Politics Thread

[X-band '01]

I haven't really considered that yet. I'm still taking in the whole 'our President's campaign was in contact with Russian intelligence' thing. My first instinct is to acknowledge that these kind of leaks aren't normal. The intelligence agencies have a proud history of being as non-partisan as reasonably possible. I think the gravity of these revelations has a lot more to do with these leaks than politics.

Congrats in post #1000 in this thread!

[XUFan09]

Yes. I'm concerned. I'm very concerned. I'm concerned that there is so little faith within his own administration, in the intelligence community, or in the military, that Trump can effectively and legally govern that they feel they need to create external pressure.

I'm concerned that our incoming NSA was so careless that he didn't even consider that the agencies he was about to lead were monitoring the calls of the Russian diplomat with whom he was conspiring to violate US law (at an absolute minimum), acts which could theoretically be viewed as acts of treason and which almost certainly compromised his ability to serve by leaving him vulnerable to kompromat.

And yes, I'm concerned that the Trump administration was -- and is -- more concerned about that controversy than the risk to national security.

I'm concerned that all of these are the things from which coups are born. And I'm concerned that -- terrifying as that may be -- that very may well be a positive development.

Basically, I'm concerned that we're fucked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I haven't really considered that yet. I'm still taking in the whole 'our President's campaign was in contact with Russian intelligence' thing. My first instinct is to acknowledge that these kind of leaks aren't normal. The intelligence agencies have a proud history of being as non-partisan as reasonably possible. I think the gravity of these revelations has a lot more to do with these leaks than politics.

Basically my thoughts on it.

[Pete Delkus]

While I admit the Russian story seems highly unique, and subject to much more scrutiny, I have just as much distress about the leaks. I think they are the part of the new partisan Gov't order, which could further deteriorate our nation.

Unfortunately, I foresee retaliation inside our bureaucracy when the next Democratic president is elected. This phenomenon is kind of like the "nuclear option' which the Dems first utilized to upend Senate tradition. It will come back and hurt the Democrats with the Supreme Court, it will hurt them with bureaucratic leaks in the future, and much more, it's hurting our country.

[SemajParlor]

This smart person posted a smart comment.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/831850140940005377

[SemajParlor]

I miss the days when Crooked Hillary deleting emails was the biggest scandal :(

[xavierj]

I do not follow politics at all, but what is the problem with being friends with Russia? Do they pose some kind of threat to our economy and safety? I mean we have Russian athletes and citizens all over the country and never see they trying to harm the US like some from other countries.

[Caf]

While I admit the Russian story seems highly unique, and subject to much more scrutiny, I have just as much distress about the leaks. I think they are the part of the new partisan Gov't order, which could further deteriorate our nation.

Unfortunately, I foresee retaliation inside our bureaucracy when the next Democratic president is elected. This phenomenon is kind of like the "nuclear option' which the Dems first utilized to upend Senate tradition. It will come back and hurt the Democrats with the Supreme Court, it will hurt them with bureaucratic leaks in the future, and much more, it's hurting our country.

I very much disagree with this, but I really think these leaks are being overstated. This has to be Sally Yates. Just a reminder of what we now know involving her. She warns the WH about Flynn, WH does nothing, she knows the campaign had connects with Russia, then refuses to enforce the immigration ban, and is then fired for doing so. How stupid could the WH be? They knew this woman had disparaging info about their dealings and they axed her. It's either complete incompetence or recklessness to think for a second that she wasn't going to go radioactive with this information. All of this is besides the point, but my Lord wtf?

[boozehound]

While I admit the Russian story seems highly unique, and subject to much more scrutiny, I have just as much distress about the leaks. I think they are the part of the new partisan Gov't order, which could further deteriorate our nation.

Unfortunately, I foresee retaliation inside our bureaucracy when the next Democratic president is elected. This phenomenon is kind of like the "nuclear option' which the Dems first utilized to upend Senate tradition. It will come back and hurt the Democrats with the Supreme Court, it will hurt them with bureaucratic leaks in the future, and much more, it's hurting our country.

I hope you are wrong. Our intelligence community (historically, at least) prides itself on putting the country ahead of politics. I'm not really sure the extent to which this is a partisan issue within the government, vs. the extent to which this is a Trump issue. While Trump is (sort of) a Republican, but he is also increasingly appearing to be grossly incompetent in a number of areas. I'm hoping that these leaks are a reaction to a President that they few as dangerously inept, rather than a reaction to a Republican President. Remember that the intelligence community's lives are in the President's hands in a more direct way than almost any other government organization.

We are, after all, talking about a President who recently held an extremely classified conversation with a foreign leader on the patio of his golf club while the general public milled around and snapped selfies. This situation ultimately resulted in the guy who carries the Nuclear Football taking a photo with a club guest, while being identified by name as the guy who carries the nuclear football.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/02/13/nuclear-football-photo-taken-at-trumps-golf-resort-puts-the-pentagon-in-an-awkward-position/?utm_term=.30e591e66fbf

[boozehound]

I do not follow politics at all, but what is the problem with being friends with Russia? Do they pose some kind of threat to our economy and safety? I mean we have Russian athletes and citizens all over the country and never see they trying to harm the US like some from other countries.

Holy moly.

First of all, when we talk about Russia seeking to influence our elections we are FAR beyond 'What's the harm in being friends with Russia"? That's actually a pretty good reason for why we DON'T want to be friends with Russia, IMHO. Messing with our electoral process is/should be a pretty big deal for us.

Moving past that, Russia is quite possibly our largest geopolitical adversary. They have an imperialistic and authoritarian governmental mindset (as evidenced by their annexation of parts of Ukraine) that directly contradicts everything we hold dear as a nation (or at least held dear, before we elected Trump). Their government oppresses their people. They murder political dissidents. They commit war crimes. I don't want to be friends with those people.

[xavierj]

Holy moly.

First of all, when we talk about Russia seeking to influence our elections we are FAR beyond 'What's the harm in being friends with Russia"? That's actually a pretty good reason for why we DON'T want to be friends with Russia, IMHO. Messing with our electoral process is/should be a pretty big deal for us.

Moving past that, Russia is quite possibly our largest geopolitical adversary. They have an imperialistic and authoritarian governmental mindset (as evidenced by their annexation of parts of Ukraine) that directly contradicts everything we hold dear as a nation (or at least held dear, before we elected Trump). Their government oppresses their people. They murder political dissidents. They commit war crimes. I don't want to be friends with those people.

I am pretty sure many of the things we hold dear lately as a polical correct country are over the top. What we have been doing in many ways has not been working. Oh and I know the big bad wolf Russia has had no impact on my life and won't in the future. One thing is for sure, the stock market hasn't been fazed by all of the so called horrible things are president is doing. Hopefully we don't overreact as a country and see what this guy can do. I don't want the same old same old president and does and says everything everyone wants to hear and then does nothing.

[xavierj]

Holy moly.

First of all, when we talk about Russia seeking to influence our elections we are FAR beyond 'What's the harm in being friends with Russia"? That's actually a pretty good reason for why we DON'T want to be friends with Russia, IMHO. Messing with our electoral process is/should be a pretty big deal for us.

Moving past that, Russia is quite possibly our largest geopolitical adversary. They have an imperialistic and authoritarian governmental mindset (as evidenced by their annexation of parts of Ukraine) that directly contradicts everything we hold dear as a nation (or at least held dear, before we elected Trump). Their government oppresses their people. They murder political dissidents. They commit war crimes. I don't want to be friends with those people.

If it's so bad in Russia, why are defection rates down and approval ratings so high?

[PM Thor]

I am truly troubled by your defense of Putins Russia. Why are his approval ratings so high? Because he controls the media and the message, kills and intimidates any opposition, and dominates any rivals through intimidation.

Goodness man.

[boozehound]

I am pretty sure many of the things we hold dear lately as a polical correct country are over the top. What we have been doing in many ways has not been working. Oh and I know the big bad wolf Russia has had no impact on my life and won't in the future. One thing is for sure, the stock market hasn't been fazed by all of the so called horrible things are president is doing. Hopefully we don't overreact as a country and see what this guy can do. I don't want the same old same old president and does and says everything everyone wants to hear and then does nothing.

I'm not even really sure what this means.


If it's so bad in Russia, why are defection rates down and approval ratings so high?

Is this a joke question? The government controls the media and uses it to manipulate public sentiment.

[boozehound]

I am truly troubled by your defense of Putins Russia. Why are his approval ratings so high? Because he controls the media and the message, kills and intimidates any opposition, and dominates any rivals through intimidation.

Goodness man.

Welcome to Trump's America. The same people who spent 8 years bitching about Obama's soft stance on Russia now want to be allies with them, even after they were caught meddling in our elections. You start to understand how authoritarian governments happen when you see how suggestible we can be.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Guys, is this really at all surprising? First, I bet the source here is Yates. She was unceremoniously fired for not doing something the courts now have blocked, she was not happy, and she is most likely lashing out at this administration for their actions.

Second, Trump has already pissed off the CIA/NSA, but don't you think they are going to quietly go about their business of espionage and build up a file on this administration. When that file gets sufficiently juicy (and it will), they would only then pounce. Why would they just take pot shots when they can just sit back and wait for something massive?

[Caf]

If it's so bad in Russia, why are defection rates down and approval ratings so high?

You can say the same for North Korea too. How are they doing?

[GoMuskies]

Obama wants to tell you guys that the '80s are calling and asking for their foreign policy back.

[xavierj]

I'm not even really sure what this means.



Is this a joke question? The government controls the media and uses it to manipulate public sentiment.

Exactly what the US media does. Don't believe everything you read. Hell anymore don't believe anything you do not see.

[boozehound]

Exactly what the US media does. Don't believe everything you read. Hell anymore don't believe anything you do not see.

Conflating what the 'US media' does with what the Russian media does is ignorant and dangerous.

[XU 87]

Yes. I'm concerned. I'm very concerned. I'm concerned that there is so little faith within his own administration, in the intelligence community, or in the military, that Trump can effectively and legally govern that they feel they need to create external pressure.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think I understand that paragraph. I think you're saying, "I hate Trump. If people in the intelligence community want to commit crimes with the purpose of undermining Trump or any of his cabinet members, I'm all for it."

[Juice]

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/831916733732528129

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I think I understand that paragraph. I think you're saying, "I hate Trump. If people in the intelligence community want to commit crimes with the purpose of undermining Trump or any of his cabinet members, I'm all for it."

The honest question is whether you believe that the leak is from the intelligence community. If you do why is that more plausible than say from Yates whom we already know is disgruntled and knew of the calls and subsequent lies. The next issue are the lies straight from Flynn's mouth and Trump not moving on said lies.

[Juice]

Tom Winter
NBC's Pete Williams reports (as we have all along) that investigators have found no collusion between Trump campaign and contacts in Russia.

[SemajParlor]

Tom Winter
NBC's Pete Williams reports (as we have all along) that investigators have found no collusion between Trump campaign and contacts in Russia.

So are we outraged that this information was made up or that as Trump literally said himself illegally spread? I can't keep track of these bizarre excuses we are making for these morons.

[Caf]

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/831916733732528129

I'm sure there are people who think this is concrete evidence of collusion. The rest of us who actually read beyond the headlines know that it really is just a reason to investigate whether collusion took place. Expecting people to withhold concern/outrage until there is sound evidence of collusion is asking for extraordinary patience. The possibility of collusion is an enormous scandal in and of itself.

[Juice]

Max AbrahmsVerified account
‏@MaxAbrahms

Follow
More
CNN: FBI not expected to file changes against Flynn. He did not hide the truth. He was not intentionally misleading.

[waggy]

I do not follow politics at all, but what is the problem with being friends with Russia? Do they pose some kind of threat to our economy and safety? I mean we have Russian athletes and citizens all over the country and never see they trying to harm the US like some from other countries.

Pluse Russian bitches are hawt!!

[boozehound]

This is obviously an opinion piece, but as a fan of the Adam Carolla show this amuses me:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/15/how-stupid-or-liar-explains-michael-flynn-and-lots-of-other-trump-controversies/?utm_term=.998384751941

[paulxu]

Here's an opinion that apparently appeared in the Cincinnati paper.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/02/14/republican-painter-s-time-impeach-trump/97893248/

In his press conference continues to call out the media for pushing "fake news," especially CNN.
Why doesn't a Sunday reporter ask one of his representatives to provide just one instance of CNN airing "fake news?"

[GoMuskies]

Here's some CNN fake "news".

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/21/entertainment/kim-kardashian-birthday/


That was a pretty awful opinion piece by the way.

[boozehound]

Can anyone watch that press conference today and argue that Trump is fit to lead this country? That thing was a mess.

[bobbiemcgee]

Well he and congress did get a law passed so crazy people can buy AR 15's with our money (their SS checks) as long as their moms write the check for them since they are incapable of doing so themselves. Sooo proud.

[Strange Brew]

Well he and congress did get a law passed so crazy people can buy AR 15's with our money (their SS checks) as long as their moms write the check for them since they are incapable of doing so themselves. Sooo proud.

SS is their money taken by threat of force throughout their entire working lives. Do you feel everyone on SS is crazy and should be deprived of due process?

[Juice]

Well he and congress did get a law passed so crazy people can buy AR 15's with our money (their SS checks) as long as their moms write the check for them since they are incapable of doing so themselves. Sooo proud.

That's not what the law did at all. The ACLU, which people are in love with right now, actually supported the law.

[Emp]

The ACLU, which people are in love with right now, ..........

And with good reason.

[xavierj]

Can anyone watch that press conference today and argue that Trump is fit to lead this country? That thing was a mess.

I didn't watch but am interested in seeing if he can lead and change this country. I like what he has done so far. It's time to change the same old same old politics of the US. He is doing what he said he would do and he is creating jobs and improving the economy. I don't care what he looks like as far as looking good in front of a camera. Just make improvements for everyone. I really think the democrats are scared shitless that this guy will succeed because if a different approach from the norm works, that party is screwed.

[Emp]

Can anyone watch that press conference today and argue that Trump is fit to lead this country? That thing was a mess.

He's insanely insecure. He can dish but he can't take. Narcissist disorder. And he's attacking every check and balance in the Constitution.

And he wont ever just shut the fuck up and do his job. Strange times.

[xavierj]

And with good reason.

What would that be?

[Emp]

I didn't watch but am interested in seeing if he can lead and change this country. I like what he has done so far. It's time to change the same old same old politics of the US. He is doing what he said he would do and he is creating jobs and improving the economy. I don't care what he looks like as far as looking good in front of a camera. Just make improvements for everyone. I really think the democrats are scared shitless that this guy will succeed because if a different approach from the norm works, that party is screwed.
Please, watch the press conference and come back with a straight face.

Then, pLease list the jobs Trump has created. I don't see any. And you can even count jobs he's actually saved ( though not the ones he simply claims to have saved.). Then subtract your number from 25 million.

[GoMuskies]

What would that be?

Have you seen those loon balls at Berkeley threatening free speech? Our civil liberties need to be protected now more than ever.

[xavierj]

They don't have the freedom to shutdown highways and disrupt other people's lives. Yep, just freedom of assembly...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeYm6YFrKh8


Please, watch the press conference and come back with a straight face.

Then, pLease list the jobs Trump has created. I don't see any. And you can even count jobs he's actually saved ( though not the ones he simply claims to have saved.). Then subtract your number from 25 million.

We shall see. You sound butt hurt. I see he has saved jobs and is doing what he said he would do. He is trying to shake things up which is needed. I know Obama and George Bush served 12 years before him and I couldn't tell you one thing they did that impacted the country in a positive way. I know a good barometer of confidence in a president is the stock market and it's breaking records everday, which I love because it helps my retirement, hope that trend continues.

[Strange Brew]

He's insanely insecure. He can dish but he can't take. Narcissist disorder. And he's attacking every check and balance in the Constitution.

And he wont ever just shut the fuck up and do his job. Strange times.

Huh, interesting you didn't bring this complaint up during the last administration.

[Nigel Tufnel]

This thread makes me hit the vape pen....I don't need much of a reason...but this thread is justification. Nobody is changing anyone's mind.

[Nigel Tufnel]

It's all cool now....carry on.

[bobbiemcgee]

SS is their money taken by threat of force throughout their entire working lives. Do you feel everyone on SS is crazy and should be deprived of due process?

You don't need to pay a nickel in to get SS Disability, which as I hope you know, is totally different from regular SS. You can actually eat your way into a SS Disability check.

[X-man]

Tom Winter
NBC's Pete Williams reports (as we have all along) that investigators have found no collusion between Trump campaign and contacts in Russia.

I had no idea you are a reporter. Which news outlet do you work for?

[X-man]

SS is their money taken by threat of force throughout their entire working lives. Do you feel everyone on SS is crazy and should be deprived of due process?

I guess by your logic, all taxes are money "taken by force" Or are just the taxes that support programs you don't believe in the ones "taken by force"? In that case, the taxes I pay to protect Trump in his excessive use of the Secret Service are "taken by force".

[Caf]

I had no idea you are a reporter. Which news outlet do you work for?

That comment was part of the actual tweet.

[RealDeal]

Until I watched that press conference I never knew what uranium was, thanks Donald!

[Caf]

We shall see. You sound butt hurt. I see he has saved jobs and is doing what he said he would do. He is trying to shake things up which is needed. I know Obama and George Bush served 12 years before him and I couldn't tell you one thing they did that impacted the country in a positive way. I know a good barometer of confidence in a president is the stock market and it's breaking records everday, which I love because it helps my retirement, hope that trend continues.

What about defection rates?

[Juice]

I had no idea you are a reporter. Which news outlet do you work for?

I copy and pasted a tweet.

[boozehound]

I didn't watch but am interested in seeing if he can lead and change this country. I like what he has done so far. It's time to change the same old same old politics of the US. He is doing what he said he would do and he is creating jobs and improving the economy. I don't care what he looks like as far as looking good in front of a camera. Just make improvements for everyone. I really think the democrats are scared shitless that this guy will succeed because if a different approach from the norm works, that party is screwed.

What, specifically, do you like that he has done so far? Can you elaborate at how he is 'creating jobs and improving the economy'? There has been a lot of talk, but so far he really hasn't done much of anything outside of some EO's that don't seem to have gone as planned.

Just because he tells you he is saving jobs, doesn't mean it's factually accurate. That's what he does. He lies about what he is doing, and how great it is, and banks on people being either too dumb, or too apathetic to fact check it.

Before you use the stock market's recent run-up as an example of economic improvement, you should consider that fact that (1) the stock market virtually always reacts positively in the short term to the promise of cutting corporate taxes and reducing regulation and (2) it remains to be seen the extent to which either of those will occur (although they seem likely) and the longer-term impact of both the reduced tax rates on the deficit and the reduced regulations on the market. For example: Do you have a 401(K)? What happens to your retirement position if we have another 2008-like event around the time you retire?

Finally, you should also consider Obama delivered a 16% annualized return on the stock market during his Presidency.

[SemajParlor]

The ACLU, which people are in love with right now, actually supported the law.

Anyone else read this in a "Trump tweet" voice?

[Juice]

Anyone else read this in a "Trump tweet" voice?

You can read it however you want but the ACLU also defends the rights of actual Nazis, not just the ones Democrats accuse Republicans of being. The ACLU does do some important things but they also do some really bullshit things. But right now they're being painted as an organization that is performing miracle work. You may disagree with me and approve of everything they do. That's fine, agree to disagree.

[Caf]

You can read it however you want but the ACLU also defends the rights of actual Nazis, not just the ones Democrats accuse Republicans of being. The ACLU does do some important things but they also do some really bullshit things. But right now they're being painted as an organization that is performing miracle work. You may disagree with me and approve of everything they do. That's fine, agree to disagree.

I assume you're talking about the neo-Nazis in Chicago?

[GoMuskies]

You can read it however you want but the ACLU also defends the rights of actual Nazis, not just the ones Democrats accuse Republicans of being. The ACLU does do some important things but they also do some really bullshit things. But right now they're being painted as an organization that is performing miracle work. You may disagree with me and approve of everything they do. That's fine, agree to disagree.

Don't Nazis have rights, too? Are you saying they shouldn't defend the rights of Nazis?

[Juice]

Don't Nazis have rights, too? Are you saying they shouldn't defend the rights of Nazis?

Ha, they definitely do but when Democrats are openly advocating the beating and punching of whom they term Nazis, I'm guessing they don't give a shit about those rights.

[Juice]

I assume you're talking about the neo-Nazis in Chicago?

I'm talking about examples like these https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-history-of-the-aclu-defending-confederate-veterans-the-kkk-and-rush-limbaugh/?utm_term=.a25fb7459f89 that Democrats/liberals lose their minds over.

[chico]

I assume you're talking about the neo-Nazis in Chicago?

Illinois Nazis? I hate Illinois Nazis.

[GoMuskies]

I certainly do not agree with the ACLU on everything, but I've come to appreciate their willingness to stick to their principles even in the face of unpopular causes.

[SemajParlor]

You can read it however you want but the ACLU also defends the rights of actual Nazis, not just the ones Democrats accuse Republicans of being. The ACLU does do some important things but they also do some really bullshit things. But right now they're being painted as an organization that is performing miracle work. You may disagree with me and approve of everything they do. That's fine, agree to disagree.

I actually agree with you more on points than you probably think. I'm personally in the camp of people who don't like Trump but not a sign waving Lena Dunham lunatic.

My comment was trying to be funny not a knock on your point. It reminded me of "The cast of Hamilton, which I hear is highly overrated"

[Caf]

I'm talking about examples like these https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-history-of-the-aclu-defending-confederate-veterans-the-kkk-and-rush-limbaugh/?utm_term=.a25fb7459f89 that Democrats/liberals lose their minds over.

I'm cool with all of those things. If we want free speech, liberty, etc., they need to apply to everyone. The fact that at times both parties disagree with them is really a testament to their principled approach.

And they are doing really important work right now. Trump's trying to make some very serious changes to this country. With a Republican controlled Congress, courts and organizations like the ACLU are vital to check his power when needed. Just because Dems disagreed with them in the past doesn't make them hypocrites now.

[Juice]

I certainly do not agree with the ACLU on everything, but I've come to appreciate their willingness to stick to their principles even in the face of unpopular causes.

I'll give them that but I don't think a lot of their new supporters have any idea of the work they do besides what they've done the last week or two.

[Juice]

I'm cool with all of those things. If we want free speech, liberty, etc., they need to apply to everyone. The fact that at times both parties disagree with them is really a testament to their principled approach.

And they are doing really important work right now. Trump's trying to make some very serious changes to this country. With a Republican controlled Congress, courts and organizations like the ACLU are vital to check his power when needed. Just because Dems disagreed with them in the past doesn't make them hypocrites now.

I think a lot of them are hypocrites because they use protests/riots as a way to silence those they disagree with whereas the ACLU protects your right to say but disagree.

[X-man]

I copy and pasted a tweet.

Apology offered. I don't read Twitter, and failed to understand that you were just quoting a tweet.

[GoMuskies]

Apology offered.

WTF?!? Don't you know this is the politics thread?

[Juice]

Apology offered. I don't read Twitter, and failed to understand that you were just quoting a tweet.

We're good. I accidentally deleted his twitter handle next to his name so it wasn't obvious anyways.

[LA Muskie]

I'll give them that but I don't think a lot of their new supporters have any idea of the work they do besides what they've done the last week or two.

I'm an unabashed Aaron Sorkin fan. He's (pretty far) left of me, personally, but damn does he have a knack for the art of the monologue. Apropos of the ACLU discussion, this is one of my favorites:


https://youtu.be/OC2jhQ0KAAU

[LA Muskie]

I think a lot of them are hypocrites because they use protests/riots as a way to silence those they disagree with whereas the ACLU protects your right to say but disagree.

I disagree. Free speech works in all directions -- including counter-protests. Free speech protects speakers from government consequences. It does not protect speakers from those of the private ilk. I think "shaming" is an outstanding use of free speech to counter hate. Especially when done in a productive and positive manner and not blatantly hate-filled in response.

[LA Muskie]

We're good. I accidentally deleted his twitter handle next to his name so it wasn't obvious anyways.

Get a room, you two! (Seriously, though, there are few things more heartening to me than an apology and acceptance -- two things we don't see enough, particularly on the internet.)

[GoMuskies]

Shame is one thing. Violent protests preventing speech are something completely different.

[LA Muskie]

Shame is one thing. Violent protests preventing speech are something completely different.
You won't hear any argument from me. I agree 100%. There is no place in discourse or legitimate protest for violence, destruction of property, or threats of either. Period. End of Sentence.

[STL_XUfan]

I'm an unabashed Aaron Sorkin fan. He's (pretty far) left of me, personally, but damn does he have a knack for the art of the monologue. Apropos of the ACLU discussion, this is one of my favorites:


https://youtu.be/OC2jhQ0KAAU

Ted Cruz ripping off that speech in attacking Donald Trump was one of my favorite moments of the campaign.

[GoMuskies]

You won't hear any argument from me. I agree 100%. There is no place in discourse or legitimate protest for violence, destruction of property, or threats of either. Period. End of Sentence.

Public reps since Trump is holding me down.

[Juice]

You won't hear any argument from me. I agree 100%. There is no place in discourse or legitimate protest for violence, destruction of property, or threats of either. Period. End of Sentence.

Women's March is an example of speech/assembly that I approve of.
The riots over Milo on Cal's campus are those that I do not approve of, or the riots during the inauguration.

And I think the ACLU would agree with me.

[Strange Brew]

I guess by your logic, all taxes are money "taken by force".

Yes, obviously. Are taxes optional or are they ultimately enforced by badges and guns?

[X-man]

Yes, obviously. Are taxes optional or are they ultimately enforced by badges and guns?

Wow Just wow.

[Strange Brew]

Wow Just wow.

Not sure what triggered this response. To clarify tax laws are enforced by Federal agencies and law enforcement (i.e. threat of force. You must pay).

To your other point. I don't hate SS (hope it's fixed and I get back what I was forced to pay in). My point was how people spend their SS check is their business as that money was taken from them throughout their lives. Very different then spending/wasting money collected from other taxes that do not necessarily have a specific purpose. They can be appropriated any way the gov't deems proper during the budgeting process.

[SemajParlor]

All this talk about taxing and protests never being legitimate when property is damaged is making me thirsty for some tea.

[Caf]

Women's March is an example of speech/assembly that I approve of.
The riots over Milo on Cal's campus are those that I do not approve of, or the riots during the inauguration.

And I think the ACLU would agree with me.

I'm starting to think Republicans need their own safe spaces. I'm sure this is different though.

GOP finds fix for chaotic town halls: Don’t hold them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/17/gop-finds-fix-for-chaotic-town-halls-dont-hold-them/?utm_term=.30c917011c2c)

[paulxu]

Poor Milo. Gets uninvited to CPAC, and then Breitbart drops him.
They never drop anybody.

[Masterofreality]

Hmmmmmm. Riots in Sweden by Muslims.
I'm sure they heard Trump's speech as a call to action. :rolleyes:

[Emp]

Hmmmmmm. Riots in Sweden by Muslims.
I'm sure they heard Trump's speech as a call to action. :rolleyes:

Even a blind squirrel.......

[SemajParlor]

Isn't it amazing after all of these years, the nationalities of practicing Muslims are still an insignificant detail?

[GoMuskies]

In an attempt to be non-partisan:

Trump idiocy:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/expect-greater-enforcement-of-marijuana-laws-under-trump-spicer-says-2017-02-23

Regressive idiocy:
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31322/

[SemajParlor]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/expect-greater-enforcement-of-marijuana-laws-under-trump-spicer-says-2017-02-23

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/23/private-prisons-back-trump-and-could-see-big-payoffs-new-policies/98300394/

Surely there is no connection here.

[bobbiemcgee]

Yes, we have some idiots running the country:

"We sometimes used to make the point that if someone wanted to smuggle in a dangerous weapon, even a nuclear weapon, into America, how would they do it? And the suggestion was made, ‘Well, we’ll simply hide it in a bale of marijuana.'” -

-Rep Trent Franks AZ (R)

yep, the border patrol would never look there.

[Juice]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/expect-greater-enforcement-of-marijuana-laws-under-trump-spicer-says-2017-02-23

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/23/private-prisons-back-trump-and-could-see-big-payoffs-new-policies/98300394/

Surely there is no connection here.

There may be a small one but no one gets locked up in prison for marijuana unless you're trafficking it, trafficking a large, large amount of it.

It's a payout in most places for possession for personal use. You need to have over 100 grams for it to be a felony in Ohio and no judge in the state is locking you up for that either.

[Caf]

White House adviser asked FBI to dispute Russia reports (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/white-house-adviser-asked-fbi-to-dispute-russia-reports/2017/02/23/7662b2ba-fa45-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_story.html?utm_term=.eec62ce5ebbc)

The Clinton's are so corrupt! They think they can get away with anything!

[X-man]

Now the WH is limiting news access to their press briefings. Can impeachment be far behind?

[GoMuskies]

Can impeachment be far behind?

Yes

[X-man]

Yes

Man, you Republicans will put up with anything so long as it is done by one of your own.

[GoMuskies]

Man, you Republicans will put up with anything so long as it is done by one of your own.

LOL. Give me a break.

[xavierj]

The stock market approaching 21,000. Another record set. Trump is not running off the investors....on a day they thought it would drop.

[GoMuskies]

The stock market approaching 21,000. Another record set. Trump is not running off the investors....on a day they thought it would drop.

Clearly the market is simply pricing in the impeachment that is certain to be near.

[Caf]

The stock market approaching 21,000. Another record set. Trump is not running off the investors....on a day they thought it would drop.

I've been working in the stock market my whole career. Markets go up and markets go down. I wouldn't take credit for one if you're not ready to take blame for the other. Which will inevitably happen.

That being said, his pro-business policies are undeniable. I don't think anyone ever said HRC was going to be great for business. Including her.

[X-man]

Clearly the market is simply pricing in the impeachment that is certain to be near.

Just so long as you also credit Trump when the market corrects.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Take a look at Congress' plan to repeal and replace the ACA, it's quite a masterpiece of crap. My favorite is the 30% premium hike for those who don't have continuous coverage. No mention of where that would actually go, does it go to fund the poor or does it go straight to funding HC exec's bonuses? No word on whether they left the pre-existing condition piece in there.

[GoMuskies]

Just so long as you also credit Trump when the market corrects.

I don't think the President generally has a whole lot to do with it either way to tell you the truth.

[Masterofreality]

Take a look at Congress' plan to repeal and replace the ACA, it's quite a masterpiece of crap. My favorite is the 30% premium hike for those who don't have continuous coverage. No mention of where that would actually go, does it go to fund the poor or does it go straight to funding HC exec's bonuses? No word on whether they left the pre-existing condition piece in there.

Please don't confuse a draft of possibilities for a finalized "Plan". #Prematue Exclamation

Unless you believe that Obama's "red line in the sand" for Syria was a "Plan".

I will wait to judge until an actual fully formulated "Plan" is introduced.

[Masterofreality]

Now the WH is limiting news access to their press briefings. Can impeachment be far behind?

It wasn't a "press briefing" but a press gaggle- basically an informal gathering. Former President Obama barred Fox News from gaggles, but later relented. If the administration thinks that some entity may unfairly spin something said in these gatherings into something that it is not, I can see the concern.

The press has MANY opportunities to have access, including a daily press briefing. Mr. Trump has already been very available to the press. Former President Obama went almost a full year between 2009 and mid 2010 WITHOUT any press conference at all. Somehow, though, the pundit minions didn't really care about that. They were more concerned with covering his back.

The "outrage" over this as a freedom of press issue is comical.

[STL_XUfan]

It wasn't a "press briefing" but a press gaggle- basically an informal gathering. Former President Obama barred Fox News from gaggles, but later relented. If the administration thinks that some entity may unfairly spin something said in these gatherings into something that it is not, I can see the concern.



When? The only thing I could find was a report that they tried to exclude Fox News from an interview with the pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. And guess what happened, the media flipped out, called out Obama on it, and the white house instructed the treasury to allow the interview.

Obama was wrong to deny access to Kenneth Feinberg.
If Obama did deny Fox access to the gaggle, he was wrong.
Trump is wrong by denying access.
The next person sitting at that desk will be wrong if they try to do it.

[Juice]

When? The only thing I could find was a report that they tried to exclude Fox News from an interview with the pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. And guess what happened, the media flipped out, called out Obama on it, and the white house instructed the treasury to allow the interview.

Obama was wrong to deny access to Kenneth Feinberg.
If Obama did deny Fox access to the gaggle, he was wrong.
Trump is wrong by denying access.
The next person sitting at that desk will be wrong if they try to do it.

Examples:

https://twitter.com/CuffyMeh/status/835311718691713029

https://twitter.com/AriFleischer/status/835215195580542976

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/email-shows-white-house-official-called-fox-news-host-a-lunatic/

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/politics/calculated-candor-inside-obamas-off-the-record-briefings.html?smid=tw-share&referer=https://t.co/EPwnlJYwse

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/15/hillary-clintons-campaign-now-denying-bathroom-access-to-reporters/ (Hillary example)

[Juice]

Examples:

https://twitter.com/CuffyMeh/status/835311718691713029

https://twitter.com/AriFleischer/status/835215195580542976

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/email-shows-white-house-official-called-fox-news-host-a-lunatic/

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/politics/calculated-candor-inside-obamas-off-the-record-briefings.html?smid=tw-share&referer=https://t.co/EPwnlJYwse

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/15/hillary-clintons-campaign-now-denying-bathroom-access-to-reporters/ (Hillary example)

https://twitter.com/mkhammer/status/832359232007729154

[STL_XUfan]

Examples:

https://twitter.com/CuffyMeh/status/835311718691713029

https://twitter.com/AriFleischer/status/835215195580542976

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/email-shows-white-house-official-called-fox-news-host-a-lunatic/

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/politics/calculated-candor-inside-obamas-off-the-record-briefings.html?smid=tw-share&referer=https://t.co/EPwnlJYwse

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/15/hillary-clintons-campaign-now-denying-bathroom-access-to-reporters/ (Hillary example)

And Obama was wrong to do it.

And Trump is wrong to do it now. Relying on the "well the other guy did it" argument is childish. The disgusting part is not only are both parties guilty of relying on that argument, it seems like it is their preferred tactic.

I really want someone to put together a quiz that has quotes from 2009 Republicans and 2017 Democrats and you have to tell me which party said it. I am fairly certain it would be impossible to pass.

[Caf]

And Obama was wrong to do it.

And Trump is wrong to do it now. Relying on the "well the other guy did it" argument is childish. The disgusting part is not only are both parties guilty of relying on that argument, it seems like it is their preferred tactic.

I really want someone to put together a quiz that has quotes from 2009 Republicans and 2017 Democrats and you have to tell me which party said it. I am fairly certain it would be impossible to pass.

That's literally the only kind of argument Juice will make. You've been warned.

[Juice]

That's literally the only kind of argument Juice will make. You've been warned.

It's not an argument because I'm not trying to justify what he did. In fact I didn't even bring it up. He asked when else Obama did it so I provided examples.

And the reason I make my "arguments" is to show how hypocritical everyone is being each day when they freak out about something "new" Trump is doing when in fact it's usually something that has been done before. When Trump does it they call him racist, a fascist, or label it an unprecedented power grab when those terms were never used before with prior presidents.

I think Trump has done some good things. He's certainly done some dumb things that I disagree with, but what pisses me off about the last few months is the daily freak out from left wing people who act like the world is ending because Trump did something similar to what Obama did.

[Caf]

It's not an argument because I'm not trying to justify what he did. In fact I didn't even bring it up. He asked when else Obama did it so I provided examples.

And the reason I make my "arguments" is to show how hypocritical everyone is being each day when they freak out about something "new" Trump is doing when in fact it's usually something that has been done before. When Trump does it they call him racist, a fascist, or label it an unprecedented power grab when those terms were never used before with prior presidents.

I think Trump has done some good things. He's certainly done some dumb things that I disagree with, but what pisses me off about the last few months is the daily freak out from left wing people who act like the world is ending because Trump did something similar to what Obama did.

This particular instance is one where you'll be hard pressed to find many actual hypocrites. Bret Baier, who was specifically targeted by Obama, tweeted this about media exclusion:


Some at CNN & NYT stood w/FOX News when the Obama admin attacked us & tried 2 exclude us-a WH gaggle should be open to all credentialed orgs

Pointing out "hypocrisy" the way you do is just lazy. First off, it ignores all nuance in extremely complex and wide ranging topics/ideas. Secondly, it's easy to find hypocrisy among "left wing people" or "right wing people" or "the liberal media". Hypocrisy needs to come from a specific source, messenger, outlet, person, etc.

[Juice]

This particular instance is one where you'll be hard pressed to find many actual hypocrites. Bret Baier, who was specifically targeted by Obama, tweeted this about media exclusion:



Pointing out "hypocrisy" the way you do is just lazy. First off, it ignores all nuance in extremely complex and wide ranging topics/ideas. Secondly, it's easy to find hypocrisy among "left wing people" or "right wing people" or "the liberal media". Hypocrisy needs to come from a specific source, messenger, outlet, person, etc.

I already said I disagreed with the move.

The difference is that when Obama did it no one called it an "attack on the First Amendment" like they are now, which is a gross exaggeration and also a poor understanding of the First Amendment. People didn't wait outside of the NY Times offices in a show of support. Seriously, who has that much time on their hands where they go and hold a small rally for media members?

[Lloyd Braun]

I already said I disagreed with the move.

Where did you post that? Linking tweets that defend Trumps actions based on Obamas previously Republican-condemned actions is laughable. You really only point out hypocrisy on one side so of course it will paint the picture that you are biased.


The difference is that when Obama did it no one called it an "attack on the First Amendment" like they are now, which is a gross exaggeration and also a poor understanding of the First Amendment. People didn't wait outside of the NY Times offices in a show of support. Seriously, who has that much time on their hands where they go and hold a small rally for media members?

There's a huge difference between threatening to do something and actually doing it. And then doubling down by stating the media is public enemy #1. Trump cannot ever admit wrong-doing, which is part of a fatalistic flaw.

Do people freak out excessively simply because it's Trump? Probably. But the examples you continue to choose are apples to oranges.

[GoMuskies]

The excessive freak outs ARE fun to watch.

[xavierj]

Where did you post that? Linking tweets that defend Trumps actions based on Obamas previously Republican-condemned actions is laughable. You really only point out hypocrisy on one side so of course it will paint the picture that you are biased.



There's a huge difference between threatening to do something and actually doing it. And then doubling down by stating the media is public enemy #1. Trump cannot ever admit wrong-doing, which is part of a fatalistic flaw.

Do people freak out excessively simply because it's Trump? Probably. But the examples you continue to choose are apples to oranges.

The media for the most part is the problem. They want drama and ratings. The try to strike fear in People and people actually fall for it. If you do not see that, I don't now what to tell you. They are actually trying to paint Trump as the next Hitler in some cases and people actually think he can pull a Hitler. What sane logical person in the year 2017, really deep down believes Trump will become Hitler and use genocide to get rid of certain races?

[Juice]

Where did you post that? Linking tweets that defend Trumps actions based on Obamas previously Republican-condemned actions is laughable. You really only point out hypocrisy on one side so of course it will paint the picture that you are biased.



There's a huge difference between threatening to do something and actually doing it. And then doubling down by stating the media is public enemy #1. Trump cannot ever admit wrong-doing, which is part of a fatalistic flaw.

Do people freak out excessively simply because it's Trump? Probably. But the examples you continue to choose are apples to oranges.

I am biased. I'm a Republican voter (but I didn't vote for Trump).

The media isn't public enemy #1 but let's not pretend that they didn't go into hibernation for 8 years while their god was in office.

And Trump is an insane person in that he can't let little comments from insignificant people go.

[Juice]

The excessive freak outs ARE fun to watch.

They're hilarious. I honestly don't know how people are going to keep it up. Most will die of a heart attack before these 4 years are over.

[Caf]

The media for the most part is the problem. They want drama and ratings. The try to strike fear in People and people actually fall for it. If you do not see that, I don't now what to tell you. They are actually trying to paint Trump as the next Hitler in some cases and people actually think he can pull a Hitler. What sane logical person in the year 2017, really deep down believes Trump will become Hitler and use genocide to get rid of certain races?

Feel free to share some examples of an actual news organization doing any of this. Show me 1 New York Times piece that is factually inaccurate or that paints Trump as Hitler.

[boozehound]

It's not an argument because I'm not trying to justify what he did. In fact I didn't even bring it up. He asked when else Obama did it so I provided examples.

And the reason I make my "arguments" is to show how hypocritical everyone is being each day when they freak out about something "new" Trump is doing when in fact it's usually something that has been done before. When Trump does it they call him racist, a fascist, or label it an unprecedented power grab when those terms were never used before with prior presidents.

I think Trump has done some good things. He's certainly done some dumb things that I disagree with, but what pisses me off about the last few months is the daily freak out from left wing people who act like the world is ending because Trump did something similar to what Obama did.

I keep hearing this. What specifically has he done that is good, and why? I think he's done very little of actual consequence so far, and the crap that he has done isn't the stuff I want him prioritizing. I see a president who is all talk, and doesn't know enough about how our government functions to shape any meaningful legislation. The worst part is that he doesn't care to learn, either. The guy can't even staff his administration, for crying out loud.

In terms of things that he has actually done, or set significantly in motion, we have: a poorly written and executed EO on immigration that has resulted in an ongoing battle with the judicial branch, a crackdown on illegal immigrants, a raid in Yemen that seems to have been poorly executed, and a largely unnecessary war with the media over key issues such as the crowd size at his inauguration.

We were promised a hugely improved alternative to the ACA right out of the gates. How is the progress going on that? Word is that there is no progress, and that his administration has provided House and Senate GOP with nothing.

[Masterofreality]

It's not an argument because I'm not trying to justify what he did. In fact I didn't even bring it up. He asked when else Obama did it so I provided examples.

And the reason I make my "arguments" is to show how hypocritical everyone is being each day when they freak out about something "new" Trump is doing when in fact it's usually something that has been done before. When Trump does it they call him racist, a fascist, or label it an unprecedented power grab when those terms were never used before with prior presidents.

I think Trump has done some good things. He's certainly done some dumb things that I disagree with, but what pisses me off about the last few months is the daily freak out from left wing people who act like the world is ending because Trump did something similar to what Obama did.

This.

It depends who's ox is being gored...except with a clearly biased press.

I wish the Great Q was alive to weigh in. He told me stories about how coverage was slanted...even back in the day, depending on the viewpoint of the editor/ownership.

And if you young whippersnappers don't believe that, you need to live longer.

[Masterofreality]

The media for the most part is the problem. They want drama and ratings. The try to strike fear in People and people actually fall for it. If you do not see that, I don't now what to tell you. They are actually trying to paint Trump as the next Hitler in some cases and people actually think he can pull a Hitler. What sane logical person in the year 2017, really deep down believes Trump will become Hitler and use genocide to get rid of certain races?

And this too.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

He won't be Hitler, but I am having difficulty to find much of anything that could be classified as "winning" or MAGA so far. The healthcare outline is abysmal. The guy is new not just to the job but also to public service. It will take him time to adjust and learn the ins and outs of this job. That said, he absolutely needs to get tough on things and his focus seems to have moved off path.

[boozehound]

He won't be Hitler, but I am having difficulty to find much of anything that could be classified as "winning" or MAGA so far. The healthcare outline is abysmal. The guy is new not just to the job but also to public service. It will take him time to adjust and learn the ins and outs of this job. That said, he absolutely needs to get tough on things and his focus seems to have moved off path.

The thing that concerns me, is that studying and learning don't really seem to be things that Trump is particularly interested in. It sounds like he is going to place the entire onus of legislating on Congress, outside of a few 'key' areas that entertain him.

For example: "Talking about building walls and deporting illegals is fun, so I'll engage with that. Healthcare reform is incredibly complicated and boring, so I won't." The reality is that anything these guys do on Healthcare reform will have a much more direct impact on most American people's lives than a bunch of verbal jacking off about building walls and travel bans.

We are already seeing him disengage with large swaths of Presidential responsibility and we are less than two months in. It's going to be interesting to see how this country functions for the next 4 years.

[Juice]

I keep hearing this. What specifically has he done that is good, and why? I think he's done very little of actual consequence so far, and the crap that he has done isn't the stuff I want him prioritizing. I see a president who is all talk, and doesn't know enough about how our government functions to shape any meaningful legislation. The worst part is that he doesn't care to learn, either. The guy can't even staff his administration, for crying out loud.

In terms of things that he has actually done, or set significantly in motion, we have: a poorly written and executed EO on immigration that has resulted in an ongoing battle with the judicial branch, a crackdown on illegal immigrants, a raid in Yemen that seems to have been poorly executed, and a largely unnecessary war with the media over key issues such as the crowd size at his inauguration.

We were promised a hugely improved alternative to the ACA right out of the gates. How is the progress going on that? Word is that there is no progress, and that his administration has provided House and Senate GOP with nothing.

Things I like: the federal government not longer funding Planned Parenthood, adding border control agents (I don't support the wall), getting rid of the ACA (the idea as a whole, but I'm not hearing great things in the process), deciding to not to revisit the gay marriage issue, getting rid of regulations on businesses. Those are a few off the top of my head.

And your views on his "immigration crackdown", his crackdown is actually not a crackdown at all considering Obama deported more people at this point last year than Trump has. But when the media cries wolf on the evil ICE agents and the terror they're spreading, it probably seems like a crackdown.

[Masterofreality]

The thing that concerns me, is that studying and learning don't really seem to be things that Trump is particularly interested in. It sounds like he is going to place the entire onus of legislating on Congress, outside of a few 'key' areas that entertain him.

For example: "Talking about building walls and deporting illegals is fun, so I'll engage with that. Healthcare reform is incredibly complicated and boring, so I won't." The reality is that anything these guys do on Healthcare reform will have a much more direct impact on most American people's lives than a bunch of verbal jacking off about building walls and travel bans.

We are already seeing him disengage with large swaths of Presidential responsibility and we are less than two months in. It's going to be interesting to see how this country functions for the next 4 years.

But in reality, isn't that what the Founding Fathers envisioned? Only in recent times has the "President" been likened to a King with all of the alleged power & responsibility. The other two branches of government were always entrusted to handle the dirty business of coming up with the schematics of "governing" .

The President is called the "Executive Branch" for a reason. Effective Executives delegate, while "leading" on all the main points. They don't immerse themselves in all the minutiae, although some past Presidents seemed to want to act like a Know it All on everything. Trump seems to be trying to handle the Business of Government like a business. That may frustrate the press because they may not always have a central whipping boy, although they'll still identify Trump as that...even after giving Obama a total pass for 8 years. Reagan definitely delegated while Billy Clinton and Caire Underwood....errr, Hillary, had to be in the middle of everything.

You may not like what Trump is "leading" toward, but there is an interesting NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll today.

NBC/WSJ poll: Who should take the lead in setting policy for the US?

Trump + Hill GOP: 52%
Hill Democrats: 37%

2155

Despite all of the negative press, the country seems to trust the Republicans more. And The Dems- especially Nancy Pelosi are the most unpopular politicians...although Mitch McConnell is right there too.

I'll REALLY be interested to see if NBC, which has become much more leftist in its reporting recently, actually shows this on tonight's newscast....of will they just bury it like they did many of the foibles of Obama. The poll doesn't quite fit their Chuck Todd narrative.

[Caf]

Things I like: the federal government not longer funding Planned Parenthood, adding border control agents (I don't support the wall), getting rid of the ACA (the idea as a whole, but I'm not hearing great things in the process), deciding to not to revisit the gay marriage issue, getting rid of regulations on businesses. Those are a few off the top of my head.

And your views on his "immigration crackdown", his crackdown is actually not a crackdown at all considering Obama deported more people at this point last year than Trump has. But when the media cries wolf on the evil ICE agents and the terror they're spreading, it probably seems like a crackdown.

You are nothing if not consistent.

[Juice]

You are nothing if not consistent.

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

[GoMuskies]

Trump is proposing to increase military spending by $54 billion. Not a huge fan of that.

[Masterofreality]

Trump is proposing to increase military spending by $54 billion. Not a huge fan of that.

Depends if some of it is to increase the Enlisted Folks pay/ PTSD treatment, VA support.

*Details*

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Put that in the no column for me as well. Toss in the immigration scam he is tossing around and this absolutely stupid wall as well. I have said it a hundred times, spend some time living in areas that are affected by illegals then you can come back to me. The hysteria over that and the wall is mind numbing and stupid. Next time I head down to Rocky Point and enjoy nice warm water and beaches in Mexico I will snap a photo of the Border Patrol station down there. There has to be at least 100 vehicles sitting unused in the gated parking lot. It's that way each and every time I drive by. I tell my wife each time we pass it, fleecing of America.

The conversation should be about health insurance, keeping costs down, increasing insurance rolls. It needs to be about the wealth gap, stagnant wages, and tax reform. Instead we get more and more fear mongering.


Trump is proposing to increase military spending by $54 billion. Not a huge fan of that.

[Caf]

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

Numbers don't lie. People love to twist them to help themselves lie though. Deportations peaked under Obama in 2013, but he changed policies (to 'families not felons') in 2014. He had a much softer immigration policy ever since then. So it is a crackdown.

[GoMuskies]

Depends if some of it is to increase the Enlisted Folks pay/ PTSD treatment, VA support.

*Details*

Some of it is supposed to be improvements at the VA, which are clearly about 100 years overdue. Another focus, which I'm not all that thrilled to pay a ton more for, is border security. Not a huge fan of this statement: “It will include a historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States of America at a time we most need it.”

[GoMuskies]

Trump also seems to be big on "law and order". To which Obama might wittily (and correctly) reply: "The '90s called, and they want their domestic policy back." Criminal justice reform to lock fewer people up is the way we should be heading in 2017.

[ChicagoX]

The notion that our military is depleted is pure right-wing fiction. This is just another pay-off to line the pockets of the defense contractors who donate to GOP campaigns.

[muskiefan82]

Depends if some of it is to increase the Enlisted Folks pay/ PTSD treatment, VA support.

*Details*

This would not be military spending, but money appropriated for the VA. Defense (DOD) and VA are entirely separate entities for funding and appropriations (which is a YUGE, YUGE mistake IMHO). These two entities should be tightly interwoven so care NEVER stops AND doesn't require a new entity (VA) to verify that which is already in the veterans health record when they separate before paying benefits and providing treatment.

[GoMuskies]

This would not be military spending, but money appropriated for the VA. Defense (DOD) and VA are entirely separate entities for funding and appropriations (which is a YUGE, YUGE mistake IMHO). These two entities should be tightly interwoven so care NEVER stops AND doesn't require a new entity (VA) to verify that which is already in the veterans health record when they separate before paying benefits and providing treatment.

Good point. His budget must also include a boost for the VA, because I was going off this sentence from the WSJ article about the proposed boost in military spending (that, on second look, apply to three different parts of the budget): "The budget proposal would prioritize border security, care for military veterans and “school choice,” without adding to the deficit, Mr. Mulvaney said."

[Masterofreality]

Good WSJ article re media outrage hypocrisy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-media-1488223333

[Masterofreality]

You may not like what Trump is "leading" toward, but there is an interesting NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll today.

NBC/WSJ poll: Who should take the lead in setting policy for the US?

Trump + Hill GOP: 52%
Hill Democrats: 37%

2155

Despite all of the negative press, the country seems to trust the Republicans more. And The Dems- especially Nancy Pelosi are the most unpopular politicians...although Mitch McConnell is right there too.

I'll REALLY be interested to see if NBC, which has become much more leftist in its reporting recently, actually shows this on tonight's newscast....of will they just bury it like they did many of the foibles of Obama. The poll doesn't quite fit their Chuck Todd narrative.

Well, that question was answered. 3 lead stories taking potshots at the Administration about Russia, Yemen and the budget..which by the Way, Obama didn't bother to submit for many years....laced with a bunch of opinion but few facts, and ZERO about these NBC/WSJ generated polls.

Methinks, that if the polls were reversed there would have been 15 minutes covering how "America was dismayed, discouraged and disillusioned". If this isn't a case of aggressive media bias, I don't know what is.

[Caf]

Trump wants compromise immigration bill: reports - The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/321613-trump-wants-compromise-immigration-bill-reports)


Trump envisions a proposal that would allow some undocumented immigrants live and work in the U.S. without fear of deportation, but would stop short of offering them a pathway to citizenship.

Why didn't any conservatives praise Obama for having the same policy at the beginning of his presidency? Why are conservatives not crying foul now??

[bobbiemcgee]

"The budget proposal would prioritize border security, care for military veterans and “school choice,” without adding to the deficit, Mr. Mulvaney said."

Well as far as military spending goes, Trump wants 54b increase (Mc Cain wants much more) while Mick's Tea Party wants to cut that much or more, so I would guess nothing gets done as usual.

[GoMuskies]

Trump wants compromise immigration bill: reports - The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/321613-trump-wants-compromise-immigration-bill-reports)



Why didn't any conservatives praise Obama for having the same policy at the beginning of his presidency? Why are conservatives not crying foul now??

I assume the liberal praise will come pouring in for Trump any time now.

In other news, who gives a fuck what "conservatives" said or didn't say when Obama was in office and what "liberals" are saying or not saying now compared to what they said when Obama was in office? It's a particularly obnoxious game.

[Caf]

I assume the liberal praise will come pouring in for Trump any time now.

In other news, who gives a fuck what "conservatives" said or didn't say when Obama was in office and what "liberals" are saying or not saying now compared to what they said when Obama was in office? It's a particularly obnoxious game.

Yeah you're right. Better to judge things on their face rather than constantly comparing them to prior administrations.

[GoMuskies]

Yeah you're right. Better to judge things on their face rather than constantly comparing them to prior administrations.

Yes, I know it's a game both sides play. I just personally find it annoying. At least find the same person saying different things (like Obama on gay marriage....or Trump on virtually anything), because neither "side" speaks in unison.

[SemajParlor]

In other news, who gives a fuck what "conservatives" said or didn't say when Obama was in office and what "liberals" are saying or not saying now compared to what they said when Obama was in office? It's a particularly obnoxious game.

But how will people get recognition for how smart and informed they are when they point this out!?

[GoMuskies]

But how will people get recognition for how smart and informed they are when they point this out!?

Good point. Also, did you know Abraham Lincoln was a Republican?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

Political points........scored!!!!!!!!

[Caf]

Yes, I know it's a game both sides play. I just personally find it annoying. At least find the same person saying different things (like Obama on gay marriage....or Trump on virtually anything), because neither "side" speaks in unison.

I completely agree with you. My initial post was purely sarcastic and mocking.

[bobbiemcgee]

What's with the singing of Kumbaya on the Politics thread after 1100+ posts.:stop:

[GoMuskies]

The SOTU ovations are obnoxious.

[xu82]

Worse than commercials.....

[X-band '01]

Wait, Donald Trump is actually doing a State of the Union?

(slow clap)

[xu82]

Wait, Donald Trump is actually doing a State of the Union?

(slow clap)

I think of it as a kind of a State of the Donald, but....yeah..... He misses his regular TV appearances. Fingers crossed!

I have a freind who is in the process of selling a business that should net him literally millions in the next couple weeks. He's holding his breath tonight! PLEASE, don't blow it with one stupid comment!

[Caf]

Much better speech than the inauguration.

[GoMuskies]

Bette Midler is not into deep thinking.

Bette Midler‏Verified account
@BetteMidler

Follow
More
Trump says that 4000 people were shot in Chicago in 2016. Chicago Tribune says 2016 ended with 762 homicides.

[muskiefan82]

Bette Midler is not into deep thinking.

Bette Midler‏Verified account
@BetteMidler

Follow
More
Trump says that 4000 people were shot in Chicago in 2016. Chicago Tribune says 2016 ended with 762 homicides.

So, Chicago hospitals have around an 81% life-saving percentage. Good job guys!

[xavierj]

So, Chicago hospitals have around an 81% life-saving percentage. Good job guys!

Chicago Tribune had it 4,367. Stock market killing it today. Up 300 points and over 21,000

[SemajParlor]

Hey guys, one of Trumps guys lied about being in contact with Russia again.

Aw man, it sucks when KKK sympathizer's get caught lying under oath.

[Caf]

Hey guys, one of Trumps guys lied about being in contact with Russia again.

Aw man, it sucks when KKK sympathizer's get caught lying under oath.

Oh and don't forget, the stock market is not killing it today too.

[GoMuskies]

the stock market is not killing it today too.


It's Snap-ping back a little bit today. Get it?

Of course, I'd take this two day return (counting yesterday and today) on a consistent basis!

[Caf]

It's Snap-ping back a little bit today. Get it?

Of course, I'd take this two day return (counting yesterday and today) on a consistent basis!

You gotta love IPO humor. Agreed, 300+ in a day was obviously from a lot of short-squeezes after SOTU.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Perspective, just because the stock market is overall doing well (says nothing of the current or even former President) doesn't mean it's cool for the sitting top cop to have perjured himself in front of Congress during his confirmation hearings. And yes, he did perjure himself. I have read the exact question, response, and surrounding context. This is just bad. Pair this with Session's own video hammering on Clinton to be tried for perjury and it looks worse.

Trump is the guy, I get that, it's only been 40 or so days but why can't we have just one win here. It is loss upon loss upon loss. The only thing he seems to be doing well on is the Dow which has nothing to do with him.

[boozehound]

This Sessions thing seems like it has legs. He definitely lied under oath to Congress about talking with the Russians, right? It will be interesting to see what his explanation is. I'm sure it will be something along the lines of "I didn't recall talking to the Russian Ambassador", which will raise the age-old question: Is he stupid, or a liar?

[bjf123]

I think he was asked if he had any contact with the Russians "about the campaign" and he said no. That might make his response technically correct if he talked about things other than the campaign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulxu]

T, which will raise the age-old question: Is he stupid, or a liar?

These are not (unfortunately) mutually exclusive.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I think he was asked if he had any contact with the Russians "about the campaign" and he said no. That might make his response technically correct if he talked about things other than the campaign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually yes and no, he was asked that but he said he didn't have any contact with Russians not just as it pertained to the compaign. Then tried to say it was for his Senatorial duties for the Armed Forces committee, which was then also disproved. They don't meet with Ambassadors. Once was at the RNC and the other time a meeting with the Ambassador and himself.

Will he be convicted of perjury? Probably not, but does this stain him and the Trumps? Yes, for certain except for the ostriches that make up a percentage of his voters (apologists).

[Juice]

Actually yes and no, he was asked that but he said he didn't have any contact with Russians not just as it pertained to the compaign. Then tried to say it was for his Senatorial duties for the Armed Forces committee, which was then also disproved. They don't meet with Ambassadors. Once was at the RNC and the other time a meeting with the Ambassador and himself.

Will he be convicted of perjury? Probably not, but does this stain him and the Trumps? Yes, for certain except for the ostriches that make up a percentage of his voters (apologists).

Claire MsCaskill (sp?) and other Democrat senators (with a Republican) met with the Russian ambassador. https://twitter.com/AlexPappas/status/837376403607793665

Also, quality journalistic work here by the NYT:

The New York Times‏
@nytimes
Opinion: "We do not yet know all the facts, but we know enough to see that Attorney General Sessions has to go"

[Juice]

Actually yes and no, he was asked that but he said he didn't have any contact with Russians not just as it pertained to the compaign. Then tried to say it was for his Senatorial duties for the Armed Forces committee, which was then also disproved. They don't meet with Ambassadors. Once was at the RNC and the other time a meeting with the Ambassador and himself.

Will he be convicted of perjury? Probably not, but does this stain him and the Trumps? Yes, for certain except for the ostriches that make up a percentage of his voters (apologists).

Here are the transcripts: https://twitter.com/JayCostTWS/status/837383035788148736

It can be read both ways. He wasn't specific enough either way.

[STL_XUfan]

Claire MsCaskill (sp?) and other Democrat senators met with the Russian ambassador. https://twitter.com/AlexPappas/status/837376403607793665

Also, quality journalistic work here by the NYT:

The New York Times‏
@nytimes
Opinion: "We do not yet know all the facts, but we know enough to see that Attorney General Sessions has to go"

I think you highlighted the wrong word of that tweet. It is an op-ed (from Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007) not an journalist piece.

[Juice]

I think you highlighted the wrong word of that tweet. It is an op-ed (from Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007) not an journalist piece.

Poor choice of words in my joke but publishing the thing is still bullshit. No one knows shit about this story. They can't even print the full question from Franken but they're pushing the story in one way by publishing this Op-Ed and keeping their hands clean.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Claire MsCaskill (sp?) and other Democrat senators met with the Russian ambassador. https://twitter.com/AlexPappas/status/837376403607793665

Also, quality journalistic work here by the NYT:

The New York Times‏
@nytimes
Opinion: "We do not yet know all the facts, but we know enough to see that Attorney General Sessions has to go"

McCaskill, however, is on another committee that does meeting with Ambassadors. People, no matter how you package this it will still be bad and he still lied in front of Congress. If this is now ok, can we go back 20 years and go ahead and let Clinton off the hook?

[Juice]

McCaskill, however, is on another committee that does meeting with Ambassadors. People, no matter how you package this it will still be bad and he still lied in front of Congress. If this is now ok, can we go back 20 years and go ahead and let Clinton off the hook?

What committee is she on that allows that but not the Armed Services Committee?

[GoMuskies]

If this is now ok, can we go back 20 years and go ahead and let Clinton off the hook?

Didn't Clinton get off the hook? And don't most people think it was bullshit that he got impeached in the first place?

However, I think Clinton was disbarred. Probably not a good look to have a disbarred AG. :)

[ArizonaXUGrad]

What committee is she on that allows that but not the Armed Services Committee?

Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committees.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

But he took a huge kick to the nuts as a sitting president. I am saying that Sessions at the least should also have to take that huge kick to the nuts.


Didn't Clinton get off the hook? And don't most people think it was bullshit that he got impeached in the first place?

However, I think Clinton was disbarred. Probably not a good look to have a disbarred AG. :)

[muskiefan82]

But he took a huge kick to the nuts as a sitting president. I am saying that Sessions at the least should also have to take that huge kick to the nuts.

I'll Rochambeau you for the AG position!

[GoMuskies]

Seems the Gorsuch confirmation hearing is going pretty well. I think Gorsuch is basically a shoo-in. He should be as pallateable to Democrats as Garland should have been to Republicans (they sure got bailed out by the election). I'm just following a WSJ live blog of the proceedings, but this is my favorite line so far:

"I try to live under a shell during the campaign season — watch baseball and football, go about my business," Mr. Gorsuch said about the 2016 presidential campaign.

Amen

[X-man]

Seems the Gorsuch confirmation hearing is going pretty well. I think Gorsuch is basically a shoo-in. He should be as pallateable to Democrats as Garland should have been to Republicans (they sure got bailed out by the election). I'm just following a WSJ live blog of the proceedings, but this is my favorite line so far:

"I try to live under a shell during the campaign season — watch baseball and football, go about my business," Mr. Gorsuch said about the 2016 presidential campaign.

What??? The Republicans (McConnell, Cruz, etc.) were already on record as saying they wouldn't let Hillary nominate anyone either. So much for the bogus argument that they stiffed the process last year to protect the will of the people. The hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue is positively nauseating.
Amen

[GoMuskies]

Garland got hosed, not doubt. And it was complete bullshit.

All I'm saying on the "bailed out" is that eventually Hillary would have gotten her nominee in there, and he or she would have been much worse for Republicans than Garland would have been. Similarly, I think Dems should be on hands and knees thanking God Trump brought them Gorsuch instead of someone that would be much worse for them. Particularly since Trump (with the nuclear option) could have probably pushed through just about anyone.

[kyxu]

Garland got hosed, not doubt. And it was complete bullshit.

All I'm saying on the "bailed out" is that eventually Hillary would have gotten her nominee in there, and he or she would have been much worse for Republicans than Garland would have been. Similarly, I think Dems should be on hands and knees thanking God Trump brought them Gorsuch instead of someone that would be much worse for them. Particularly since Trump (with the nuclear option) could have probably pushed through just about anyone.

Much worse for "them". Much worse for us all.

[bobbiemcgee]

I hate Trump but Gorsuch is eminently qualified for this position. I didn't like his dissent in the TransAm case but everyone gets one wrong once in a while.

[GoMuskies]

Much worse for "them". Much worse for us all.

Fair enough. Just as Hillary's pick would have been much worse for all of us than Garland.

[GoMuskies]

I didn't like his dissent in the TransAm case

Who the fuck is reading dissents in Circuit Court cases anyway? Strange hobby.

[boozehound]

Seems the Gorsuch confirmation hearing is going pretty well. I think Gorsuch is basically a shoo-in. He should be as pallateable to Democrats as Garland should have been to Republicans (they sure got bailed out by the election). I'm just following a WSJ live blog of the proceedings, but this is my favorite line so far:

"I try to live under a shell during the campaign season — watch baseball and football, go about my business," Mr. Gorsuch said about the 2016 presidential campaign.

Amen

Nominating Gorsuch might be the only thing Trump has done so far that I have liked. I don't think I'm exaggerating much, if it all, on that. I do think the Garland thing was straight-up bullshit though, particularly since it wasn't like Obama nominated some bleeding heart judge that he knew Republicans would hate.

[Caf]

Chicago Tribune had it 4,367. Stock market killing it today. Up 300 points and over 21,000

Something (every financial indicator in the book) tells me your 401k is going to take a hit today. And it's Trump+Paul Ryan's fault.

[SemajParlor]

I didn't talk to Russia
Actually, I talked to Russia
Yes, I talked to Russia and will now resign
Ok I talked to Russia and will tell all for criminal immunity

[bobbiemcgee]

Kim wants to declare war cuz McCain called him a "crazy fat kid". Funny, but this unstable kid in the nuclear age scares the hell outta me.

[Masterofreality]

I didn't talk to Russia
Actually, I talked to Russia
Yes, I talked to Russia and will now resign
Ok I talked to Russia and will tell all for criminal immunity

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the Dems have been flailing all over this for months, about 5 now, and no one, including the FBI has produced any evidence that The Russians had any influence over the election, or that there was any improper contact...except in the opinion of the Dems. #FakeNews

[SemajParlor]

Nothing like Making America Great Again like only having 35 percent of America believing America is becoming great again

[Caf]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the Dems have been flailing all over this for months, about 5 now, and no one, including the FBI has produced any evidence that The Russians had any influence over the election, or that there was any improper contact...except in the opinion of the Dems. #FakeNews

"I've been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed."

-James Comey

I suspect you're that the FBI does not produce evidence during investigations.

[RealDeal]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the Dems have been flailing all over this for months, about 5 now, and no one, including the FBI has produced any evidence that The Russians had any influence over the election, or that there was any improper contact...except in the opinion of the Dems. #FakeNews

When did John McCain go Democrat?

http://time.com/4605818/john-mccain-donald-trump-russia/

[Masterofreality]

"I've been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed."

-James Comey

I suspect you're that the FBI does not produce evidence during investigations.

Yeah, and what......has......been......found.....after 5 months? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[Masterofreality]

When did John McCain go Democrat?

http://time.com/4605818/john-mccain-donald-trump-russia/

And, what has been found that affected the election? Oh, that is other than the Democratic National Committee emails and files that showed them to be disingenuous hacks who were plotting against Bernie Sanders.

[RealDeal]

And, what has been found that affected the election? Oh, that is other than the Democratic National Committee emails and files that showed them to be disingenuous hacks who were plotting against Bernie Sanders.

I wasn't addressing anything other than that the interest in this issue isn't just the Democrats.

[Strange Brew]

When did John McCain go Democrat?

http://time.com/4605818/john-mccain-donald-trump-russia/

Long time ago. The Maverick who bucks his party!

[Masterofreality]

I wasn't addressing anything other than that the interest in this issue isn't just the Democrats.

I've had a lot of respect for John McCain over the years, but Since 2008, John has basically turned into a bitter old man, like a lot of these career politicians from both sides of the aisle do. He can bitch all he wants, but show me some evidence.

[Caf]

Yeah, and what......has......been......found.....after 5 months? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Again, they haven't concluded the investigation and so we don't know what they've found.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

No chatter on here about Tillerson saying he saw no reason to deal with Assad, then days later Assad gasses the rebels, Trump follows that up by blaming Obama. MAGA am I right?

[GoMuskies]

We had 8 years of Obama, and Assad is still there. After however many years of Trump, Assad will still be there unless he dies of natural causes or Russia decides they don't like him (unlikely). Isn't this sort of like blaming the next suicide bomber in Israel (which will be along soon enough) on Trump or Obama?

Anyway, I'm more interested in the Gorsuch thing. It's fascinating how this is playing out. I mean, the nuclear option is going to happen based on two of the least controversial nominees in history (Garland and Gorsuch). America is looney tunes right now.

[RealDeal]

That gassing footage (nerve gas?) is brutal. Just brutal.

[boozehound]

That gassing footage (nerve gas?) is brutal. Just brutal.

Yes. Yes it is. That is just pure evil. I really don't know what, if anything, we can/should do about it. As human beings it seems like something we should intervene in, but there aren't a lot of examples in which our intervention has resulted in a material change for the better in that region. If we depose Assad he is likely to be replaced by a similarly malevolent dictator.

[GoMuskies]

If we depose Assad he is likely to be replaced by a similarly malevolent dictator.

While we're at war with Russia

[boozehound]

While we're at war with Russia

I'm not sure if I completely believe that it would start a war with Russia, but that would definitely be a big risk. It doesn't seem to matter since they are our BFF's now so I doubt we are going to do anything that they might not like.

[Masterofreality]

I'm not sure if I completely believe that it would start a war with Russia, but that would definitely be a big risk. It doesn't seem to matter since they are our BFF's now so I doubt we are going to do anything that they might not like.

Well, if you believe the Trump hating pundits we're BFF's with Russia. I beg to doubt that.

Fact of the matter is that Russia hated the Clintons. They wanted no part of a Clinton Presidency, although with Hilary's track record of failure as a Secretary of State, I doubt that anything other than appeasement would have occurred during her term. Hell, they were parties to a huge Uranium deal that benefitted the Ruskies. It can be argued that it is not healthy at all for the two biggest armed states in the world to be hating each other. Maybe a little more detente might be healthy, but that would only fuel the fires of the Left who'd be pointing fingers while saying, "You See, You See?" They LOVE each other"

[bobbiemcgee]

Trump lies 75% of the time, so let me know which ONE of his next 4 statements to believe.

[paulxu]

We have met the enemy...and he is us.

Who knew our generation could mess it up so much, or were so gullible to buy into the grift.

http://fusion.net/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blowing-up-in-t-1793944216

[GoMuskies]

We have met the enemy...and he is us.

Who knew our generation could mess it up so much, or were so gullible to buy into the grift.

http://fusion.net/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blowing-up-in-t-1793944216

That seemed like a fair and unbiased piece. Lol

[boozehound]

Well, if you believe the Trump hating pundits we're BFF's with Russia. I beg to doubt that.

Fact of the matter is that Russia hated the Clintons. They wanted no part of a Clinton Presidency, although with Hilary's track record of failure as a Secretary of State, I doubt that anything other than appeasement would have occurred during her term. Hell, they were parties to a huge Uranium deal that benefitted the Ruskies. It can be argued that it is not healthy at all for the two biggest armed states in the world to be hating each other. Maybe a little more detente might be healthy, but that would only fuel the fires of the Left who'd be pointing fingers while saying, "You See, You See?" They LOVE each other"

The only part of this I agree with is the part about a likely appeasement strategy during a Clinton Presidency. Although I think there would be a greater chance of meaningful economic sanctions during a Clinton regime.

Trump himself has said enough bizarrely positive shit about Russia and Putin to give me pause, before you even get into the connections and contacts. There certainly seems to be enough evidence to investigate. If evidence of collusion with Russia is found that should be a big deal to us, regardless of Russia's motives (I don't doubt that Putin hates Clinton) for interfering in our elections. It shouldn't matter who's candidate won or lost. This is about America, and our free elections.

Regarding: détente with Russia: No thanks. They are a shitty country with a 40+ year history of massive human rights violations as well as opposing our ideology and interests. Also - THEY JUST F**KING TRIED TO INFLUENCE OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!! LIKE 2 MONTHS AGO?!?!!? Finally, there also isn't much 'in it for the US that I can see. We aren't really in need of most of their exports and they aren't really a key player in the global economic picture. They are the 12th largest economy in the world, right below Canada and South Korea, so it's not like they are China.

[Caf]

While we're at war with Russia

Yup. When it comes to Syria, we will either be combating Russia or cooperating with them. Russia cannot and will not step away from Syria.

The Obama administration wanted to unseat Assad and end ISIS. Trump has seemed to prioritize ISIS and I can't blame him. If we start going after Assad and picking up all of the baggage that comes with it, we run the risk of creating an even greater vacuum for ISIS to exploit.

Our nation needs to decide once and for all if we want to stop being "world police". Letting humanitarian issues like this slide is an inherent part of that.

[boozehound]

Yup. When it comes to Syria, we will either be combating Russia or cooperating with them. Russia cannot and will not step away from Syria.

The Obama administration wanted to unseat Assad and end ISIS. Trump has seemed to prioritize ISIS and I can't blame him. If we start going after Assad and picking up all of the baggage that comes with it, we run the risk of creating an even greater vacuum for ISIS to exploit.

Our nation needs to decide once and for all if we want to stop being "world police". Letting humanitarian issues like this slide is an inherent part of that.

This is crux of the issue. I'm honestly not sure how I feel we should act going forward. We have long held a belief that as the leader of the free world, it was our duty to intervene to prevent humanitarian atrocities. It's a noble belief, but I'm not sure the extent to which our intervention has actually improved the lives of the people in the countries in which we intervene.

Iraq is probably a decent proxy for Syria, right down to Hussein gassing his own people. Are they significantly better off, on balance, than they were under Saddam Hussein? I'm don't actually know that answer to that question. If yes, maybe that's a case for intervention.

All the empirical evidence seems to suggest that there is little chance for a positive outcome if we intervene, but when you see innocent children dying it's hard to turn a blind eye.

[Masterofreality]

This is crux of the issue. I'm honestly not sure how I feel we should act going forward. We have long held a belief that as the leader of the free world, it was our duty to intervene to prevent humanitarian atrocities. It's a noble belief, but I'm not sure the extent to which our intervention has actually improved the lives of the people in the countries in which we intervene.

Iraq is probably a decent proxy for Syria, right down to Hussein gassing his own people. Are they significantly better off, on balance, than they were under Saddam Hussein? I'm don't actually know that answer to that question. If yes, maybe that's a case for intervention.

All the empirical evidence seems to suggest that there is little chance for a positive outcome if we intervene, but when you see innocent children dying it's hard to turn a blind eye.

And this is a very measured and profound statement. When should these places be expected to act as human beings and not barbarians?
The world is still dealing with hundreds of years of man's inhumanity to man with dictatorial philosophies that are rooted in the 6th century. What can you do about that?

[ChicagoX]

And this is a very measured and profound statement. When should these places be expected to act as human beings and not barbarians?
The world is still dealing with hundreds of years of man's inhumanity to man with dictatorial philosophies that are rooted in the 6th century. What can you do about that?

This is generally why I am opposed to intervening in the Middle East. It's simply an unwinnable battle and I don't think it's work sacrificing more American troops' lives over it. A permanent military occupation is not a viable solution. The Sunni and Shi'a have been slaughtering each other for nearly 1,400 years, and there is nothing we can do to stop that. Deposing a brutal dictator creates a power vacuum that seems to make the situation even worse than it was before. For as many people as Saddam killed, far more have died since we took him out.

I'll give George H.W. Bush credit. After we liberated Kuwait, he got the hell out of there instead of marching to Baghdad to take out Saddam. His son decided that it was in our country's best interest in remove Saddam from power, and that upheaval is something we'll be dealing with for years to come.

I don't think there is anything we can do that will actually make things better in the Middle East. There is always going to be a faction of Islam that wants to live in the 7th century versus the faction that wants to live in the 21st century, and nothing we do is going to change that.

[Masterofreality]

Well, there was also that little incident in New York on 9/11/01 that may have changed opinions from George HW Bush.

[X-man]

Well, there was also that little incident in New York on 9/11/01 that may have changed opinions from George HW Bush.

Then why didn't we just go after Bin Laden rather than letting him go and pivoting into Iraq? That pivot not only let Bin Laden escape (temporarily, thank God), but also stirred up the hornets' nest called the Middle East. Who knows whether ISIL would have gotten any traction had we not gone into Iraq after the Sunnis.

[boozehound]

Well, there was also that little incident in New York on 9/11/01 that may have changed opinions from George HW Bush.

I agree with this.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, W's decision to invade Iraq was very much the wrong one. When viewed through the lens of the information we had available at the time, I think it becomes much more understandable. I continue to believe that George W Bush is a good person who was doing what he thought was right. I think he was a compassionate man who cared for others. I don't necessarily feel the same way about Rumsfeld, Rove, and Cheney - which I think was part of Bush's problem.

Hussein was a brutal dictator who we believed had weapons of mass destruction. He had a decades-long history of atrocities against his own people. We had intelligence that said that the people of Iraq were yearning for democracy. The young people were supposed to lead the way to a functioning democratic system. The first war was easy, this time we were simply going to get rid of Hussein and help them set up a functioning democracy. It didn't go as planned.

[XU 87]

Then why didn't we just go after Bin Laden rather than letting him go and pivoting into Iraq? That pivot not only let Bin Laden escape (temporarily, thank God), but also stirred up the hornets' nest called the Middle East. Who knows whether ISIL would have gotten any traction had we not gone into Iraq after the Sunnis.

I agree about the "who knows" comment. However, we do know a few things with more certainty. First, the majority of democratic senators voted to go to war against Iraq. This would include Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Kerry. We also know with some certainty that had we not left Iraq for political reasons, there would be no ISIS.

[GoMuskies]

Well, there was also that little incident in New York on 9/11/01 that may have changed opinions from George HW Bush.

Then why didn't he decide to remove the leaders of Saudi Arabia? They had a closer connection to that event than anyone in Iraq.

In any event, that's all water under the bridge for now. The only thing I think you can do is try to help/support the places in the region that have moved/are trying to move in the right direction (UAE, Qatar to some extent, Saudia Arabia inching very slowly). And don't insist on them being perfect right away. If they suck on women's rights and gay rights and other similar issues (and they do), that ain't great, but if you can get them moving in a progressive direction (for lack of a better term), no need to beat them up too badly over their failings. Beats a blank.

[Caf]

I agree about the "who knows" comment. However, we do know a few things with more certainty. First, the majority of democratic senators voted to go to war against Iraq. This would include Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Kerry. We also know with some certainty that had we not left Iraq for political reasons, there would be no ISIS.

This is a confounding post. It was bad that democratic Senators voted to go to Iraq and it was also bad that President Obama wanted to leave Iraq? How do you reconcile these views? Withdrawal from Iraq is what people wanted. Obama campaigned very hard on that. Now, equipped with hindsight, people wanted the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq at the right time, in the right way. Withdrawal from the Middle East is never ever going to happen as planned. A western power is never going to be able to build a stable state in the Middle East. You can't have your influence in the Middle East and leave it too.

[XU 87]

This is a confounding post. It was bad that democratic Senators voted to go to Iraq and it was also bad that President Obama wanted to leave Iraq? How do you reconcile these views? Withdrawal from Iraq is what people wanted. Obama campaigned very hard on that. Now, equipped with hindsight, people wanted the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq at the right time, in the right way. Withdrawal from the Middle East is never ever going to happen as planned. A western power is never going to be able to build a stable state in the Middle East. You can't have your influence in the Middle East and leave it too.

1) I mention the fact that so many democrats voted to go to war to simply the hypocrisy and disingenuous of the democratic party, who after the war became unpopular ran for the hills and blamed it all on Bush.

2) I don't care if Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq. It was a stupid move and he was told that when he did it. You don't make strategic military decisions based on "what the people want" at that given time. If you do, you are then turning a military decision into a political decision, which is what Obama did.

[ChicagoX]

1) I mention the fact that so many democrats voted to go to war to simply the hypocrisy and disingenuous of the democratic party, who after the war became unpopular ran for the hills and blamed it all on Bush.

2) I don't care if Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq. It was a stupid move and he was told that when he did it. You don't make strategic military decisions based on "what the people want" at that given time. If you do, you are then turning a military decision into a political decision, which is what Obama did.

1) The war never would have happened had the Bush administration not led the charge and cherry-picked the evidence that supported their narrative that Iraq had WMDs that they didn't actually have. The day after 9/11, the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq. The fact that some Democrats made the poor decision to vote for the war doesn't change the fact that invading Iraq was, is, and always will be Bush's and the Republican's baby. Had Gore won in 2000, I can guarantee you that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. The war hawks in the GOP made this happen from the get-go.

2) Only a permanent occupation of Iraq would have prevented the rise of ISIS, which isn't a viable strategy. I'm glad we got out when we did, because this was going to happen no matter what as soon as we left. The cost both monetarily and the loss of American lives wasn't worth it.

[Caf]

1) I mention the fact that so many democrats voted to go to war to simply the hypocrisy and disingenuous of the democratic party, who after the war became unpopular ran for the hills and blamed it all on Bush.

2) I don't care if Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq. It was a stupid move and he was told that when he did it. You don't make strategic military decisions based on "what the people want" at that given time. If you do, you are then turning a military decision into a political decision, which is what Obama did.

I'm not interested in playing another round of "Oh yeah, well your party did this!"

My point is, we will never be able to cleanly leave the Middle East without consequence. There will never be a good time to leave. The way I see it, the only good time to stop meddling in the Middle East was yesterday. If we're ever going to escape this vicious cycle we have to accept the fact that bad things will happen there as a result of us leaving.

[X-man]

I agree about the "who knows" comment. However, we do know a few things with more certainty. First, the majority of democratic senators voted to go to war against Iraq. This would include Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Kerry. We also know with some certainty that had we not left Iraq for political reasons, there would be no ISIS.

Explain your intel on this please. This makes as much sense as if I had said that "we know with certainty that had Bush not had us invade Iraq and knock off Saddam, that ISIL would never have been formed". I would never say that, and I am amazed that you make such an inane statement.

[paulxu]

A large part of the reason we left Iraq is because an agreement had been reached with the new government that they got to be, well...their own country.
That agreement was signed long before Obama took office. Under that agreement the country asked us to withdraw as agreed.
And we did. To do otherwise would have signaled that we were truly colonial occupiers.

[X-man]

A large part of the reason we left Iraq is because an agreement had been reached with the new government that they got to be, well...their own country.
That agreement was signed long before Obama took office. Under that agreement the country asked us to withdraw as agreed.
And we did. To do otherwise would have signaled that we were truly colonial occupiers.

Paul Wolfowicz, to my mind the real criminal mind behind the actual rationale for going into Iraq, really was a colonial occupier in the sense that we were supposed to create through the invasion a model West-oriented state that would be a model for all the other broken states in the Middle East. That is the essence of colonial thinking, demonstrating a level of hubris common among West nation-builders.

[XU 87]

I'm not interested in playing another round of "Oh yeah, well your party did this!"



The Democratic mantra- "There's no standard like a double standard!"

[XU 87]

1) The war never would have happened had the Bush administration not led the charge and cherry-picked the evidence that supported their narrative that Iraq had WMDs that they didn't actually have. The day after 9/11, the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq. The fact that some Democrats made the poor decision to vote for the war doesn't change the fact that invading Iraq was, is, and always will be Bush's and the Republican's baby. Had Gore won in 2000, I can guarantee you that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. The war hawks in the GOP made this happen from the get-go.

2) Only a permanent occupation of Iraq would have prevented the rise of ISIS, which isn't a viable strategy. I'm glad we got out when we did, because this was going to happen no matter what as soon as we left. The cost both monetarily and the loss of American lives wasn't worth it.

More democratic revisionist history. Yea, the majority of senate democrats all voted to go to war because George Bush lied to them. Like I said, when the war became unpopular those same democrats ran for the hills and blamed George Bush and everyone else for their vote.

[boozehound]

This is a confounding post. It was bad that democratic Senators voted to go to Iraq and it was also bad that President Obama wanted to leave Iraq? How do you reconcile these views? Withdrawal from Iraq is what people wanted. Obama campaigned very hard on that. Now, equipped with hindsight, people wanted the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq at the right time, in the right way. Withdrawal from the Middle East is never ever going to happen as planned. A western power is never going to be able to build a stable state in the Middle East. You can't have your influence in the Middle East and leave it too.

My guess is that it was bad because it was Democrats. Welcome to partisan America.


1) I mention the fact that so many democrats voted to go to war to simply the hypocrisy and disingenuous of the democratic party, who after the war became unpopular ran for the hills and blamed it all on Bush.

2) I don't care if Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq. It was a stupid move and he was told that when he did it. You don't make strategic military decisions based on "what the people want" at that given time. If you do, you are then turning a military decision into a political decision, which is what Obama did.

If my memory serves me the fact that we had incontrovertible evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMDs was a cornerstone of the selling story to get congress (Democrats and Republicans) to approve the war in Iraq. We never really found any though. The Democrats (and some Republicans) used this as a rallying cry to switch their stance on the Iraq war after it became unpopular. I don't think they are entirely wrong, but it also doesn't really matter at that point.

As previously stated: I'm not sure the extent to which Bush 'lied' vs. the extent to which he was operating on incorrect intelligence. The outcome is essentially the same, but the motivations do matter (IMHO) when evaluating the individual. I don't think Bush lied about WMDs to get into a War that he 'wanted' to get into for some reason.

Democrats can be right sometimes. So can Republicans. In fact, I would argue that if you agree with 90% or more of either side's 'party line', you probably aren't doing enough critical thinking.

[Caf]

More democratic revisionist history. Yea, the majority of senate democrats all voted to go to war because George Bush lied to them. Like I said, when the war became unpopular those same democrats ran for the hills and blamed George Bush and everyone else for their vote.

And so did everybody else! Who the hell cares? Show me one person, Republican or Democrat who is still proud of their support for the Iraq War.

[XU 87]

And so did everybody else! Who the hell cares? Show me one person, Republican or Democrat who is still proud of their support for the Iraq War.

Boy are you missing my point.

[ChicagoX]

More democratic revisionist history. Yea, the majority of senate democrats all voted to go to war because George Bush lied to them. Like I said, when the war became unpopular those same democrats ran for the hills and blamed George Bush and everyone else for their vote.

Where did I say Bush lied? I said that evidence was cherry-picked, which it clearly was since the administration obviously wanted regime change in Iraq. The buck stops at the top, which is why Bush is the one receiving most of the blame for going into Iraq. As I said before, if it would have been Gore elected, there is no way in hell he would have gone into Iraq. That war was, is, and always will be Bush's baby. No amount of deflection of Democrats voting for it will change who the country's leader was at that time and where the idea originally came from to invade Iraq.

[Caf]

Boy are you missing my point.

Feel free to expand

[GoMuskies]

So we're attacking Syria. Huh.

[xu82]

So we're attacking Syria. Huh.

Stay tuned!

[bobbiemcgee]

Wag the Dog?

[waggy]

There will never be peace in the middle east, and the US will never leave the middle east. Add 2&2 together and what do you get?

[xu82]

There will never be peace in the middle east, and the US will never leave the middle east. Add 2&2 together and what do you get?

Pi?

[Juice]

Here's an interesting article written by a writer/doctor who is the son of Syrian immigrants: https://theringer.com/syria-barack-obama-legacy-853644abdd1b

[Caf]

It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.

-DJT

lol

[Masterofreality]

lol

Why LOL?

It actually would BE in the National Interest.

[Masterofreality]

I agree with this.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, W's decision to invade Iraq was very much the wrong one. When viewed through the lens of the information we had available at the time, I think it becomes much more understandable. I continue to believe that George W Bush is a good person who was doing what he thought was right. I think he was a compassionate man who cared for others. I don't necessarily feel the same way about Rumsfeld, Rove, and Cheney - which I think was part of Bush's problem.

Hussein was a brutal dictator who we believed had weapons of mass destruction. He had a decades-long history of atrocities against his own people. We had intelligence that said that the people of Iraq were yearning for democracy. The young people were supposed to lead the way to a functioning democratic system. The first war was easy, this time we were simply going to get rid of Hussein and help them set up a functioning democracy. It didn't go as planned.

Yessir Booze. And yeah. We did go after Afghanistan too. People forget that we had Bin Laden trapped in a freaking cave before he somehow slipped out. I think that the belief was that we'd be able to find Bin Laden and quickly get troops out of Afghanistan and that the popular opinion in Iraq was in our favor. Of course in retrospect, the hundreds of years of sectarian conflict mucked all that up and Al Milaki was a horrible first leader who tried to screw both the Kurds & the Sunnis. Messy stuff it became.

I fully agree with the assessment of Bush. Not any fan of Cheney, but the popular narrative that Bush "lied" to start a war is BS. Inaccurate Intelligence that the British also believed? Yes. Not the first time spies were wrong and won't be the last.

[Caf]

Why LOL?

It actually would BE in the National Interest.

It's about as vital to our interest as stopping the spread of communism in Vietnam was.

This sells better as a humanitarian action. To say it does anything for the national security of the United States is a huge stretch.

[boozehound]

It's about as vital to our interest as stopping the spread of communism in Vietnam was.

This sells better as a humanitarian action. To say it does anything for the national security of the United States is a huge stretch.

This is my opinion as well. If anything we have been made less safe by this action, at least in the short term. That doesn't necessarily make it the wrong action, but it opens up a level of risk to the US, particularly with respect to Russia, that didn't previously exist.

As I stated in an earlier post - I'm torn about this action. Factually I know that this isn't likely to do any good for the people of Syria. Emotionally, I like sending a message that gassing women and children won't be tolerated. It depends on where we go from here. If we dramatically escalate our involvement than this was probably a bad move, if we simply are sending a message that we won't tolerate the use of nerve gas on innocent people than I'm more OK with it.

This will be interesting to follow. Russia is obviously not happy, but I'm not sure they will take military action against the United States in retaliation or anything like that. The United States has the ability to devastate Russia both economically and militarily.

Finally, from a political aspect, this is a brilliant move from Trump, at least in the short term. The Democrats are already criticizing him for not seeking congressional approval, but I'm not sure how many people will really care. More importantly, he has been taking a ton of heat regarding his ties with Russia. Taking an action that is a direct affront to Russia / Putin gives some added credibility to the claims that he is not in Russia's pocket.

[X-man]

Yessir Booze. And yeah. We did go after Afghanistan too. People forget that we had Bin Laden trapped in a freaking cave before he somehow slipped out. I think that the belief was that we'd be able to find Bin Laden and quickly get troops out of Afghanistan and that the popular opinion in Iraq was in our favor. Of course in retrospect, the hundreds of years of sectarian conflict mucked all that up and Al Milaki was a horrible first leader who tried to screw both the Kurds & the Sunnis. Messy stuff it became.

I fully agree with the assessment of Bush. Not any fan of Cheney, but the popular narrative that Bush "lied" to start a war is BS. Inaccurate Intelligence that the British also believed? Yes. Not the first time spies were wrong and won't be the last.

He "somehow slipped out" because we pivoted into that bogus war in Iraq, the one Wolfie and the Bush neocons wanted to establish a Western-style democracy as a beacon of democracy for the Mideast. Of course that smacks of "nation-building", which W insisted he was against, so the trumped up WMD rationale was created as a reason to go after Saddam. But I blame Congress and the media (particularly the NYTimes and Washington Post) for falling for that crap.

[bobbiemcgee]

Why they can't agree on anything:

Flop,flop,flop

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/kfile-top-republicans-syria-trump/index.html

[Caf]

Official: Russia knew in advance of Syrian chemical attack - AP (https://www.apnews.com/19772be1238e49fbb62c509a5b659b3d)

Kremlin: Putin won’t meet with Tillerson Wednesday - The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/328164-kremlin-putin-wont-meet-tillerson-wednesday)

[SemajParlor]

Us arming Saudi Arabia with chemical weapons they used against women and children in Yemen was much more civil.

[Caf]

Us arming Saudi Arabia with chemical weapons they used against women and children in Yemen was much more civil.

Fun fact: there's a war in Yemen. A lot of people don't know that, ya know?

[SemajParlor]

Guyz did you know that Obama authorized 26k missile strikes in the Middle East in 2016? Therefore, you're not allowed to have any hesitation with what the current administration just did.

[GoMuskies]

MOAB. That's gonna leave a mark.

[bobbiemcgee]

O'Reilly out.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

O'Reilly out.

No shocker there, once Ailes was canned the bro-crew should have seen the writing on the wall.

[Caf]

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-trump-nyc-cost/?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

I don't care about this expenditure but this is amusing.

[STL_XUfan]

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-trump-nyc-cost/?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

I don't care about this expenditure but this is amusing.


Is Bloomberg doing a Geocities 90's web design throw back??? Seriously, what the hell is that website but digital recreation of a seizure.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Of all the things to harp on they choose this? I mean it is looking like the Flynn thing is seriously bad, his tax plan is a joke, and the Pubs are going for round 2 on Obamacare. They should be keeping their focus.

[bobbiemcgee]

https://twitter.com/TrumpDraws