provide at no cost to you, but at great expense to me. Don't you DARE tell me that I am a conspiracy theorist. You can **** off any time now.
You have shut your eyes and ears to the many examples of Trump's lies, corruption, and racism; the same way that CTs shut their eyes and ears to the facts that conflict with their theories. I'm done giving you examples, because you're just going to ignore them.
Post by: MBDK on January 13, 2020, 10:58:42 PM
Gee, for someone who isn't a racist, he sure has had to respond to people saying he's racist a lot, eh?Look up the logical fallacy of "The Big Lie", as that is another tactic political parties use. That video, still directly contradicted your (and others') statement concerning his failure to disavow Duke and the KKK. Why can you not even admit that?
What are you even talking about? What link? The one in your reply to Gillianren?Yes. I quoted her statement which included the wiki link to all the Trump racist claims. Plenty of circumstantial evidence, but no smoking gun - just prejudicial interpretations, a.k.a. confirmation bias.
If that's the case, all I see it someone who is even more brainwashed than you basically saying "See, Trump can't be racist! He did something good for a black person!". None of it directly responds to the examples of his racism that I mentioned.Other than "confirmation bias", I never claimed to. YOU, on the other hand, said:
Just because a racist says they aren't racist doesn't mean it's true. Actions speak louder than words.So that was also why I provided the link with examples of his actions, but you seem to have forgotten your last quote already.
For the last 19 years I have spent much of my time debunking conspiracy theorists using science and reason, including here in this forum that I provide at no cost to you, but at great expense to me. Don't you DARE tell me that I am a conspiracy theorist. You can **** off any time now.Well, in that case, I do apologize. I was under the impression that you used to argue that there WAS a Moon Hoax, and that you had reasoned through it enough to change your mind. Still, per my previous assertion, oh so many posts ago, we are ALL able to fall into certain logically fallacious lines of reasoning, and my entire point was to try to point out what I saw as such lapses. Just as a CT can rigidly adhere to those tactics, I think we should be on guard to identify and prevent the same.
As for your suggestion of how to occupy my time, I will take your advice to heart and proceed to do so, as long as I can.
Oh, and thank YOU for the time, effort and money you have invested in this site. Despite any disagreement we may have on this topic, I have learned MANY valuable things from you and all the contributors here. Thank you all.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 13, 2020, 11:56:16 PM
Well, in that case, I do apologize. I was under the impression that you used to argue that there WAS a Moon Hoax, and that you had reasoned through it enough to change your mind. Still, per my previous assertion, oh so many posts ago, we are ALL able to fall into certain logically fallacious lines of reasoning, and my entire point was to try to point out what I saw as such lapses. Just as a CT can rigidly adhere to those tactics, I think we should be on guard to identify and prevent the same.
Let's summarize your participation in this thread so far:
You came here and replied to something I said 3 years ago and basically demanded a retraction for something that was 100% true then, and it still is. There were no logical fallacies, no speculation or rumours, and no distortion in what I said, but you still decided to single me out.
Later you admitted that you hadn't even bothered to read enough of the thread to determine one way or the other if your accusations were true. And now you're telling me that you don't even know enough about me to know that I have never been a conspiracy theorist, and that I've been debunking them for almost 20 years.
So you make accusations that are based on poor research, ignore evidence and facts that contradict your preconceived beliefs, make the same logical fallacies that you accuse us of, and then you accuse me of acting like a conspiracy theorist? Go look in the mirror.
Quote
As for your suggestion of how to occupy my time, I will take your advice to heart and proceed to do so, as long as I can.
See ya.
Post by: gillianren on January 14, 2020, 08:54:17 AM
"No smoking gun"? What would count as a smoking gun that proved Trump was a racist?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 14, 2020, 09:30:37 AM
He's conflating you with the original owner of the site, LO.
Yeah, that's what I figured.
Quote
"No smoking gun"? What would count as a smoking gun that proved Trump was a racist?
I think if Trump had a black man chained to a wall in the White House basement MBDK would still find a way to spin it. Trump says he isn't racist, so nothing else matters.
Post by: LionKing on January 16, 2020, 04:25:04 PM
Good news !
Post by: gillianren on January 17, 2020, 10:34:35 AM
Post by: jfb on January 17, 2020, 12:58:39 PM
Except for the part where many of the "impartial" Senators are actively working with the administration, and any number of them have flatly said they refuse to consider new evidence.
As badly as the Senate Democrats behaved during Clinton's impeachment, they never stated outright that they were going to work hand-in-hand with the White House during the trial phase (at least, not that I remember). And Mitch and Linds were staunch advocates of bringing in witnesses and opening up the scope of the investigation.
Hell burns hottest for hypocrites, but the Republican leadership in the Senate is setting all kinds of benchmarks for shamelessness. Yeah, you expect partisanship (impeachment is an inherently political process), but at the end of the day you want to believe that everyone has the country's best interests at heart (even if they disagree on what those best interests are). I don't believe that with this bunch. I honestly do not believe that Mitch and Linds and Marco give a rat's ass about anyone but themselves, and that they would happily screw over the proles if it meant enriching themselves and their friends.
I would not be at all surprised if at least one of these assholes suggests suspending elections in 2020 (in order to "protect democracy", you see - expect to hear accusations "voter fraud" cranked up to 11). We're already a police state, wouldn't take much to push us all the way into banana republic territory.
Post by: LionKing on January 18, 2020, 08:29:22 AM
Except for the part where many of the "impartial" Senators are actively working with the administration, and any number of them have flatly said they refuse to consider new evidence.
Then I think the people should go down to the streets to put pressure on them and show them that they are monitored
Post by: grmcdorman on January 18, 2020, 09:36:35 AM
Post by: gillianren on January 18, 2020, 12:07:38 PM
Post by: LionKing on January 18, 2020, 12:34:49 PM
Post by: grmcdorman on January 18, 2020, 05:44:20 PM
Thing is, he didn't get a majority of the vote. While the US is somewhat more skewed than most due to gerrymandering and the Electoral College system, any first past the post system suffers from a similar defect. This happened here in Ontario, Canada in the last provincial election: the party that won got only 40% of the vote. However, every other party got less than that.
The US also has the problem that the party lines have become so entrenched that there's almost no switching; Trump still enjoys a significant percentage of support in Republican voters, and has absolutely dismal support in Democrat Party voters. It's also got to the point that people loyal to one party automatically discount anything said or supported by the other party (although I hope the Democrat voters aren't quite as bad there).
Post by: gillianren on January 19, 2020, 11:58:09 AM
Post by: jfb on January 21, 2020, 01:21:40 PM
However, states can decide how to apportion electoral votes. We can lobby our various state legislatures to award electoral votes proportionally instead of winner-take-all. We can jigger the election process to use ranked-choice or some other method. There's lots of things we can do to make the situation suck a lot less. We just have to, you know, do it (become more active at the local and state level, participate in the process more, run for office instead of just voting, etc.).
Presidential candidates can also be smarter about how they campaign in hostile territory. Putting aside the misogyny (which was real) and Russian shenanigans, Clinton was a shit candidate with a shit campaign staff who had no idea (or desire) how to reach voters outside of big cities. Would she have won without Russian interference? Maybe. Probably. But it would have been closer than it should have, and it would have been her fault. She populated her campaign with grifters, hangers-on, and Anthony Weiner. She alienated whole swaths of Obama voters. Even though she was right with the "deplorables" comment, all that did was turn off people.
It's like Al Gore's loss to GWB. You're coming off the longest postwar expansion, you're following an extremely popular President, it shouldn't have even been close. People like to blame Nader, but it shouldn't have been close enough for Nader to make a difference. Gore was a shit candidate. He was awful on the campaign trail. And, yes, while what you do in office is what really matters, ya gotta get there first.
Post by: gillianren on January 22, 2020, 11:00:47 AM
Post by: jfb on January 22, 2020, 05:59:20 PM
I still don't understand how people blame the DNC for the quality of candidates. They can only support the people who run, after all--and Trump is definitely proof that it's possible to overrule the wishes of the party officials, who definitely would've preferred a more biddable candidate.
It's not so much that the DNC was responsible for Clinton being a bad candidate, but that they executed a number of public face-plants that gave ammunition to Clinton's main detractors (apart from the hacked emails). I mean, yes, they obviously preferred Clinton to Sanders (who wasn't even a Democrat before 2015), and in a normal year that wouldn't be newsworthy, but they helped fuel the "it's all riiiiiigged" caterwauling by the Berners, which weighed on the campaign.
Post by: gillianren on January 23, 2020, 11:07:35 AM
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 23, 2020, 11:17:02 AM
Technically, Sanders still isn't a Democrat.
And his supporters wonder why the Democratic party hasn't been supportive of his campaign. Why would they be if he's only a Democrat when he wants to run for President?
Post by: jfb on January 23, 2020, 05:27:01 PM
Technically, Sanders still isn't a Democrat.
And his supporters wonder why the Democratic party hasn't been supportive of his campaign. Why would they be if he's only a Democrat when he wants to run for President?
Berners by and large are ... not bright. Frankly, many of the ones I ran into at the county and state conventions in 2016 were cut from the same cloth as HBs like cambo. Ignorant and entitled. Also apparently incapable of simple arithmetic. Sanders actually won the primary in Travis County something like 51% to 49%, but the representation at the county convention was roughly 60% Clinton supporters, 40% Sanders supporters.
Now, the one core truth about politics is that you win by showing up. Even though Sanders had won the primary (barely), Sanders supporters simply did not show up to the county convention, and by a significant margin. Apparently, in Berner-world, you win simply by being more
It turned out that everyone who showed up at the county convention was eligible to be a delegate at the state level1. Towards the end of the day there was a resolution to forego precinct-level caucusing and automatically make everyone who showed up delegates for the state convention, which passed handily. The Sanders contingent pitched a blue-lipped fit, arguing that it wasn't faaaaaiiiir that they wouldn't get equal (or greater) representation based on who actually showed up. And they pointed out that of course fewer Sanders supporters showed up to the county convention because it was scheduled during SXSW, and everyone knew that young people overwhelmingly supported Sanders, so the whole process was disenfranchising and inherently biased against Bernie.
The dipshittery didn't end there, either. Shenanigans at the state convention had me wanting to hit people with a tire iron. I suddenly understood all the Truman-era Democrats at the 1968 convention in Chicago, wondering just what the hell was going on.
And when Bernie wasn't the nominee, they voted for Trump. Because.
1. Texas (or at least the Democratic Party in Texas) changed the rules in 2016. Prior to that year, we held both primaries (to select candidates) and caucuses (to select delegates to the county and state conventions). We did away with the caucus in 2016, so anyone who voted in the primary was eligible to go to the county convention. There were enough slots available at the state convention that everyone who showed up to the county convention was eligible to serve as a delegate to the state convention.
Post by: VQ on January 23, 2020, 09:52:17 PM
Berners by and large are ... not bright.
....
And when Bernie wasn't the nominee, they voted for Trump. Because.
Sheesh, that's a lot of hostility towards the ~43% of Democrats that voted for Sanders in the primaries. I can't help but feel that your feelings are more developed by exposure to a vocal minority.
12% of Bernie-primary voters voted for Trump in the general election, vs 8% for registered Democrats overall. That probably is a statistically significant difference, but it certainly isn't a majority.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 24, 2020, 09:17:47 AM
If the US had a sane and fair electoral system the Left would have its own party, so he wouldn't need to be.Technically, Sanders still isn't a Democrat.
And his supporters wonder why the Democratic party hasn't been supportive of his campaign. Why would they be if he's only a Democrat when he wants to run for President?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 24, 2020, 09:45:00 AM
If the US had a sane and fair electoral system the Left would have its own party, so he wouldn't need to be.
As a Canadian, I can say that having multiple federal parties to choose from isn't necessarily sane or good for the country. It leads to parties winning even though they don't have the majority of votes. So be careful what you wish for.
Post by: VQ on January 24, 2020, 11:04:59 AM
As a Canadian, I can say that having multiple federal parties to choose from isn't necessarily sane or good for the country. It leads to parties winning even though they don't have the majority of votes. So be careful what you wish for.
Our presidents keep winning without the plurality of the vote now, so I would say we are used to it. My impression is that multi-party coalition governments drive at least a modicum of different viewpoints talking to each other; would you say that is not really the case? Would a ranked choice voting system make the multiple party system work more smoothly?
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on January 24, 2020, 11:31:37 AM
That's a good thing. With multiple competing parties, assuming one party doesn't simply sweep all of the different elected positions, the fact that leaders don't have a strong majority support requires more cooperation and compromise to maintain their power. They are more inclined to give up some concessions in order to be in the driver's seat and try to get the things that mean most to them.If the US had a sane and fair electoral system the Left would have its own party, so he wouldn't need to be.
As a Canadian, I can say that having multiple federal parties to choose from isn't necessarily sane or good for the country. It leads to parties winning even though they don't have the majority of votes. So be careful what you wish for.
With two parties, if one is in control, especially when the individuals are aware that they effectively can't be voted out, there is no incentive to compromise at all. They can completely ignore the people who don't vote for them and serve exclusively the constituency who keeps them in power. If you're in a multiparty system with less than a majority of the vote, you can't afford to abjectly ignore anyone, because you may need them sooner than you think.
Washington and Adams expressly warned against a two party system, and Hamilton and Madison both wrote extensively about the problems inherent in partisan politics. Unfortunately, we are watching their centuries old prognostications play out in real time, with the potential consequence being the breakdown of the Republic. One doesn't need to look any further than the current Senate to see party over country as a dominant theme. A government that prioritizes internal partisan politics over the country itself is a dangerously unstable institution.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 24, 2020, 11:48:44 AM
So Canada fails the fair part.If the US had a sane and fair electoral system the Left would have its own party, so he wouldn't need to be.
As a Canadian, I can say that having multiple federal parties to choose from isn't necessarily sane or good for the country. It leads to parties winning even though they don't have the majority of votes. So be careful what you wish for.
At least most Westminster-style democracies manage to have at least a 2-and-half party system., i.e. more choice.
I'm used to a strict proportional representation system where every vote counts and no party ever wins a majority.
Exactly as it should be.
For humongous countries like Canada multi-member constituencies Belgian style, or the German system where people get two votes, one list, one local.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 24, 2020, 11:52:04 AM
As a Canadian, I can say that having multiple federal parties to choose from isn't necessarily sane or good for the country. It leads to parties winning even though they don't have the majority of votes. So be careful what you wish for.
Our presidents keep winning without the plurality of the vote now, so I would say we are used to it. My impression is that multi-party coalition governments drive at least a modicum of different viewpoints talking to each other; would you say that is not really the case? Would a ranked choice voting system make the multiple party system work more smoothly?
Usually coalition governments just result in more frequent elections because they inevitably fail. But that is probably unique to a parliamentary system; it might not be relevant to the US since you have fixed term lengths and no way to force an election.
I'm not really an expert, but yes, I think there has been a push to change how the winner is selected from "first past the post" to a proportional system.
Post by: gillianren on January 24, 2020, 12:02:08 PM
As to Sanders supporters . . . well, there are several kinds. The two most vocal ones I knew four years ago didn't vote Trump. One voted for Jill Stein. One wrote in Jesus, because she couldn't bear to vote for Hillary Clinton no matter how many times I told her the things she believed about Hillary were demonstrably wrong. (She wasn't quite to Pizzagate, but I believe she leaned toward the idea of the Clinton Body Count.) Now, they were in Washington and Oregon, respectively, so they didn't really change things, but still. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who voted Sanders in the primary and held their noses and voted Clinton in the general.
And not all of those people are Sanders supporters this time around; a lot of them are frustrated by things like his whole "oops, I didn't realize my campaign was a toxic environment for women that also mysteriously paid them less." One of my friends quite cheerfully votes for him--for Senator. And doesn't support him for President, because she doesn't think he'd do a good job at it.
Post by: jfb on January 24, 2020, 04:52:02 PM
And as I've said before, both the Democratic and Republican parties are already coalitions of fairly diverse interests - neither party is monolithic in thought or approach. Pretty much the only thing that unites the various wings of the Republican party today is tax cuts, otherwise you have nation-builders and isolationists, hard-core social conservatives and libertarians, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, etc. Democrats have environmentalists and labor, pro-choicers and pro-lifers, Keynesians and supply-siders, etc. No, it's not the same as having multiple parties, but it's not quite as dire as some would claim.
I freely admit my view of Sanders supporters is colored by my experiences at the county and state conventions, and I'm sure for every one that was an asshole there were 10 who were quite lovely people, but the assholes are the ones I remember (maybe because they were techbros who set my teeth on edge anyway). There were some Hillary dead-enders, but by and large it seemed like most of the Clinton delegation was more focused beating Trump.
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2020, 12:41:56 PM
But if you read the Federalists, you hear in no uncertain terms that the other prominent feature of the electoral college was intended to insulate the high office of President from being easily attained to by an intemperate, unprincipled, or otherwise undesirable person simply by virtue of appealing to what the Framers feared would arise in the form of unbridled populism. They were supposed to be the last line of defense, because the offices outlined in Article II of the U.S. constitution were designed to be held by people with at least some good will and sense of responsibility. Put bluntly, the notion of a "faithless" elector is a relatively new concept. The notion that the electors from a state would just mechanically (or, as later came to be, by statute) vote for whatever candidate their state's voters indicated is rather contrary to the original hope of electors as being sober, sound persons who will reject an evidently undesirable candidate.
Because eliminating the electoral college is a major structural change to the way the United States government is organized, it will have to clear a very high hurdle in order to be effected. But since the states control how their electors are chosen and, in some cases how they are expected to vote, we can begin to implement and test changes that make our elections work the way we want them to. As you say, eliminate the winner-take-all footing. And repeal the faithless-elector laws, freeing up electors to vote their consciences.
Post by: Ranb on January 27, 2020, 02:44:18 PM
…. And repeal the faithless-elector laws, freeing up electors to vote their consciences.If we don't prohibit faithless electors, then we might as well just elect the president by popular vote. If my vote is going to count for something, then I want to be sure that my elector is required to vote the will of the people in his or her district.
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2020, 05:03:33 PM
If we don't prohibit faithless electors, then we might as well just elect the president by popular vote.
Which is what some people in America now want. But by the same token, if electors are required to vote according to some presumption, then why have actual human electors at all? Why not just apply the formula given in the constitution for the apportioning of the electors and let the President and Vice President be elected by simple arithmetic?
Quote
If my vote is going to count for something, then I want to be sure that my elector is required to vote the will of the people in his or her district.
Which would be the effect of the direct popular vote, absent any actual human electors. The constitution imposes little policy on how a state's legislature may choose their electors or how those electors must vote. The notion of a "pledged" elector evolved later -- and not unreasonably. Each state has nearly full authority over its electoral delegation. A state could, for example, legislate that the sitting governor gets to appoint the electors without ever consulting the people. Another state could legislate to hold a lottery and draw its electors at random. At the constitutional level, nothing at all says that the electors' votes need to have anything to do with the will of the people. In fact, it rather implies that they shouldn't.
Prudently enough, every state somehow ties its electoral vote to some canvass of its inhabitants. This is because, as you rightly point out, it's the democratic way. And if a state decides to do that by allowing electors to be themselves elected by direct suffrage, it would have a very difficult time doing that without requiring candidates for elector to pledge their votes. The original intent was that you would campaign to be an elector based on your judgment and impartiality, not who you planned to vote for. The pledged elector -- and its more refined offspring, the partisan elector -- is a consequence of what is obviously the most democratic way for a state to choose its electors, under the non-Federalist interpretation that the will of the people should be preserved. And it holds up in court.
The Supreme Court just recently granted certiorari for a case asking whether a state can punish faithless electors. The constitutionality of this hasn't yet been tested, although many states have such a law. The only thing we've tested so far is whether the state can required the candidate elector to pledge his or her vote prior to being given the job. This is more of a problem than it seems because the 12th Amendment requires the electors to vote by ballot (by which we understand a secret ballot). Requiring a candidate elector to announce his intended vote seems to undermine that part. But just as ordinary citizens are not barred from revealing their vote -- intended or actual -- electors for President are not barred from announcing how they intend to vote. The first question the Court had to answer was whether a state could require a candidate to do so.
It can, because no one is coerced to be an elector. A candidate presenting himself to his secretary of state to be an elector does so voluntarily. And if he does it on behalf of a party, the party can make him submit to whatever qualifications they deem appropriate -- including, obviously, a pledge to vote for that party's candidates.
Where we take a turn is in the spirit of the 12th Amendment, which was always to say that electors were supposed to be fair, non-partisan, independent judges of who should hold the highest offices in the United States. Reading the Federalists, one is struck by the deliberate and painstaking design that went into the electoral college, anticipating a number of potential evils and prescribing remedies for them. And by the early 1800s it had all flown out the door.
The Framers directly considered the possibility that the will of the people would simply be wrong. The safety-net feature of the electoral college was an integral, important part of why it was created. And, paradoxically, it's the linchpin of upholding the pledge laws. An candidate-elector's pledged vote may be required of him as a condition for the party he represents to certify him as such to the state, but that's solely a matter for the candidate and the party. Once elected, the elector becomes a functionary of the United States and does not depend further on the party. Once convened with his other electors, he could vote his conscience in secret. So no constitutional principle is impugned in requiring the pledge. Requiring the vote, however, will run afoul of Art. II Sec. 1 of the constitution and the whole body of the 12th Amendment.
Basically we're on the brink of deciding whether to abandon the whole quaint safety-net principle of the electoral college. Whether that's a good idea or not is anyone's guess, but a lot of people were thinking about it in 2016. As this august group demonstrates, it's possible to hear reasoned arguments on both sides of the issue. By the time of the infamous 1824 election, the electoral college had pretty much run off the rails and become dominated by pleged partisans. So given that this is how we've done it for nearly 200 years, is it okay to enshrine it as a required way of doing it?
Your statement is pretty clear. You desire a certain person to be President, and you intend your vote to have the effect of electing that person without anything going wrong between you and that. I wager that's probably how quite a lot of modern Americans think. So I guess to revise my argument above, we should choose either one picture of the electoral college or another. If we want to retain the safety net, then we should go the full way toward keeping it there, which means permitting electors to disagree with the voters in their states. If we want to make the election of the President more directly popular, then we should get as close as we can to that without having to repeal the 12th Amendment.
Post by: Obviousman on January 27, 2020, 06:17:41 PM
And repeal the faithless-elector laws, freeing up electors to vote their consciences.
What are faithless-elector laws? I have never heard that term before.
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2020, 06:46:00 PM
What are faithless-elector laws? I have never heard that term before.
In short, they're laws that require electors to vote as they pledged, under pain of removal and replacement, or fine.
The U.S. Constitution gives the state legislatures the authority to determine how the state's electors will be chosen. Most states have followed a pattern in which the electors are themselves elected by a statewide election. The original intent was for electors to be people whom the general public trusted with the judgment to pick a good President, regardless of who that turned out to be. It was not originally intended that the President and Vice President be chosen directly by popular vote. Very quickly the criteria for election as an elector became which specific candidate for President the elector favored, thus practically making a state's popular vote directly effective at voting for President.
Most state legislatures bow to this inevitability by prescribing partisan elections of electors. Each party certifies its candidates for elector to the secretary of state, as for the election of any other partisan office. (However, electors are expressly not officers but ad hoc functionaries.) State law makes the winner of that election its appointees as electors. Naturally, candidates for electors formally pledge to vote for whichever person that party's convention or caucus nominates for President and Vice President. In a number of states, the legislature further requires the electors to vote as they pledged. A "faithless" elector is one who has pledged to vote for one candidate for President, but votes for another, or fails to vote. In states that have faithless-elector laws, this behavior subjects the elector to removal and replacement (e.g., by an alternate elector provided by the party), or to criminal liability.
The constitutionality of requiring electors to vote a specific way, as opposed to being free agents, has been variously ruled upon by lower federal courts (generally favoring upholding the laws requiring electors to act in faith), and is now the subject of a consolidated case in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is docket 19-465, which has not yet been set for argument.
Post by: gillianren on January 28, 2020, 11:02:03 AM
Post by: JayUtah on January 28, 2020, 11:19:42 AM
As I recall, faithless electors are now the reason a second black man, Colin Powell, has gotten an EC vote--and I know one of ours in Washington flatly refused to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton and cast it for a Native American instead, probably the first Native American to get an EC vote.
The case involving these actual electors is the one before the Supreme Court.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 08, 2020, 02:11:52 AM
***BE AWARE THE VIDEO CONTAINS VERY COLOURFUL LANGUAGE***
Jonathan Pie is a UK spoof news reporter but his evaluation of the impeachment process and Trumps Acquittal is spot on.
Post by: MBDK on February 08, 2020, 03:51:19 AM
Jonathan Pie is a UK spoof news reporter but his evaluation of the impeachment process and Trumps Acquittal is spot on.
Yes, it is spot on - as an affirmation of the leaps and bounds made by the anti-Trump Democrats to spread dis-information* and hate. If you can laugh at this vulgar and uninformed video, then you are on equal footing with the Republican fools that laugh at vulgar and uninformed criticisms of the left.
*Example: From-
https://www.rollcall.com/2019/12/02/gop-report-evidence-does-not-prove-trump-pressured-ukraine-for-political-benefit/
“None of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” the Republican staff wrote in the executive summary of the report.
Post by: gillianren on February 08, 2020, 11:17:19 AM
Post by: MBDK on February 08, 2020, 11:39:19 AM
What witnesses? The ones that the Senate wouldn't even listen to before making up their minds?Pretty clear from the text they are (quote)"the Democrats’ witnesses* testified (unquote)
*"that" should be included here as an amendment to the quote in order for it to make grammatical sense.
As far as additional witnesses in the Senate goes, if the case wasn't solid in the House, it should never have been sent to he Senate in the first place. Also, don't forget Clinton's Senate trial included no further witnesses, either.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 08, 2020, 11:41:41 AM
Mitt Romney Republican.
Post by: MBDK on February 08, 2020, 12:01:47 PM
In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one's oath—that I can imagine. It's what autocrats do.”In his opinion. There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion. No one should EVER be convicted on such grounds. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.
Mitt Romney Republican.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 08, 2020, 12:14:48 PM
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 08, 2020, 01:06:47 PM
In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one's oath—that I can imagine. It's what autocrats do.”In his opinion. There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion.
Mitt Romney Republican.
There is direct evidence, and the President blocked access to it (hence the Obstruction of Congress charge). The House Managers showed documents that they had access to that were heavily redacted, but still confirmed many details provided by their witnesses. Do you think he would have prevented people like Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton from testifying if they were able to prove his innocence? Do you think he would have blocked access to emails and other documents if they proved he did nothing wrong? You're living in denial, just like all of the Republican Senators who voted to acquit Trump.
Susan Collins believes Trump has learned his lesson and won't make a mistake like this again, but I disagree. The only lesson he learned is that he can do whatever he wants without consequences. This didn't cause him hit the brakes on his corrupt ways, it caused him to push the gas pedal.
Quote
No one should EVER be convicted on such grounds. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.
No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.
Post by: MBDK on February 08, 2020, 01:16:50 PM
There is direct evidence, and the President blocked access to it (hence the Obstruction of Congress charge).No. This IS conjecture. What don't you understand about THAT?
The House Managers showed documents that they had access to that were heavily redacted, but still confirmed many details provided by their witnesses.Completely irrelevant to the FACT that all they stated was their OPINION. What don't you understand about THAT?
No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.I don't. Since he has been acquitted, and rightly so based on the lack of concrete evidence, it is a matter of record that he wasn't, at least in this case. Based on your previous smear attempts, I guess it is NOT so odd that you should think differently.
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 08, 2020, 01:47:54 PM
There is direct evidence, and the President blocked access to it (hence the Obstruction of Congress charge).No. This IS conjecture. What don't you understand about THAT?
How on Earth is it conjecture? Are you denying that Trump withheld documents and blocked witnesses from testifying? Name any other circumstance where the subject of an investigation would be allowed to block the investigators from doing their job. If the mayor of your city blocked the police from investigating him/her, wouldn't you find that suspicious? I'm trying to understand how you can look at Trump's behaviour an not think he is trying to hide his corruption.
Quote
The House Managers showed documents that they had access to that were heavily redacted, but still confirmed many details provided by their witnesses.Completely irrelevant to the FACT that all they stated was their OPINION. What don't you understand about THAT?
For Christ's sake, it isn't opinion to say that there were discussions happening between all of the people involved, that there are documents that corroborate what the witnesses have testified, and that Trump blocked access to those documents. If they in any way assisted Trump's defense he would have made sure we saw them.
Quote
No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.I don't. Since he has been acquitted...
He was acquitted by a sham trial that did not allow witnesses or evidence.
Quote
and rightly so based on the lack of concrete evidence
Let me give you a scenario...
Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?
Quote
Based on your previous smear attempts, I guess it is NOT so odd that you should think differently.
I thought you were leaving? Should I help?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 08, 2020, 05:12:25 PM
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Post by: smartcooky on February 08, 2020, 06:11:22 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200208/d6fb47b0f9105078b9b5591da999146d.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.
Post by: MBDK on February 08, 2020, 06:36:39 PM
I thought you were leaving? Should I help?
In post #680, you wrote this: "You can **** off any time now."
My reply to that sentence was, "As for your suggestion of how to occupy my time, I will take your advice to heart and proceed to do so, as long as I can."
Well, I did it as long as I felt I could, and any offer you extend to "help" me is actually justification for my return. This is because, once again, you are using a CT tactic by threatening to ostracize me, apparently since you do not agree with what I have to say.
How on Earth is it conjecture? Are you denying that Trump withheld documents and blocked witnesses from testifying?Because YOU are filling in the blanks. That is the very definition of conjecture. If you have contrary evidence, please present it.
If the mayor of your city blocked the police from investigating him/her, wouldn't you find that suspicious? I'm trying to understand how you can look at Trump's behaviour an not think he is trying to hide his corruption.Yes, I would find it suspicious, but I am not entitled to claim a specific crime was proven to occur based solely on suspicion. Why do YOU do so?
Also, it doesn't matter what I, or you THINK Trump is trying to do, because our thoughts and "suspicions" are not proof, by any means, especially legally.
For Christ's sake, it isn't opinion to say that there were discussions happening between all of the people involved, that there are documents that collaborate what the witnesses have testified, and that Trump blocked access to those documents. If they in any way assisted Trump's defense he would have made sure we saw them.Yes, discussions happened, but the meaning of them, since specific conditions were NOT mentioned, ARE pure conjecture. What the documents said, and their impact, are also conjecture. I could argue thousands of other reasons the documents were blocked, including national security, but without the actual evidence, my assumptions hold no water, either.
No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.I don't. I think people should be subject to the same legal requirements regardless of social or political stature.
He was acquitted by a sham trial that did not allow witnesses or evidence.IMHO, the House's indictment was much more of a sham, for reasons previously stated, and any such witnesses or evidence should have been presented there. Realize, too, that Democrats during the House proceedings denied witnesses and concealed testimony that weakened their already shoddy case.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/schiff-house-democrats-conceal-testimony-of-18th-witness-from-trump-team/
[/quote]
Let me give you a scenario...Well, since per your scenario, you already deemed him guilty, you (or your trusted source) must be privilege to such evidence, and as such, should be able to testify accordingly (regarding its proof of murder) without being in violation of security rules. Also, a House committee can wrangle the pertinent information from him (albeit, in such circumstances, surely not without a protracted legal battle). Regardless, if that is the ONLY evidence against the president, then under our rules of law, without it, he should not be convicted.
Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?
Post by: MBDK on February 08, 2020, 06:39:30 PM
....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.I agree. However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left. That is my entire point.
Post by: Obviousman on February 08, 2020, 07:22:39 PM
***BE AWARE THE VIDEO CONTAINS VERY COLOURFUL LANGUAGE***
Jonathan Pie is a UK spoof news reporter but his evaluation of the impeachment process and Trumps Acquittal is spot on.
Brilliant, Michael - absolutely brilliant!!
Post by: smartcooky on February 08, 2020, 07:26:09 PM
....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.I agree. However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left. That is my entire point.
No, it isn't at all
No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to invite foreign interference to help them get re-elected
No-one on the left is fighting all the way to SCOTUS to prevent their tax returns from being released
No-one on the left is giving a free pass to killers, misogynists and rapists
No-one on the left has a large portion if their advisors and managers indicted and/or convicted
No-one on the left is promoting conspiracy theories that are part of a Russian Security Service disinformation campaign
No-one on the left has lied or made misleading claims to the American people over 15,000 times in less that 1,100 days
I could write a dozen further lines, but this is enough to make the point, clearly and unequivocally.
THE IS NO COUNTERPOINT IN THE LEFT OF AMERICAN POLITICS THAT BALANCES TRUMP'S PERFIDY!!
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 08, 2020, 07:37:26 PM
Let me start with this.I thought you were leaving? Should I help?
In post #680, you wrote this: "You can **** off any time now."
My reply to that sentence was, "As for your suggestion of how to occupy my time, I will take your advice to heart and proceed to do so, as long as I can."
Well, I did it as long as I felt I could, and any offer you extend to "help" me is actually justification for my return. This is because, once again, you are using a CT tactic by threatening to ostracize me, apparently since you do not agree with what I have to say.
I don't care if you disagree with me, I've put up with people disagreeing with me in this forum for many years. You came here, to a forum that I provide to you for free, and insulted me. Insulting your host is a good way to get yourself kicked out of a party.
Quote
How on Earth is it conjecture? Are you denying that Trump withheld documents and blocked witnesses from testifying?Because YOU are filling in the blanks. That is the very definition of conjecture. If you have contrary evidence, please present it.
It's simple logic. If the evidence that Trump is withholding could clear him of any wrong doing he would make that evidence publicly available. We're talking about someone who tweeted top secret spy satellite photos just because he wanted to push the idea that we need to go to war with Iran.
Quote
If the mayor of your city blocked the police from investigating him/her, wouldn't you find that suspicious? I'm trying to understand how you can look at Trump's behaviour an not think he is trying to hide his corruption.Yes, I would find it suspicious, but I am not entitled to claim a specific crime was proven to occur based solely on suspicion. Why do YOU do so?
I have never claimed to know for a fact that Trump did anything wrong. I have expressed suspicion. Why is it ok for you to be suspicious of the mayor in that hypothetical situation, but not for me to be suspicious of the President in a real situation?
Quote
Also, it doesn't matter what I, or you THINK Trump is trying to do, because our thoughts and "suspicions" are not proof, by any means, especially legally.
I think it matters very much that a significant portion of the population is suspicious of the President, especially since if those suspicions are justified, it means the most powerful man on the planet is corrupt. The fact that you are not concerned about him is mind-boggling to me. People need to be able to trust the President of the United States, and there are enough reasons to not trust him that investigation is warranted... and one of those reasons is that he keeps obstructing those investigations.
People's suspicions are used to initiate criminal investigations all the time. Just recently the police where I live arrested a man who had been reported for attempting to abduct a woman off the street. He followed her down the street in his car and yelled at her to get in. Did the police know for a fact that he was going to abduct her before investigating it? No, but his behaviour did fit with that possibility, right? So was the woman wrong to report her suspicions to the police because she was just "speculating" and "using conjecture"?
Quote
For Christ's sake, it isn't opinion to say that there were discussions happening between all of the people involved, that there are documents that collaborate what the witnesses have testified, and that Trump blocked access to those documents. If they in any way assisted Trump's defense he would have made sure we saw them.Yes, discussions happened, but the meaning of them, since specific conditions were NOT mentioned, ARE pure conjecture. What the documents said, and their impact, are also conjecture. I could argue thousands of other reasons the documents were blocked, including national security, but without the actual evidence, my assumptions hold no water, either.
The meaning is only conjecture because the subject of the investigation for some reason has the power to limit that investigation. That should not be possible. If the President claims Executive Privilege or national security reason, he should have to justify that to the investigators, otherwise he can just claim everything he does is top secret and literally get away with murder if he wanted to.
Quote
No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.I don't. I think people should be subject to the same legal requirements regardless of social or political stature.
Then why do you have a problem with investigating credible allegations of the President's corrupt behaviour? No other American citizen can block investigations into their behaviour, so why should Trump be able to?
Quote
He was acquitted by a sham trial that did not allow witnesses or evidence.IMHO, the House's indictment was much more of a sham, for reasons previously stated, and any such witnesses or evidence should have been presented there. Realize, too, that Democrats during the House proceedings denied witnesses and concealed testimony that weakened their already shoddy case.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/schiff-house-democrats-conceal-testimony-of-18th-witness-from-trump-team/
Why do Republicans want that testimony made public? Probably because they want to expose the identity of the whistle-blower. We saw just yesterday what happens to people who testified against Trump. What difference does it make who the whistle-blower is? If the allegations they made can be verified by other means they are no longer needed.
Quote
Let me give you a scenario...Well, since per your scenario, you already deemed him guilty...
Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?
Ok, let's say he is merely suspected of committing murder. But there is security camera footage that can either prove he is guilty or innocent... surely you'd agree that he would happily provide the footage if it proved someone else committed the murder.
Quote
you (or your trusted source) must be privilege to such evidence
I would think that every American citizen should be "privileged" to see evidence of their President committing a murder.
Quote
Also, a House committee can wrangle the pertinent information from him (albeit, in such circumstances, surely not without a protracted legal battle).
It should not be necessary to go to court to obtain evidence of a crime. No other person in America has the right to withhold evidence from an investigation. Executive Privilege is not supposed to be used to cover up criminal behaviour, that is an abuse of power.
Quote
Regardless, if that is the ONLY evidence against the president, then under our rules of law, without it, he should not be convicted.
It is absolutely unbelievable the lengths that Trump supporters will go to in order to defend him. You're actually arguing that the President has the right to withhold evidence that he murdered someone. You're arguing that the President can do anything he wants, block any attempts to investigate him, and vindictively punish anyone who reports his behaviour to Congress. That is the side you're arguing on... and I doubt you'd be making those same arguments if it had been Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton that we were talking about.
Post by: MBDK on February 09, 2020, 01:28:29 AM
Your logic train has completely derailed. You went from complaining about the intelligence level of some Trump supporters to listing a litany of allegations you have against Trump himself, all the while listing some obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong.....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.I agree. However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left. That is my entire point.
No, it isn't at all
No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to invite foreign interference to help them get re-elected
No-one on the left is fighting all the way to SCOTUS to prevent their tax returns from being released
No-one on the left is giving a free pass to killers, misogynists and rapists
No-one on the left has a large portion if their advisors and managers indicted and/or convicted
No-one on the left is promoting conspiracy theories that are part of a Russian Security Service disinformation campaign
No-one on the left has lied or made misleading claims to the American people over 15,000 times in less that 1,100 days
I could write a dozen further lines, but this is enough to make the point, clearly and unequivocally.
THE IS NO COUNTERPOINT IN THE LEFT OF AMERICAN POLITICS THAT BALANCES TRUMP'S PERFIDY!!
Let's start with the intelligence levels. This started with a meme that showed the ridiculousness of a Trump supporter who had no cogent argument in Trump's defense. You commented on those people. I claimed the left also has people with the same level of laughable contentions/actions.
Your response is complete denial of such easily verifiable facts (I can provide plenty of examples of people on the left acting/arguing just as foolishly, if you want), and then your allegations, which I have no intention of debating in their entirety, as they have no bearing on the intelligence, or lack thereof, in comparing other individuals. What I mean by this is, if you claim someone from another town is stupid because, for example, they support a person you claim has stolen a car, a person in your town can be just as stupid without having to support someone who has been accused of auto theft. Otherwise, you are making a logically fallacious case that in order to be stupid, a person has to act within a very narrow set of parameters.
As for obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong, allow me to briefly list them:
No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
Hillary is too obvious, but do you REALLY stand by such outlandish claims?
Before you answer, you may just want to chew on THIS for a while (in regards to the $$$)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/
And remember, these must apply to EVERYONE on the left, or you need to strike "no-one" from your contentions.
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 09, 2020, 04:08:50 AM
IMHO, the House's indictment was much more of a sham, for reasons previously stated, and any such witnesses or evidence should have been presented there.
Admittedly I'm no expert on US impeachment proceedings, but that seems to be saying that the House should have had a watertight case for conviction before moving proceedings to the impeachment trial, in which case why have a two-stage process at all?
Let me give you a scenario...Well, since per your scenario, you already deemed him guilty, you (or your trusted source) must be privilege to such evidence, and as such, should be able to testify accordingly (regarding its proof of murder) without being in violation of security rules.[/quote]
Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?
That's not what is being suggested at all. No-one is presuming guilt, the scenario presented is that he DID do it and is hiding the evidence.
Quote
Regardless, if that is the ONLY evidence against the president, then under our rules of law, without it, he should not be convicted.
The question you have not answered, which was the point, is why should he, as the person indicted for the crime, have the power to withold that evidence? In no other case, surely, does the person on trial get to decide what material evidence is seen and who gets to testify, so why should the President be accorded such privilege in his own impeachment trial? There may be good reasons for evidence not being made part of the public record, but that's not the same as witholding it from consideration entirely.
If he, as an indicted president, has the power to determine what evidence is seen and who testifies, then he is being accorded a privilege open to literally nobody else, and that is pretty much the definition of being above the law.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 09, 2020, 04:42:35 AM
You can’t set the ground rules for the evidence that is admissible in any scenario be it a judicial revue or a network test, when it is you (or your network) that is under examination. The point I put to Nortel was; it’s like having an exam where you set the questions, answer them yourself and then mark the paper, additionally you set the pass criteria.
Post by: smartcooky on February 09, 2020, 05:19:50 AM
Your logic train has completely derailed. You went from complaining about the intelligence level of some Trump supporters to listing a litany of allegations you have against Trump himself, all the while listing some obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong.....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.I agree. However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left. That is my entire point.
No, it isn't at all
No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to invite foreign interference to help them get re-elected
No-one on the left is fighting all the way to SCOTUS to prevent their tax returns from being released
No-one on the left is giving a free pass to killers, misogynists and rapists
No-one on the left has a large portion if their advisors and managers indicted and/or convicted
No-one on the left is promoting conspiracy theories that are part of a Russian Security Service disinformation campaign
No-one on the left has lied or made misleading claims to the American people over 15,000 times in less that 1,100 days
I could write a dozen further lines, but this is enough to make the point, clearly and unequivocally.
THE IS NO COUNTERPOINT IN THE LEFT OF AMERICAN POLITICS THAT BALANCES TRUMP'S PERFIDY!!
Oh, angels and ministers of Grace defend us!!! You have entirely missed the point.
Trump supporters retain blind loyalty to the Orange Turd currently squatting in the White House IN SPITE OF THE FACT that he has done all of the above - THAT is why they are stupid, THAT is the point I was making.
And you want to talk about Hilary Clinton's honesty... One word... Benghazi!
She endured over 11 hours of testimony in before the Senate Inquisition
She did not dodge
She did not equivocate
She did not procrastinate
She did not prevaricate
She answered every question truthfully (as far as we can tell), and as fully as she was able to given the allotted time and the hostile, partisan and politically charged nature of the questioning. It was a near flawless testimony, and it must have really chapped a few Republican Senators' arses that, try as they might, they were unable to get her to fumble the football.
As a counterpoint to what Clinton did in the Benghazi hearings, that corrupt piece of human excrement occupying the White House was too much of a rank coward to put his money where his mouth is and come testify, under oath, on his own behalf...... And we all know why that is don't we - because he cannot open his mouth without lies coming out.
Post by: gillianren on February 09, 2020, 11:53:25 AM
Post by: MBDK on February 09, 2020, 12:14:39 PM
It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/Semantics. None were called to testify. From your own link -
"In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported."
Post by: smartcooky on February 09, 2020, 01:47:38 PM
It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/Semantics. None were called to testify. From your own link -
"In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported."
Goal post move.
Witnesses are witnesses. Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal still undertook questioning, under oath - and their testimony is still valid.
Trump's impeachment trial is the only one of the 19 impeachment trials in the history of the USA, which did not hear from any witnesses at all. It wasn't a trial, it was a cover up, orchestrated by Trump and his minions, and carried out by every Republican Senator but one, the only honorable Republican among the scumbags. History will judge them harshly.
Post by: MBDK on February 09, 2020, 06:56:48 PM
It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/Semantics. None were called to testify. From your own link -
"In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported."
Goal post move.
Witnesses are witnesses. Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal still undertook questioning, under oath - and their testimony is still valid.
Trump's impeachment trial is the only one of the 19 impeachment trials in the history of the USA, which did not hear from any witnesses at all. It wasn't a trial, it was a cover up, orchestrated by Trump and his minions, and carried out by every Republican Senator but one, the only honorable Republican among the scumbags. History will judge them harshly.
There were only 15 previous impeachments that had a full Senate trial. And, yes all of those included witnesses by person, or deposition. I concede that from further investigation, such depositions are considered witness testimony, but being no legal expert, I had thought that the 6th amendment, which gives criminal defendants the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, would be infringed by declaring the deposition as equal to a witness. And since the Clinton impeachment involved recorded video depositions, not live witnesses, no questioning by the defendant could occur.
So, gillianren, though I am confounded by the fact depositions are considered the legal equivalent of a witness (in relation to the 6th amendment), I do apologize for my misconception and ensuing false allegation on this specific matter. I am sorry, but at least I have learned something from my mistake.
Still, smartcooky, I am waiting for your reply to Post #734, where I asked, "do you REALLY stand by such outlandish claims?" (the ones I listed).
Post by: smartcooky on February 10, 2020, 01:12:43 AM
As for obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong, allow me to briefly list them:
No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
Hillary is too obvious, but do you REALLY stand by such outlandish claims?
Before you answer, you may just want to chew on THIS for a while (in regards to the $$$)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/
And remember, these must apply to EVERYONE on the left, or you need to strike "no-one" from your contentions.
Misrepresenting facts again I see.
You are, I take it, accusing the Clintons of abusing their office, right. Well, it looks like the facts (from the article YOU linked to) don't support that claim.
"As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001:"
"the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House
Pro Tip 1: It pays to fully read any article you link in support of your claim, just to make sure that it actually DOES support your claim.
Pro Tip 2: The emolument's clause does not apply to former Presidents. Neither Bill Clinton, nor Barack Obama, violated the emoluments clause while they were sitting presidents, but I know a president who has...
1. Members of foreign governments staying at any and all his hotels or resorts or golf courses since January 20, 2017
2. Chinese and other foreign trademarks that have been granted to the Trump brand while he was president,
3. Licensing fees paid by foreign governments for “The Apprentice” for the past two years.
4. Trump Org has rented space to foreign governments in Trump Tower.
And this last one is a real doozy...
5. Trump has ordered USAF flights to Europe must stop and refuel at a different airport from the ones they have been using for the past four decades. Previously they were using military airfields. It just so happens that the new airport they stopover at is a civilian one, Prestwick, in Scotland, which just happens to be an airport that Trump has a financial interest in, and which services Trump's golf course at Turnberry... Oh how veeeeeery convenient. Furthermore, the USAF buses the flight crew and staff over 20 miles away to a Trump owned resort for the overnight stay - the resort than any other nearby accommodations. USAF have made flights though Prestwick since the 1990s, but this was at most 3 to 6 flights per year. However since 2017...
2017 - 180 flights, 150 overnight stays
2018 - 257 flights, 221 overnight stays
2019 - 324 flights, 298 overnight stays
All but 29 of the overnight stays were at the Trump Resort
Since October 2017, the records (obtained from Scottish FOI applications) show 917 payments for expenses including fuel at Prestwick totaling US$17.2 million.
US taxpayers ought to be outraged by this... most of them probably don't even know, and Trump sycophantic hangers-on won't care anyway. When this is your mentality...
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ctq5nufbmavpk7/ratherberussian.jpg?raw=1)
... there is not a lot of hope left for America.
PS: I just thought I would leave this here for you to ponder...
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgxreuuhhbnzb0d/TrumpOrbit3.png?raw=1)
Post by: molesworth on February 10, 2020, 10:37:40 AM
Trump impeachment trial: Is US politics beyond the point of repair? (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51417722)
Quote
The new decade in American politics has started with a hangover that keeps on getting worse - a quickening of the downward democratic spiral we have witnessed over the past 30 years.It also includes the handy word "hyperpartisanship".
So much of what has gone awry has been resident in the trial of Donald Trump.
The partisan vitriol. The degradation of debate. The use of what were previously rarely used weapons - in this instance impeachment - to escalate America's ceaseless political war.
Post by: jfb on February 10, 2020, 11:06:31 AM
That by itself should have disqualified him from the nomination. Republicans across the country should have demanded he be replaced as the nominee right then and there. But he got away with it. Every time he does something that would have had a Democrat (or, frankly, any moderate Republican) pilloried and expelled from office, the GOP just nods and goes along with it. He literally could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not pay any consequences whatsoever.
The worst outcome of this whole shitshow is the precedent it has set. Future Presidents and Presidential candidates are now free to use the resources of foreign governments and the Department of Justice against their domestic political opponents. If the Democrats ever take control of the Senate again, future Democratic Presidents and candidates are now free to call up their pals in whatever tinpot dictatorship and get them to help dig up dirt on domestic rivals, and the only thing that will stop them is Senate Democrats putting loyalty to country ahead of loyalty to party, and there's no reason to believe they will behave any differently from the current crop of Senate Republicans in that respect.
Mitch McConnell just put the "Banana" in "Republican". There is no putting this genie back in its bottle.
The only thing that's protected the Republic for almost 250 years has been a sense of shame. That's gone now.
Post by: gillianren on February 10, 2020, 12:08:23 PM
Post by: MBDK on February 10, 2020, 12:11:32 PM
Misrepresenting facts again I see.When did I do that? I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you. YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.
You are, I take it, accusing the Clintons of abusing their office, right.Wrong. I made no such claim, but provided a link that shows how they "used" the power of their office to garner enormous wealth from book deals and speaking engagements after their terms. My "Hilary" remark was predicated on your "hide evidence", and "above the law" comments.
I didn't clarify the Hillary association, because I don't want to debate it.
Apparently you have warped the statement YOU made -
"No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts" (my bold) by substituting "abusing", so you could continue your crusade.
Now, from that continuation, I am not going to accuse YOU of misrepresenting facts, but I think you should double check your source(s). I didn't even bother to look into your other complaints, just the one you considered to be extraordinary.
"but I know a president who has..."Well, I have found information where the facts only contradict this particular contention of yours.
And this last one is a real doozy...
5. Trump has ordered USAF flights to Europe must stop and refuel at a different airport from the ones they have been using for the past four decades. Previously they were using military airfields. It just so happens that the new airport they stopover at is a civilian one, Prestwick, in Scotland, which just happens to be an airport that Trump has a financial interest in, and which services Trump's golf course at Turnberry... Oh how veeeeeery convenient. Furthermore, the USAF buses the flight crew and staff over 20 miles away to a Trump owned resort for the overnight stay - the resort than any other nearby accommodations. USAF have made flights though Prestwick since the 1990s, but this was at most 3 to 6 flights per year. However since 2017...
2017 - 180 flights, 150 overnight stays
2018 - 257 flights, 221 overnight stays
2019 - 324 flights, 298 overnight stays
All but 29 of the overnight stays were at the Trump Resort
Since October 2017, the records (obtained from Scottish FOI applications) show 917 payments for expenses including fuel at Prestwick totaling US$17.2 million.
US taxpayers ought to be outraged by this... most of them probably don't even know, and Trump sycophantic hangers-on won't care anyway. When this is your mentality...
From-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-force-finds-air-crews-stayed-trump-resort/story?id=65594325
"An Air Force official said an internal review of the 659 overnight stops found that about 6% (39) of the overnight stays were at the Trump Turnberry resort located 20 miles from the airport."
and
"Air Force officials say the increase in refueling stops is due to the airport's 24 hour a day operations and better weather than other airports in the United Kingdom."
and
"The Trump property nightly rate of $136 was less expensive than the $161 charged by a nearby Marriott property. Both of those rates were below the per diem rate of $166."
So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend Trump, but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do. And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s). Don't always accept everything, even from normally credible sources, at face value. It is a rare occasion indeed when there is not more to the story.
With that said, I don't expect an answer to the question I asked in post #733 regarding the blanket statements smartcooky made that I took issue with. The sheer numbers of people who would have to be considered completely free from any associated guilt make them completely implausible. Still, as a last little "gotcha", remember how much YOU have complained when your question(s) has(have) been ignored by CTs.
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 10, 2020, 02:47:26 PM
So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend Trump, but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do. And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s).
Such as, for example, suggesting that Trump's accquittal in an impeachment trial where he blocked evidence and witnesses shows him to not be above the law? I repeat my earlier question: If he, as the indictee, gets to decide (or indeed have any say at all) what evidence is seen and what witnesses testify, how is that not abusing his power and being above the law? Who else gets to decide how their own trial goes in that way?
And at what point is it appropriate to let emotion take a part in this when the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth behaves like a spoiled brat, lies almost every time he opens his mouth, and demonstrates not one ounce of geunine humility for even the most basic and understandable mistakes but rather doubles down on finding ways that he is still right and the rest of the world is wrong? The man is dangerous, and the degeneration of high office to childish bickering in such halls of power is frankly terrifying.
Post by: smartcooky on February 10, 2020, 02:55:40 PM
When did I do that? I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you. YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.You misrepresented facts. You posted a link to support your claim that two other presidents abused their office. Those are false claims.
Wrong. I made no such claim, but provided a link that shows how they "used" the power of their office to garner enormous wealth from book deals and speaking engagements after their terms.Another goal post move.
The argument is about abuse of the power of the office. You are claiming an equivalence between gathering wealth AFTER a President leaves office and gathering it WHILE the President is still in office. This a compeltely false equivalence.
It is not against the law for a former president to gather wealth after they leave office, but it IS against the law to so to do while the president is still in office. This is because a former president has no power to affect anything in government; a sitting president has. He can manipulate goverment policy and actions to his person benefit - and this is exactly what the Orange Turd has done
You are completely wrong in drawing this false equivalence, you are grasping at straws, using desperate, ill-conceived whataboutism to justify what your Dear Leader is doing.
Now, from that continuation, I am not going to accuse YOU of misrepresenting facts, but I think you should double check your source(s). I didn't even bother to look into your other complaints, just the one you considered to be extraordinary.My source disagrees. When I have more time, I will post them"but I know a president who has..."Well, I have found information where the facts only contradict this particular contention of yours.
And this last one is a real doozy...
5. Trump has ordered USAF flights to Europe must stop and refuel at a different airport from the ones they have been using for the past four decades. Previously they were using military airfields. It just so happens that the new airport they stopover at is a civilian one, Prestwick, in Scotland, which just happens to be an airport that Trump has a financial interest in, and which services Trump's golf course at Turnberry... Oh how veeeeeery convenient. Furthermore, the USAF buses the flight crew and staff over 20 miles away to a Trump owned resort for the overnight stay - the resort than any other nearby accommodations. USAF have made flights though Prestwick since the 1990s, but this was at most 3 to 6 flights per year. However since 2017...
2017 - 180 flights, 150 overnight stays
2018 - 257 flights, 221 overnight stays
2019 - 324 flights, 298 overnight stays
All but 29 of the overnight stays were at the Trump Resort
Since October 2017, the records (obtained from Scottish FOI applications) show 917 payments for expenses including fuel at Prestwick totaling US$17.2 million.
US taxpayers ought to be outraged by this... most of them probably don't even know, and Trump sycophantic hangers-on won't care anyway. When this is your mentality...
From-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-force-finds-air-crews-stayed-trump-resort/story?id=65594325
"An Air Force official said an internal review of the 659 overnight stops found that about 6% (39) of the overnight stays were at the Trump Turnberry resort located 20 miles from the airport."
"Air Force officials say the increase in refueling stops is due to the airport's 24 hour a day operations and better weather than other airports in the United Kingdom."Well, they would, wouldn't they
"The Trump property nightly rate of $136 was less expensive than the $161 charged by a nearby Marriott property. Both of those rates were below the per diem rate of $166."
There are literally dozens of accommodations within 20 miles of Prestwick - you've cherry-picked the most expensive to make a false point.
So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend TrumpWell you are making a bang up job of look like a devoted supporter!
but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do. And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s). Don't always accept everything, even from normally credible sources, at face value. It is a rare occasion indeed when there is not more to the story.
Trump is a nasty individual, a vile piece of human waste - he always has been and he always will be. The only difference now is that since he became POTUS, he is a vile piece of human waste, with real power - power that he abuses every day.
With that said, I don't expect an answer to the question I asked in post #733 regarding the blanket statements smartcooky made that I took issue with. The sheer numbers of people who would have to be considered completely free from any associated guilt make them completely implausible. Still, as a last little "gotcha", remember how much YOU have complained when your question(s) has(have) been ignored by CTs.I have answered your questions. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I haven't answered it
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 10, 2020, 03:12:54 PM
"Air Force officials say the increase in refueling stops is due to the airport's 24 hour a day operations and better weather than other airports in the United Kingdom."Well, they would, wouldn't they
And literally no-one in the UK is going to buy the argument that Prestwick has "better weather" than the rest of the United Kingdom! Cold, wet, cloudy and windy are pretty much the norm there.
Post by: MBDK on February 10, 2020, 03:27:36 PM
Wrong. I NEVER made that claim, and expressly pointed out where you are 100& in error on YOUR above quoted claim. Until you can accept this undeniable and obviously provable FACT, and withdrawn your blatantly false statement, I refuse to have further discourse with such a hate-blinded person.When did I do that? I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you. YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.You misrepresented facts. You posted a link to support your claim that two other presidents abused their office. Those are false claims.
Perhaps more level-headed and trustworthy (to smartcooky) members of this forum can patiently explain to smartcooky his (I assume) misconception here.
Post by: MBDK on February 10, 2020, 03:32:30 PM
And at what point is it appropriate to let emotion take a part in this when...When you can do so without resorting to half-truths and unsupported claims (not saying YOU have, just everyone in general, myself included). Definitely do not allow yourself to rage to the point where even the most basic of things become distorted, as smartcooky has unfortunately done in his last couple of posts (as noted in my last couple of posts).
Post by: smartcooky on February 10, 2020, 04:01:41 PM
"The Trump property nightly rate of $136 was less expensive than the $161 charged by a nearby Marriott property. Both of those rates were below the per diem rate of $166."
Just to bring some facts back into the debate
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ivzwr37w8p7j1qz/PrestwickAccomodation.png?raw=1)
The map is about 7km edge to edge
Post by: jfb on February 10, 2020, 04:07:06 PM
So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend Trump, but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do. And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s).
Such as, for example, suggesting that Trump's accquittal in an impeachment trial where he blocked evidence and witnesses shows him to not be above the law? I repeat my earlier question: If he, as the indictee, gets to decide (or indeed have any say at all) what evidence is seen and what witnesses testify, how is that not abusing his power and being above the law? Who else gets to decide how their own trial goes in that way?
He doesn't.
The problem is that all but four Senate Republicans put loyalty to (or probably more likely, fear of) party ahead of loyalty to country. The Senate majority did not even pretend to act as an impartial arbiter - Senate leadership explicitly said they would be coordinating with the White House defense. That wasn't Trump's doing, that was McConnell's doing.
The President cannot determine what witnesses the Senate may or may not call, or what evidence they may or may not see, except by claiming executive privilege or national security or whatever and jamming it up in the courts. Con