Wow... Supreme Court struck down sports anti-gambling laws...
We finna see sports betting EVERYWHERE now...
EDIT... via twittah:
"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution"
d-usa wrote: Other than “betting is immoral” it’s always been a weird law.
for
Yeah, I don't believe betting/gambling is immoral, but a lot of the industry's practices are.
Gambling and betting are nothing more or less than a tax on being a fool. The former moreso than the latter, but both qualify. The only people I feel sorry for are those close to the gambler who have to deal with the fallout.
I've known gambling addicts as well as a psychologist who specializes in gambling addiction, so I can't really get on board with calling it a fool tax. Imagine if heroin were legal and an encouraged leisure activity at many popular vacation destinations, because for some people that's how pretty much how it works.
I'm not saying I believe gambling should be illegal necessarily, but I do believe our culture has an unhealthy attitude towards gambling and its victims.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Anyone see Jared's speech in Jerusalem? It was amazingly tone deaf considering the situation in the region and US actions with regards to Iran.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Anyone see Jared's speech in Jerusalem? It was amazingly tone deaf considering the situation in the region and US actions with regards to Iran.
The whole situation is stupid.
Aye, it is indeed, though that speech appeared to be written as almost intentional parody, I'm not sure how anyone could sit through that with a straight face as dozens die on the wall, Europe is going "wtf is going on...wait perhaps its time we started reexamining our relationship with the US", and Trump tweets about job losses at China's ZTE...
I'm not saying I believe gambling should be illegal necessarily, but I do believe our culture has an unhealthy attitude towards gambling and its victims.
Agreed. . . The US has a generally unhealthy outlook on a LOT of different aspects of life.
I'm not saying I believe gambling should be illegal necessarily, but I do believe our culture has an unhealthy attitude towards gambling and its victims.
Agreed. . . The US has a generally unhealthy outlook on a LOT of different aspects of life.
Every culture has it's bad spots, those of the US just seem to have been severely exacerbated beyond normal levels as of the 21st century.
I'm not saying I believe gambling should be illegal necessarily, but I do believe our culture has an unhealthy attitude towards gambling and its victims.
Agreed. . . The US has a generally unhealthy outlook on a LOT of different aspects of life.
I think it's because, as we see with many US issues, there's apparently no acceptable mid-ground between 'absolute ban' and 'no restrictions whatsoever'. It's a problem of mindset.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Anyone see Jared's speech in Jerusalem? It was amazingly tone deaf considering the situation in the region and US actions with regards to Iran.
Yes, and they talk about history being made, but sadly, it will be made for the wrong reasons.
The USA is about to learn a harsh and painful lesson that many an empire before them has learned: keep the feth away from the Middle East.
It is a money pit, a swap, a quagmire from which there is no escape, and now that they have jumped in with both feet (Iran and Jerusalem)
the USA will learn the hard way and it will cost them a lot of money and blood, for no gain...
Disciple of Fate wrote: Anyone see Jared's speech in Jerusalem? It was amazingly tone deaf considering the situation in the region and US actions with regards to Iran.
Yes, and they talk about history being made, but sadly, it will be made for the wrong reasons.
The USA is about to learn a harsh and painful lesson that many an empire before them has learned: keep the feth away from the Middle East.
It is a money pit, a swap, a quagmire from which there is no escape, and now that they have jumped in with both feet (Iran and Jerusalem)
the USA will learn the hard way and it will cost them a lot of money and blood, for no gain...
As for Jerusalem... erm... how can you argue it's the same thing? It took freaking 23 years after US Congress passed a law that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, and thus provided fundings to move the embassy. Clinton/Bush/Obama had to invoke a waiver every 6 months because reasons.
This is literally going a different track than the past administrations.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Anyone see Jared's speech in Jerusalem? It was amazingly tone deaf considering the situation in the region and US actions with regards to Iran.
Yes, and they talk about history being made, but sadly, it will be made for the wrong reasons.
The USA is about to learn a harsh and painful lesson that many an empire before them has learned: keep the feth away from the Middle East.
It is a money pit, a swap, a quagmire from which there is no escape, and now that they have jumped in with both feet (Iran and Jerusalem)
the USA will learn the hard way and it will cost them a lot of money and blood, for no gain...
As for Jerusalem... erm... how can you argue it's the same thing? It took freaking 23 years after US Congress passed a law that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, and thus provided fundings to move the embassy. Clinton/Bush/Obama had to invoke a waiver every 6 months because reasons.
This is literally going a different track than the past administrations.
Literally a worse track. Recognizing Jerusalem and not just West Jerusalem is setting back the peace process, as the Palistineans wanted East Jerusalem as the capital of their state.
Furthermore the US has just upset every regional and international ally to please Israel, the one country that can't afford losing US support. It was done for zero reason and zero gain. Its just another nail in the coffin of American empire. They dug themselves in a little deeper in the ME hole.
Bran Dawri wrote: Well, they haven't learned the last three or four times they jumped in. I see no reason to expect the pattern to change now. Especially now.
Yeah, the debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq cost the USA a trillion dollars
Imagine how many schools and hospitals you could have built for that...
Hell, chucking that money on a fire would have been a better use. At least you'd get some heat from the flames.
Bran Dawri wrote: Well, they haven't learned the last three or four times they jumped in. I see no reason to expect the pattern to change now. Especially now.
Yeah, the debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq cost the USA a trillion dollars
Imagine how many schools and hospitals you could have built for that...
Hell, chucking that money on a fire would have been a better use. At least you'd get some heat from the flames.
We could have used that fire to make steam and generate "Green" energy.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Anyone see Jared's speech in Jerusalem? It was amazingly tone deaf considering the situation in the region and US actions with regards to Iran.
Yes, and they talk about history being made, but sadly, it will be made for the wrong reasons.
The USA is about to learn a harsh and painful lesson that many an empire before them has learned: keep the feth away from the Middle East.
It is a money pit, a swap, a quagmire from which there is no escape, and now that they have jumped in with both feet (Iran and Jerusalem)
the USA will learn the hard way and it will cost them a lot of money and blood, for no gain...
As for Jerusalem... erm... how can you argue it's the same thing? It took freaking 23 years after US Congress passed a law that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, and thus provided fundings to move the embassy. Clinton/Bush/Obama had to invoke a waiver every 6 months because reasons.
This is literally going a different track than the past administrations.
As I've said before, I cannot for the life of me see what the USA gets out of this from a geo-politics perspective.
It puts Israel and its people in more danger, not less. Why?
Because the Palestinian moderates, or what's left of them, are finished. For good.
The extremists will say that we tried the political route and we got nowhere. Only violence can achieve our goals.
It will be hard to resist the siren call of that message.
The Palestinians have been backed into a corner, and now they will be determined to kill as many people as they can. They're desperate now.
Violence leading to more violence.
Only a negotiated peace will solve it once and for all, but that may as well be on the moon.
Bran Dawri wrote: Well, they haven't learned the last three or four times they jumped in. I see no reason to expect the pattern to change now. Especially now.
Yeah, the debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq cost the USA a trillion dollars
Imagine how many schools and hospitals you could have built for that...
Hell, chucking that money on a fire would have been a better use. At least you'd get some heat from the flames.
Agreed. Had we nuked Afghanistan properly it would have saved a lot of money.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Anyone see Jared's speech in Jerusalem? It was amazingly tone deaf considering the situation in the region and US actions with regards to Iran.
Yes, and they talk about history being made, but sadly, it will be made for the wrong reasons.
The USA is about to learn a harsh and painful lesson that many an empire before them has learned: keep the feth away from the Middle East.
It is a money pit, a swap, a quagmire from which there is no escape, and now that they have jumped in with both feet (Iran and Jerusalem)
the USA will learn the hard way and it will cost them a lot of money and blood, for no gain...
As for Jerusalem... erm... how can you argue it's the same thing? It took freaking 23 years after US Congress passed a law that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, and thus provided fundings to move the embassy. Clinton/Bush/Obama had to invoke a waiver every 6 months because reasons.
This is literally going a different track than the past administrations.
Literally a worse track. Recognizing Jerusalem and not just West Jerusalem is setting back the peace process, as the Palistineans wanted East Jerusalem as the capital of their state.
Furthermore the US has just upset every regional and international ally to please Israel, the one country that can't afford losing US support. It was done for zero reason and zero gain. Its just another nail in the coffin of American empire. They dug themselves in a little deeper in the ME hole.
That's the one thing I could never understand about the USA: why do they let Israel dictate to them?
As you say, Israel couldn't survive without the USA, so you would think that a bell would ring in Washington and they'd realise they could lay down the law to Israel and get them to do the USA's bidding, and not the reverse.
In 1940, after the Fall of France, and Britain was facing the Nazis alone, they were desperate for guns after Dunkirk, so they approach the USA.
And Uncle Sam says: you can have all the guns you want, but let's see the money first...
The USA can be hard nosed and pragmatic when they want to be...
How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
Bran Dawri wrote: Well, they haven't learned the last three or four times they jumped in. I see no reason to expect the pattern to change now. Especially now.
Yeah, the debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq cost the USA a trillion dollars
Imagine how many schools and hospitals you could have built for that...
Hell, chucking that money on a fire would have been a better use. At least you'd get some heat from the flames.
We could have used that fire to make steam and generate "Green" energy.
I read somewhere that flying hundreds of helicopters over the USA and dumping that money out of the side, would have done more for the average American than throw it at the Middle East.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Anyone see Jared's speech in Jerusalem? It was amazingly tone deaf considering the situation in the region and US actions with regards to Iran.
Yes, and they talk about history being made, but sadly, it will be made for the wrong reasons.
The USA is about to learn a harsh and painful lesson that many an empire before them has learned: keep the feth away from the Middle East.
It is a money pit, a swap, a quagmire from which there is no escape, and now that they have jumped in with both feet (Iran and Jerusalem)
the USA will learn the hard way and it will cost them a lot of money and blood, for no gain...
As for Jerusalem... erm... how can you argue it's the same thing? It took freaking 23 years after US Congress passed a law that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, and thus provided fundings to move the embassy. Clinton/Bush/Obama had to invoke a waiver every 6 months because reasons.
This is literally going a different track than the past administrations.
As I've said before, I cannot for the life of me see what the USA gets out of this from a geo-politics perspective.
It puts Israel and its people in more danger, not less. Why?
Because the Palestinian moderates, or what's left of them, are finished. For good.
The extremists will say that we tried the political route and we got nowhere. Only violence can achieve our goals.
It will be hard to resist the siren call of that message.
The Palestinians have been backed into a corner, and now they will be determined to kill as many people as they can. They're desperate now.
Violence leading to more violence.
Only a negotiated peace will solve it once and for all, but that may as well be on the moon.
Dude...ignoring Jerusalem as Israel's capital is like ignoring you need air. There's nothing controverisal about that...
Negotiated peace can only begin when Hamas/Hezbellah stop perpetuating violence.
Gazans in general I have no sympathy... as their OWN bloody fundamentalist authority is to blame for makeing their lives miserable. NOT the IDF...which is defending it's border, not in Gaza, to protect its own civilians from this bs. There OWN leadership still hangs GAYS in public squares! What a bunch of civilized leaders...eh? Not.
This is like saying that if a bunch of people on our southern boarder started throwing explosives into the US in "protest" of our immigration laws, and our military retaliated against them, that we're killing "immigrants" who are "peacefully protesting". Does ANY of this sound logical to you?
How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
Bran Dawri wrote: Well, they haven't learned the last three or four times they jumped in. I see no reason to expect the pattern to change now. Especially now.
Yeah, the debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq cost the USA a trillion dollars
Imagine how many schools and hospitals you could have built for that...
Hell, chucking that money on a fire would have been a better use. At least you'd get some heat from the flames.
Agreed. Had we nuked Afghanistan properly it would have saved a lot of money.
The fallout would probably have upset a lot of people not least some dakka members who were probably serving there at the time!
That's the one thing I could never understand about the USA: why do they let Israel dictate to them?
As you say, Israel couldn't survive without the USA, so you would think that a bell would ring in Washington and they'd realise they could lay down the law to Israel and get them to do the USA's bidding, and not the reverse.
In 1940, after the Fall of France, and Britain was facing the Nazis alone, they were desperate for guns after Dunkirk, so they approach the USA.
And Uncle Sam says: you can have all the guns you want, but let's see the money first...
The USA can be hard nosed and pragmatic when they want to be...
Israel has become an American political battleground. The Israelis have played the game wonderfully well. Meanwhile the US is playing a game of chicken with a brick wall. Scoring political points on who supports Israel the loudest has become incredibly detrimental to US foreign policy in the Middle East. Sure protect Israel, but don't do it at the cost of your own place in the region. This whole Iran deal renegement was heavily driven by the Israeli lobby, the only country benefitting from it. The strings have never been more visible.
d-usa wrote: Other than “betting is immoral” it’s always been a weird law.
This.
Sports anti-gambling laws are just another of our really silly hypocrisies. Like how prostitution is legal so long as its filmed and streamed over the internet.
Israel has become an American political battleground
It sure has, and as a student of American history, it reminds me of the USA's fascination with China and the political battles that went on in Washington during the 1930s/1940s/1950s before China went Communist, and the fallout in Washington after China went red...
If you know your LBJ, the spectre of repeating the China debacle was one of the reasons why he went into Vietnam.
He didn't want the Democrats to be seen 'losing' another Asian country.
Fascinating stuff, and it's why I love American history.
How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
That under any scenario, Israel is here to stay.
What? That was already the reality before this decision. Again, what did the US actually achieve with this besides shifting some staff from Tel Aviv and pissing off everybody?
d-usa wrote: Other than “betting is immoral” it’s always been a weird law.
This.
Sports anti-gambling laws are just another of our really silly hypocrisies. Like how prostitution is legal so long as its filmed and streamed over the internet.
I'm reading Alito's opinion and the man sure luuuuuuuuuuuurves his federalism.
However, feds can pass a new law to prohibit sports gambling, as long as it's kosher to this ruling. However I doubt we'll have see it hit the floor in Congress...
How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
That under any scenario, Israel is here to stay.
What? That was already the reality before this decision. Again, what did the US actually achieve with this besides shifting some staff from Tel Aviv and pissing off everybody?
It puts the ball in the Palestinian's court in future negotiation.... if they choose to stop perpetuating violence.
whembly wrote: [
Negotiated peace can only begin when Hamas/Hezbellah stop perpetuating violence.
Gazans in general I have no sympathy... as their OWN bloody fundamentalist authority is to blame for makeing their lives miserable. NOT the IDF...which is defending it's border, not in Gaza, to protect its own civilians from this bs. There OWN leadership still hangs GAYS in public squares! What a bunch of civilized leaders...eh? Not.
This is like saying that if a bunch of people on our southern boarder started throwing explosives into the US in "protest" of our immigration laws, and our military retaliated against them, that we're killing "immigrants" who are "peacefully protesting". Does ANY of this sound logical to you?
How does Israels continued and expanding illegal occupation and settlement of Palestine figure into this view?
This isn't a "good guys vs bad guys" scenario. This is real life geopolitics. It's "bad guys vs bad guys" and thousands of civilians dying.
How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
That under any scenario, Israel is here to stay.
What? That was already the reality before this decision. Again, what did the US actually achieve with this besides shifting some staff from Tel Aviv and pissing off everybody?
It puts the ball in the Palestinian's court in future negotiation.... if they choose to stop perpetuating violence.
Again, what? You know what it does, justify the occupation of East Jerusalem by Israel. The US has just sidelined itself as a participant in the peace progress because of its blatant favoritism. This is like saying, well now that North Korea owns Seoul maybe the South Koreans can finally be honest in wanting peace.
The idea that this has done anything to stop the violence is just idealism. The US has just supported the blatant occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel. This doesn't put the ball in the Palestinian's court, this kicked the ball into the grass and told Israel to have fun with US backing. You made it much harder to force Israel to accept Palestine as a state and weakened Palestine. At this rate there will be no incentive for Israel to negotiate and just continue apartheid.
You have to remember, just like the Iran deal, the whole reason for this Embassy move is to intentionally move everyone closer to war..... not closer to peace. Instability in the Middle East is seen as a positive for Con diplomacy as part of their War of Civilizations schtick.
Easy E wrote: You have to remember, just like the Iran deal, the whole reason for this Embassy move is to intentionally move everyone closer to war..... not closer to peace. Instability in the Middle East is seen as a positive for Con diplomacy as part of their War of Civilizations schtick.
Well Pompeo and Bolton seem to be good old fashioned Neocons. The clash of civilizations is such 2000's garbage. Its sad such a gullible man is in charge now, and we still have 2.5 years to go. Maybe in another year and a half he will hand Xi Taiwan.
d-usa wrote: Other than “betting is immoral” it’s always been a weird law.
This.
Sports anti-gambling laws are just another of our really silly hypocrisies. Like how prostitution is legal so long as its filmed and streamed over the internet.
I'm reading Alito's opinion and the man sure luuuuuuuuuuuurves his federalism.
However, feds can pass a new law to prohibit sports gambling, as long as it's kosher to this ruling. However I doubt we'll have see it hit the floor in Congress...
How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
That under any scenario, Israel is here to stay.
What? That was already the reality before this decision. Again, what did the US actually achieve with this besides shifting some staff from Tel Aviv and pissing off everybody?
It puts the ball in the Palestinian's court in future negotiation.... if they choose to stop perpetuating violence.
yes, because the people without a real functioning government, with nobody capable of dealing with extremist elements, that is literally walled off from the rest of the world, is economically devastated, is currently sitting at a casualty ratio orders of magnitude larger than their opponents over the last 20 years of conflict, where most live lives of poverty, and continually faces further pressure as settlements and outposts are built and expanded, that's really where the ball lays...yeah, ok. What fairytale did that come from? In what world is the Palestinian government capable of undertaking that task? A lot of effort has gone into ensuring that there is no functioning Palestinian government (by everyine from Israel to Lebanon and Syria and the US and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and others).
One side has overwhelming military power, economic power, and foreign power backing, with largely well functioning government and civil institutions. The ball is in that court, by definition. The other side has very little agency.
The game the Israeli's have chosen to play is "wall it off, hammer the Palestinians every few years when they get uppity, trim the grass so to speak, and otherwise just get everyone to ignore the issue while we do our thing and continue to build and displace".
More to the point however, the US has now probably ceded any positive role it could play in any negotiations for the foreseeable future, and stoked tensions and laid the groundwork for yet more bloodshed. Huzzah!
I'm not seeing where this move does anything to further peace interests.
Easy E wrote: You have to remember, just like the Iran deal, the whole reason for this Embassy move is to intentionally move everyone closer to war..... not closer to peace. Instability in the Middle East is seen as a positive for Con diplomacy as part of their War of Civilizations schtick.
Sadly, the people that start these wars are never the people who go and fight them.
It'll be the poor of America that does the fighting and the dying...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The game the Israeli's have chosen to play is "wall it off, hammer the Palestinians every few years when they get uppity, trim the grass so to speak, and otherwise just get everyone to ignore the issue while we do our thing and continue to build and displace".
And sadly, they will become a desperate people with nothing to lose and see violence as the only way out.
That makes them far more dangerous for Israel, not less. But they're too short-sighted to see that in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
whembly wrote: [
Negotiated peace can only begin when Hamas/Hezbellah stop perpetuating violence.
Gazans in general I have no sympathy... as their OWN bloody fundamentalist authority is to blame for makeing their lives miserable. NOT the IDF...which is defending it's border, not in Gaza, to protect its own civilians from this bs. There OWN leadership still hangs GAYS in public squares! What a bunch of civilized leaders...eh? Not.
This is like saying that if a bunch of people on our southern boarder started throwing explosives into the US in "protest" of our immigration laws, and our military retaliated against them, that we're killing "immigrants" who are "peacefully protesting". Does ANY of this sound logical to you?
How does Israels continued and expanding illegal occupation and settlement of Palestine figure into this view?
This isn't a "good guys vs bad guys" scenario. This is real life geopolitics. It's "bad guys vs bad guys" and thousands of civilians dying.
What illegal occupation? East Jerusalem?
Palestine "claims" that land... but, they never held it as a state. Israel kicked everyone's asses in '67, if nothing else its theirs by conquest. Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
And sadly, they will become a desperate people with nothing to lose and see violence as the only way out.
That makes them far more dangerous for Israel, not less. But they're too short-sighted to see that in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
I think its the opposite really. Israel actively cultivates extremism because it can use it to validate all that it does. Without the extremism it would be a lot harder for Israel to hold on to its current borders and not be pressured into a peace process by its allies. Netanyahu willingly sacrifices Israeli lives yearly to maintain his Greater Israel dream. Nationalism at its finest pushed them to convince the US to move its embassy. Those lives lost be damned, if anything it is good for them during elections. Playing the tough guy saving Israel from a situation you yourself engineered.
The game the Israeli's have chosen to play is "wall it off, hammer the Palestinians every few years when they get uppity, trim the grass so to speak, and otherwise just get everyone to ignore the issue while we do our thing and continue to build and displace".
And sadly, they will become a desperate people with nothing to lose and see violence as the only way out.
That makes them far more dangerous for Israel, not less. But they're too short-sighted to see that in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
Oh, I am pretty sure the hardliners and Fundies get it. In fact, they are counting on it. Palestinian violence gives them the cover to continue to keep fighting and carving away at the Palestinians.
whembly wrote: [
Negotiated peace can only begin when Hamas/Hezbellah stop perpetuating violence.
Gazans in general I have no sympathy... as their OWN bloody fundamentalist authority is to blame for makeing their lives miserable. NOT the IDF...which is defending it's border, not in Gaza, to protect its own civilians from this bs. There OWN leadership still hangs GAYS in public squares! What a bunch of civilized leaders...eh? Not.
This is like saying that if a bunch of people on our southern boarder started throwing explosives into the US in "protest" of our immigration laws, and our military retaliated against them, that we're killing "immigrants" who are "peacefully protesting". Does ANY of this sound logical to you?
How does Israels continued and expanding illegal occupation and settlement of Palestine figure into this view?
This isn't a "good guys vs bad guys" scenario. This is real life geopolitics. It's "bad guys vs bad guys" and thousands of civilians dying.
What illegal occupation? East Jerusalem?
Palestine "claims" that land... but, they never held it as a state. Israel kicked everyone's asses in '67, if nothing else its theirs by conquest. Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
Have you missed the fact that everybody except the US sees it as Palestinian and so does international law. This is literally like the US building its Russian embassy in Crimea tomorrow. You need to understand international law and geopolitics at work here. So much is being thrown away by the US for empty symbolism. 67 was the definition of a war of aggression. The same crime the US hanged people over at Nuremberg.
Israel killed Americans in 67. Jordan was obliged to help Egypt when Israel attacked. Conquest is not recognized anymore. To argue such is to further dismantle US normative empire. Its tearing down the foundations.
How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
That under any scenario, Israel is here to stay.
What? That was already the reality before this decision. Again, what did the US actually achieve with this besides shifting some staff from Tel Aviv and pissing off everybody?
It puts the ball in the Palestinian's court in future negotiation.... if they choose to stop perpetuating violence.
Again, what? You know what it does, justify the occupation of East Jerusalem by Israel.
You mean land that Israel conquered in war of '67 and continually being offered PARTS of such land in past negotiation, in which Palestine refused because they wanted ALL of Jerusalem (and the right of return).
The US has just sidelined itself as a participant in the peace progress because of its blatant favoritism. This is like saying, well now that North Korea owns Seoul maybe the South Koreans can finally be honest in wanting peace.
Being neutral is dumber.
Palestine is not in a position of negotiating strength. However, they, and the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations...
The idea that this has done anything to stop the violence is just idealism. The US has just supported the blatant occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel. This doesn't put the ball in the Palestinian's court, this kicked the ball into the grass and told Israel to have fun with US backing. You made it much harder to force Israel to accept Palestine as a state and weakened Palestine. At this rate there will be no incentive for Israel to negotiate and just continue apartheid.
"apartheid"... How on earth does it apply here?
Palestine need to kick the Hamas (and Hezbellah) to the curb. Otherwise, they'll be stuck in being pawns with no agency to their lives.
If Jordan takes back West Bank and Syria takes back Golan Heights... the world would be a better place.
whembly wrote: [
Negotiated peace can only begin when Hamas/Hezbellah stop perpetuating violence.
Gazans in general I have no sympathy... as their OWN bloody fundamentalist authority is to blame for makeing their lives miserable. NOT the IDF...which is defending it's border, not in Gaza, to protect its own civilians from this bs. There OWN leadership still hangs GAYS in public squares! What a bunch of civilized leaders...eh? Not.
This is like saying that if a bunch of people on our southern boarder started throwing explosives into the US in "protest" of our immigration laws, and our military retaliated against them, that we're killing "immigrants" who are "peacefully protesting". Does ANY of this sound logical to you?
How does Israels continued and expanding illegal occupation and settlement of Palestine figure into this view?
This isn't a "good guys vs bad guys" scenario. This is real life geopolitics. It's "bad guys vs bad guys" and thousands of civilians dying.
What illegal occupation? East Jerusalem?
Palestine "claims" that land... but, they never held it as a state. Israel kicked everyone's asses in '67, if nothing else its theirs by conquest. Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
Have you missed the fact that everybody except the US sees it as Palestinian and so does international law. This is literally like the US building its Russian embassy in Crimea tomorrow. You need to understand international law and geopolitics at work here. So much is being thrown away by the US for empty symbolism. 67 was the definition of a war of aggression. The same crime the US hanged people over at Nuremberg.
Holy feth balls.. .dude, Israel was ATTACKED in '67! If anything, those Arab leaders need to be the ones hung from Nuremberg's lamp post.
The game the Israeli's have chosen to play is "wall it off, hammer the Palestinians every few years when they get uppity, trim the grass so to speak, and otherwise just get everyone to ignore the issue while we do our thing and continue to build and displace".
And sadly, they will become a desperate people with nothing to lose and see violence as the only way out.
That makes them far more dangerous for Israel, not less. But they're too short-sighted to see that in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
Oh, I am pretty sure the hardliners and Fundies get it. In fact, they are counting on it. Palestinian violence gives them the cover to continue to keep fighting and carving away at the Palestinians.
In many respects, I couldn't give a bucket of horsegak for the Middle East. And if they want to wipe each other out, then good luck to them.
If no more working-class men and women from Britain don't have to die there for Queen and Country, I'll die a happy man.
d-usa wrote: Other than “betting is immoral” it’s always been a weird law.
This.
Sports anti-gambling laws are just another of our really silly hypocrisies. Like how prostitution is legal so long as its filmed and streamed over the internet.
Or take her to dinner first. At any rate, good call by the SCotUS.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: That makes them far more dangerous for Israel, not less. But they're too short-sighted to see that in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
They aren't. Netanyahu's government is in huge trouble right now. The Prime Minister faces serious accusations of corruptions and he uses anti-Iran and anti-Palestenian sentiment to keep people distracted and avoid a vote of destitution that would cripple his political faction and expose him to hard time. The hard right of Israel, supported by religious fundamentalists, is scared that the defeat of Netanyahu would result in a center left party to take control of of the Knesset with the support of Arab and secular jewish parties. These are parties opposed to religious fundamentalist privileges (like not facing conscription) and to the colonies. They also favor a two-State solution to the conflict (though they all support the annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Height). The strategy of the hard right in Israel is to keep the Palestinian government inefficient and violent to legitimate violence against them, seize lands and displace them in other Arab countries so that they become the problems of someone else.
How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
That under any scenario, Israel is here to stay.
What? That was already the reality before this decision. Again, what did the US actually achieve with this besides shifting some staff from Tel Aviv and pissing off everybody?
It puts the ball in the Palestinian's court in future negotiation.... if they choose to stop perpetuating violence.
Again, what? You know what it does, justify the occupation of East Jerusalem by Israel.
You mean land that Israel conquered in war of '67 and continually being offered PARTS of such land in past negotiation, in which Palestine refused because they wanted ALL of Jerusalem (and the right of return)..
They offer scraps of the worst land while continuing to build illegal settlements. Israeli claims are just as unreasonable. Again, right of conquest is not recognized. Hell the US went to war with Iraq over its conquest of Kuwait.
The US has just sidelined itself as a participant in the peace progress because of its blatant favoritism. This is like saying, well now that North Korea owns Seoul maybe the South Koreans can finally be honest in wanting peace.
Being neutral is dumber.
Palestine is not in a position of negotiating strength. However, they, and the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations...
This shows a lack of geopolitical understanding. Being neutral is smart, because it allows the US to get the best deal out of it for itself, instead of blindly towing the Israeli line. Nobody needs to let Israel get destroyed. Israel is a big boy.
The idea that this has done anything to stop the violence is just idealism. The US has just supported the blatant occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel. This doesn't put the ball in the Palestinian's court, this kicked the ball into the grass and told Israel to have fun with US backing. You made it much harder to force Israel to accept Palestine as a state and weakened Palestine. At this rate there will be no incentive for Israel to negotiate and just continue apartheid.
"apartheid"... How on earth does it apply here?
Palestine need to kick the Hamas (and Hezbellah) to the curb. Otherwise, they'll be stuck in being pawns with no agency to their lives.
If Jordan takes back West Bank and Syria takes back Golan Heights... the world would be a better place.
It applies because Israel does not see the Palestinians as part of a rightful country. Israel does what it wants to the Palestinians. When Israelis like a patch of land they see they force the Palestinians off at gunpoint and build a settlement. When one of your family members attacks an Israeli they bulldoze your house. How is it not 21st century apartheid?
Palestine can't kick Hamas to the curb because Hamas is a terror organization that basically used discontent from israel treating Gaza like a prison camp to seize control. Palestine doesn't have the strength to force Hamas out of Gaza and Israeli actions only tighten Hamas' grip. Hezbollah is Lebaneze, so I don't know hpw you would slide that on Palestine? The West Bank is much better than Gaza, yet Israel treats all of the Palestinian territories like they are run by Hamas.
Have you missed the fact that everybody except the US sees it as Palestinian and so does international law. This is literally like the US building its Russian embassy in Crimea tomorrow. You need to understand international law and geopolitics at work here. So much is being thrown away by the US for empty symbolism. 67 was the definition of a war of aggression. The same crime the US hanged people over at Nuremberg.
Holy feth balls.. .dude, Israel was ATTACKED in '67! If anything, those Arab leaders need to be the ones hung from Nuremberg's lamp post.
Uhm you should brush up on your history. Israel attacked first in 67 thereby triggering the Jordanian defensive treaty enabling Israel to annex Jerusalem, you're thinking of 73. If Israel had not done so it would not have been able to attack Jordan and annex those territories. Its plain illegal to annex them. While realistically its going to be hard to downright impossible to make Israel give up all post 67 territory, it is mental to basically allow Israel to have all of Jerusalem. Its incredibly destabilizing. And you're still stuck on Israeli motivations. What does this give to the US in the long run, what is so important that East Jerusalem needed to have a US embassy. Again' recognizing conquered territory as valid is deconstructing US normative empire since 45.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Uhm you should brush up on your history. Israel attacked first in 67
More specifically, Israel preemptively struck in response to what was ultimately the world's dumbest game of chicken. Chicken because the Arab states on the other side had no real intention of doing anything more than some really aggressive saber rattling, and dumb because Israel is so insanely paranoid they're literally incapable of recognizing who is and isn't a threat to their country half the time and apparently Egypt didn't bother to let them know "we're just screwing with you" through the very numerous channels they could have used to get the message across.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Uhm you should brush up on your history. Israel attacked first in 67
More specifically, Israel preemptively struck in response to what was ultimately the world's dumbest game of chicken. Chicken because the Arab states on the other side had no real intention of doing anything more than some really aggressive saber rattling, and dumb because Israel is so insanely paranoid they're literally incapable of recognizing who is and isn't a threat to their country half the time and apparently Egypt didn't bother to let them know "we're just screwing with you" through the very numerous channels they could have used to get the message across.
Was going to say the six day war was egypts fault lets be honest
whembly wrote: [
Negotiated peace can only begin when Hamas/Hezbellah stop perpetuating violence.
Gazans in general I have no sympathy... as their OWN bloody fundamentalist authority is to blame for makeing their lives miserable. NOT the IDF...which is defending it's border, not in Gaza, to protect its own civilians from this bs. There OWN leadership still hangs GAYS in public squares! What a bunch of civilized leaders...eh? Not.
This is like saying that if a bunch of people on our southern boarder started throwing explosives into the US in "protest" of our immigration laws, and our military retaliated against them, that we're killing "immigrants" who are "peacefully protesting". Does ANY of this sound logical to you?
How does Israels continued and expanding illegal occupation and settlement of Palestine figure into this view?
This isn't a "good guys vs bad guys" scenario. This is real life geopolitics. It's "bad guys vs bad guys" and thousands of civilians dying.
What illegal occupation? East Jerusalem?
Are you genuinely unaware of the Israeli settlements in Palestine?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Uhm you should brush up on your history. Israel attacked first in 67
More specifically, Israel preemptively struck in response to what was ultimately the world's dumbest game of chicken. Chicken because the Arab states on the other side had no real intention of doing anything more than some really aggressive saber rattling, and dumb because Israel is so insanely paranoid they're literally incapable of recognizing who is and isn't a threat to their country half the time and apparently Egypt didn't bother to let them know "we're just screwing with you" through the very numerous channels they could have used to get the message across.
Was going to say the six day war was egypts fault lets be honest
While Egypt played it very dumb, the law as the US itself has laid down is pretty clear on conquering territory. Its a strange thing to support when it comes to Israel when it devalues international law that forms the backbone of US empire. Israel has treated the US as a doormat as well, so its curious that the US is willing to go so far with its support. Still, this doesn't bring any answer to what possible benefit this embassy move brings.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Uhm you should brush up on your history. Israel attacked first in 67
More specifically, Israel preemptively struck in response to what was ultimately the world's dumbest game of chicken. Chicken because the Arab states on the other side had no real intention of doing anything more than some really aggressive saber rattling, and dumb because Israel is so insanely paranoid they're literally incapable of recognizing who is and isn't a threat to their country half the time and apparently Egypt didn't bother to let them know "we're just screwing with you" through the very numerous channels they could have used to get the message across.
Was going to say the six day war was egypts fault lets be honest
While Egypt played it very dumb, the law as the US itself has laid down is pretty clear on conquering territory. Its a strange thing to support when it comes to Israel when it devalues international law that forms the backbone of US empire. Israel has treated the US as a doormat as well, so its curious that the US is willing to go so far with its support. Still, this doesn't bring any answer to what possible benefit this embassy move brings.
It could help with the midterms by gaining favor with the evangelical wing of the Republican bad and mitigate opposition from blacks and Hispanics since both demographic groups have a higher percentage of devout Christians than whites.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Uhm you should brush up on your history. Israel attacked first in 67
More specifically, Israel preemptively struck in response to what was ultimately the world's dumbest game of chicken. Chicken because the Arab states on the other side had no real intention of doing anything more than some really aggressive saber rattling, and dumb because Israel is so insanely paranoid they're literally incapable of recognizing who is and isn't a threat to their country half the time and apparently Egypt didn't bother to let them know "we're just screwing with you" through the very numerous channels they could have used to get the message across.
Was going to say the six day war was egypts fault lets be honest
While Egypt played it very dumb, the law as the US itself has laid down is pretty clear on conquering territory. Its a strange thing to support when it comes to Israel when it devalues international law that forms the backbone of US empire. Israel has treated the US as a doormat as well, so its curious that the US is willing to go so far with its support. Still, this doesn't bring any answer to what possible benefit this embassy move brings.
It could help with the midterms by gaining favor with the evangelical wing of the Republican bad and mitigate opposition from blacks and Hispanics since both demographic groups have a higher percentage of devout Christians than whites.
Honestly I think the battle lines for this election are already drawn on bigger US focussed issues. I can't imagine people hardcore enough about Israel that haven't already sided with the Republican party after Obama let the US veto in the UN slip. Its a theory, but would that be the one on the minds of the Trump admin?
Something to note with the embassy thing, the pastor that Trump sent in for the event, Robert Jefress, is known for publicly advocating about how "Jews are going to hell" and "Islam is a false religion", and of course is a Fox News talking head. It's not hard to see what kind of driver was being the embassy move.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Uhm you should brush up on your history. Israel attacked first in 67
More specifically, Israel preemptively struck in response to what was ultimately the world's dumbest game of chicken. Chicken because the Arab states on the other side had no real intention of doing anything more than some really aggressive saber rattling, and dumb because Israel is so insanely paranoid they're literally incapable of recognizing who is and isn't a threat to their country half the time and apparently Egypt didn't bother to let them know "we're just screwing with you" through the very numerous channels they could have used to get the message across.
Was going to say the six day war was egypts fault lets be honest
While Egypt played it very dumb, the law as the US itself has laid down is pretty clear on conquering territory. Its a strange thing to support when it comes to Israel when it devalues international law that forms the backbone of US empire. Israel has treated the US as a doormat as well, so its curious that the US is willing to go so far with its support. Still, this doesn't bring any answer to what possible benefit this embassy move brings.
It could help with the midterms by gaining favor with the evangelical wing of the Republican bad and mitigate opposition from blacks and Hispanics since both demographic groups have a higher percentage of devout Christians than whites.
I am not so sure. While blacks and Hispanics have higher percentages of devout Christians, I have only seen white evangelicals really push for Israel. This might be solely for his base.
Negotiated peace can only begin when Hamas/Hezbellah stop perpetuating violence.
Israel will never allow a non-violent Palestinian movement. Hamas actually tried to share power with the moderates and move away from violence. The result was Israel's 2014 murder spree (I will not dignify calling anything with over 50% civilian casualties a 'war', and that;s by the IDF's own admission. The UN and Red Cross numbers are even more grotesque)
Gazans in general I have no sympathy... as their OWN bloody fundamentalist authority is to blame for makeing their lives miserable. NOT the IDF...which is defending it's border, not in Gaza, to protect its own civilians from this bs.
It's 'illegal under the terms of the Geneva Conventions' Boarder? That one? Or do you mean the illegal naval blockaid of Gaza that hasn't let up for years and continues to starve the city in violation of international treaty?
Israel has been heading down the road to Apartheid at a pretty good clip, so claiming its to protect it's citizens is a bit laughable. Also, what about the Palestinians rights to defend their boarders? After all, Israel has made regular military incursions into Gaza and yet if they fight back, they're horrible dirty terrorists for trying to prevent the murder of their civilians.
Whether anyone will be able to live there after the bomb will be the question.
In response to the butchery in Gaza, both Turkey and South Africa have withdrawn their ambassadors from Israel, with Turkey also withdrawing it's US ambassador. Kuwait tried to draft a resolution for an Independent Investigation of these killings, with the US already vetoing it. Condemnations of the slaughter have been pouring in, but unless someone invades Israel, that's not likely to do anything.
You cant really blockade Gaza without Egypt going along though. I don't think that Gaza was ever a part of Mandatory Palestine? just a part of Egyptian territory (until 1967)
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
thekingofkings wrote: I don't think that Gaza was ever a part of Mandatory Palestine? just a part of Egyptian territory (until 1967)
Incorrect. Gaza was part of Mandatory Palestine, however, it was occupied by Egypt following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war under the terms of the Israel–Egypt Armistice Agreement until the Six Day War.
As far as Egypt is concerned Gaza is a political hot potato they're hoping will just go away. The real concern is that refugees will flood into Egypt, which cannot support them in the current economic climate.
thekingofkings wrote: I don't think that Gaza was ever a part of Mandatory Palestine? just a part of Egyptian territory (until 1967)
Incorrect. Gaza was part of Mandatory Palestine, however, it was occupied by Egypt following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war under the terms of the Israel–Egypt Armistice Agreement until the Six Day War.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
Yeah pretty much. Cooking for oneself also involves the barrier of knowing how (not a big barrier, but still) and doesn't resolve the issue of healthy ingredients being way more expensive.
I always refer to what I call the "food trinity" which is healthy, good tasting, and inexpensive. You get two.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.The Auld Grump
99 cents a pound for pork butt? I hope it was cooked well since that price points suggests a certain vintage. I'd expect to see that for at least $2 or $2.50 a pound here.
Da Boss wrote: It's really something to see. And it's terrifying and depressing. The only people who benefit from this spat are our enemies. Europe feels somewhat surrounded now - Russia to the East and an increasingly bellicose and irrational US to the West, with unstable and desperate neighbours to the south. I guess it really is time to start looking to our own defense and interests. It's a shame, because once you build a hammer you start looking for nails to use it on.
There's a lot of resentment in the US right now that Europe and other developed countries are getting a free ride, depending on the US military, paid for by the US tax payer. But what people don't realise is that as long as everyone else is dependent on the US for any kind of military operation, the US has almost complete say on which operations go ahead. Anything that is not in US interests does not happen.
As you say, once other countries start getting their own hammers, they're going to start looking for nails. It won't even necessarily be foreign operations, it will likely just be much stronger negotiating positions. Right now if Germany indicates disapproval, it means nothing unless the US shows an equal level of disapproval. In a world where Germany has force projection of its own, though, I think a lot of Americans who've grown up only knowing US world dominance will be in for quite a shock.
In other news, do we have a reasonably solid estimate on what percentage of the population is the delusional base for the GOP? That is anyone who approves of the Trump administration is undoubtedly denying reality, so cannot be expected to vote on it. To my knowledge it's in the 30-40% range but I'm not sure on that. I ask this because I'm wondering how dramatic the response will be as it is revealed how corrupt the administration is. What portion of the country is willing to roll over and let it happen?
I ask because simple acceptance of blatant corruption is one thing that has me worried.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The US will get more friendly next year, and a lot more friendly in 2021. Survive until then!
If Trump was just one out of the box and his political party was fighting to reign him in wherever possible then I'd see the argument for giving the US a mulligan on Trump. But given how Republicans have fallen in behind Trump's silliness and even cheered for it, I think it's only practical for most countries that have built their foreign policy around alliances with a steadfast America to start looking to at least allow for a plan B.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Literally a worse track. Recognizing Jerusalem and not just West Jerusalem is setting back the peace process, as the Palistineans wanted East Jerusalem as the capital of their state.
Yep. The US position right now is summed up as 'Okay, control of Jerusalem is one of the most hotly contested parts of relations, so we'll just arbitrarily back Israel's most extreme position on that issue, and then we'll start talking about peace and deem anyone who doesn't want to jump on board with the US plan must be trying to make trouble.'
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
Greens are not expensive - cabbage, spinach, broccoli - all are inexpensive, and available both fresh and frozen.
Aparagus - a bit more pricey, and seasonal.
But green beans, peas, and string beans? Not expensive.
It is more that Americans, we have no freakin' clue in the kitchen. (I am not sure that Home Ec is even in most schools anymore.)
And, again, the crock pot is your friend - the veg can be tossed in with the meat, onion, and potatoes.
Americans have bad eating habits, fueled in part by TV advertising, and in larger part from sheer cultural inertia.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.The Auld Grump
99 cents a pound for pork butt? I hope it was cooked well since that price points suggests a certain vintage. I'd expect to see that for at least $2 or $2.50 a pound here.
Weekly sale - not condemned meat.
Most supermarkets have leaders that are reduced profit, in the hopes that the folks buying $0.99 pork but are also going to buy $2 soda pop and $10 wine.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I've said before, I cannot for the life of me see what the USA gets out of this from a geo-politics perspective.
There's no geo-political considerations in this. But there are domestic politics considerations.
The US has some well organised communities with very ideological positions on Israel. Most Jews vote Democrat, but the Republican Jews are meaningful (especially in dollars) and they often hold to some very hardline zionist positions - they believe very strongly in expanding the boundaries of an Israel they don't want to live in. Even weirder there's a lot of Christians who support Israel, some for some end times prophecy weirdness, most because they'd rather Jews control the holy lands. Then there's the racist/clash of culture people, who see Israel as a kind of bastion of westernism in the midst of the barbarian lands, who just back Israel out of a kind of fuzzy brained provocation.
Republicans for a long time have played up to these various groups, promising stuff like moving the embassy. None of them ever had any intention of doing it though, because it was a pointless provocation that would likely get people killed and only serve to make the tenuous US position as a peacemaker even more difficult to maintain. But then you get Trump. Trump is kind of amazing because he lies so freely to serve himself, but has no notion of breaking a promise to prevent harm to someone else. Explaining to Trump that sure, every Republican says they'll move the embassy, but it's just a lie because actually doing it will get people killed and hurt US strategic interests makes no impact on Trump, because he literally does not care at all about the lives of people in the middle east, or US strategic interests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
Guatemala has come on board too. Big player in mid-east politics, Guatemala.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
Yeah pretty much. Cooking for oneself also involves the barrier of knowing how (not a big barrier, but still) and doesn't resolve the issue of healthy ingredients being way more expensive.
I always refer to what I call the "food trinity" which is healthy, good tasting, and inexpensive. You get two.
Or know what the heck you are doing, and get all three.
Again - it is not that expensive, it is a matter of buying, dividing, and freezing,
Look for books on meal prep - planning out what you are doing, a week at a time, handles the 'holy trinity'.
The Auld Grump - this week it is pork chops for $0.99, and chicken leg quarters for $0.89, corn on the cob 5/$1, and zucchini for $0.99. With 2/$4 cantalope for dessert.
whembly wrote: Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
The Palestinians understand the position very well, and thanks for your patronising nonsense thinking you know it better than they do.
We know, thanks to wikileaks funnily enough, that Palestine has given Israel peace offers that consist of what amounts to pure concession. Just letting Israel keep everything it has claimed, if Palestine can be given control of the current borders. Israel didn't even entertain the deal. Because Israel is still taking more land, every year. The longer Israel drags out negotiations, the more they can keep taking.
Everything is theater to that simple reality. And there a lot of people who do everything they can to pretend that simple reality doesn't exist, because they have a need to cheer on Israel and ignore the position that Palestinians have been forced in to.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The US will get more friendly next year, and a lot more friendly in 2021. Survive until then!
If Trump was just one out of the box and his political party was fighting to reign him in wherever possible then I'd see the argument for giving the US a mulligan on Trump. But given how Republicans have fallen in behind Trump's silliness and even cheered for it, I think it's only practical for most countries that have built their foreign policy around alliances with a steadfast America to start looking to at least allow for a plan B.
I should have been more clear; 'more friendly' doesn't mean 'good' or even 'competent' it just means 'still a hell of a lot better than what we have now'.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
Yeah pretty much. Cooking for oneself also involves the barrier of knowing how (not a big barrier, but still) and doesn't resolve the issue of healthy ingredients being way more expensive.
I always refer to what I call the "food trinity" which is healthy, good tasting, and inexpensive. You get two.
Or know what the heck you are doing, and get all three.
Again - it is not that expensive, it is a matter of buying, dividing, and freezing,
Look for books on meal prep - planning out what you are doing, a week at a time, handles the 'holy trinity'.
The Auld Grump - this week it is pork chops for $0.99, and chicken leg quarters for $0.89, corn on the cob 5/$1, and zucchini for $0.99. With 2/$4 cantalope for dessert.
I find your sentiment to be more or less untrue, but like you yourself said in a previous post to this one, the line of discussion has gotten off-topic.
whembly wrote: Palestine is not in a position of negotiating strength. However, they, and the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations...
Whembly, that's absolute nonsense. It isn't even an exaggeration of anything, its just an absolutely ridiculous fantasy.
You know that eyeroll you want to give when some leftwinger would post 'no blood for oil'? What you just typed is a couple of magnitudes more ridiculous, because at least oil prices have some connection to mid east policy. What you just posted isn't even that. It's just make believe ridiculousness.
So no, the rest of the world is not secretly hoping for Israel to destroy itself. If you genuinely believe that, I think it is best you stop, realise that every part of the process you've undergone to reach that belief was actually a process of creating an elaborate but very silly fantasy, and in order to be of any use in a conversation on this subject you will have to spend months, possibly years, deconstructing the ideas that underpin such a ridiculous notion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Something to note with the embassy thing, the pastor that Trump sent in for the event, Robert Jefress, is known for publicly advocating about how "Jews are going to hell" and "Islam is a false religion", and of course is a Fox News talking head. It's not hard to see what kind of driver was being the embassy move.
Yep. Backing Israel is the cover for this embassy move, but stuff like Jefress shows there's no catering to Israel here, it's all for the US domestic market.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: You cant really blockade Gaza without Egypt going along though. I don't think that Gaza was ever a part of Mandatory Palestine? just a part of Egyptian territory (until 1967)
The current blockade of Gaza is operated with Egyptian support.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: In other news, do we have a reasonably solid estimate on what percentage of the population is the delusional base for the GOP? That is anyone who approves of the Trump administration is undoubtedly denying reality, so cannot be expected to vote on it. To my knowledge it's in the 30-40% range but I'm not sure on that. I ask this because I'm wondering how dramatic the response will be as it is revealed how corrupt the administration is. What portion of the country is willing to roll over and let it happen?
I ask because simple acceptance of blatant corruption is one thing that has me worried.
I think given what we have seen from Trump so far, his blatant corruption and that of his cabinet, the racism but veiled and overt, the constant lying, the attacks on anyone who won't meekly submit including law enforcement, the policies that break campaign promises and hurt voters, I'd have to say that anyone who still supports Trump is delusional.
As to how many people that is... the 538 tracker shows approval for Trump is pretty tightly set around 40%, with a very narrow window each way. It drops to around 38%, and rises to about 42%. It's about 85% of Republicans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I should have been more clear; 'more friendly' doesn't mean 'good' or even 'competent' it just means 'still a hell of a lot better than what we have now'.
Sure, but what I'm saying is the prospect of future US presidents following foreign policy that is even somewhat as terrible as this government is enough to force a radical . Remember, GW Bush already got the mulligan. Iraq was an extraordinarily bad idea, but Bush and his administration seemed chastened by that failure and they largely normalised afterwards. So given the previous 100 years of US foreign policy, everyone just tried to forget Iraq. But now we have the next Republican president, and while he's objectively even worse than Bush, what's even more of a concern is how quickly most of his terrible ideas have been normalised within the Republican base.
It is far from certain, anything can happen, but it is entirely possible that the next Republican president will be even worse than this one. The rest of the world is waking up to what has happened to one half of US politics, and is going to need to find a way to maintain stability in a future where the US will be adopting deeply ridiculous foreign policy around half the time.
I think it will be a good turn in the long run, like previously discussed 'turning the boss into a team leader'. It is certainly rubbish right now but it's sort of like having an army with a bad paint job; it would be easier to go through and fix it up but stripping all the models then re-painting them entirely would get a better result in the end. But that's more of a hopeful prediction on the overall trend and doesn't address the lasting damage that has and will be done to individual elements of world diplomacy.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In other news, do we have a reasonably solid estimate on what percentage of the population is the delusional base for the GOP? That is anyone who approves of the Trump administration is undoubtedly denying reality, so cannot be expected to vote on it. To my knowledge it's in the 30-40% range but I'm not sure on that. I ask this because I'm wondering how dramatic the response will be as it is revealed how corrupt the administration is. What portion of the country is willing to roll over and let it happen?
I ask because simple acceptance of blatant corruption is one thing that has me worried.
I think given what we have seen from Trump so far, his blatant corruption and that of his cabinet, the racism but veiled and overt, the constant lying, the attacks on anyone who won't meekly submit including law enforcement, the policies that break campaign promises and hurt voters, I'd have to say that anyone who still supports Trump is delusional.
As to how many people that is... the 538 tracker shows approval for Trump is pretty tightly set around 40%, with a very narrow window each way. It drops to around 38%, and rises to about 42%. It's about 85% of Republicans.
Higher than I'd hope, about what I'd expect, sadly. Thanks for the info though.
@seb: I don't know if the right wing Jewish constituent is all that large. The Protestant community is what is pushing for this here. Why? It was foretold. Sounds crazy. It is. The wapo had a story about it the other day. it explains a lot, not in the Midwest so much, but in the south, and how good Christian folks can wrap their brains around this guy (give up all sense of decency) in order to further the end. Yup. People believe some weird stuff and are willing to give up a lot of self preservation to make their dreams come true.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This whole Iran deal renegement was heavily driven by the Israeli lobby, the only country benefitting from it. The strings have never been more visible.
And the Saudis, right? They might hate Israel but that isn't an enemy they can actually move against (except for the normal funding of Sunni terrorists ofc), but Iran doesn't have US protection. The kings and princes of KSA are pragmatic enough that they can hate Iran together with Israel - they can't unify the ME under their banner (against Israel) as long as the Iranians are funding Shia terrorists...
If only the Iranians had some better salesmen at the helm they could have sold the Iran nuclear deal to Trump! Invited him or his advisors to Iran, let them inspect sites, the full tour. How hard would it have been to sway Trump by showing him the lot and telling him what a good deal it was, made only very much gooder if the bestest president and negotiator ever approved of it?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think it will be a good turn in the long run, like previously discussed 'turning the boss into a team leader'. It is certainly rubbish right now but it's sort of like having an army with a bad paint job; it would be easier to go through and fix it up but stripping all the models then re-painting them entirely would get a better result in the end. But that's more of a hopeful prediction on the overall trend and doesn't address the lasting damage that has and will be done to individual elements of world diplomacy.
The problem is the US is dropping the responsibility, but not the authority. They still want to throw their weight around, they're only dropping that hard bit where they work with other countries on strategic alliances and all that boring, not fun stuff.
And at the same time I don't think Democrats are even conscious of the shift that's happening. They will still want to operate from a foreign policy position of leadership. The result is going to be schizophrenic. More than anything, foreign policy needs to be bi-partisan because it needs to be consistent. There will be shifts after elections, but it will be small shifts to smaller parts, something big like whether another country gets invaded shouldn't swing one or another based on which way Florida goes in the general.
I wish I had your optimism.
Higher than I'd hope, about what I'd expect, sadly. Thanks for the info though.
All that should be taken with a grain of salt, as its a pure poll. There's no filter for likely voters yet. It is possible a lot of people won't be willing to admit they were wrong in a poll, but they're not going to double down and turn out to vote again. This would explain the difference between the Dem's moderate advantage in generic polls, about +6, and their results in special elections, which have ranged from +10 to +20. But that's all guesswork right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: @seb: I don't know if the right wing Jewish constituent is all that large.
Not votes. Dollars. Sheldon Adelson just handed over $30 million to Paul Ryan's warchest.
The Protestant community is what is pushing for this here. Why? It was foretold. Sounds crazy. It is. The wapo had a story about it the other day. it explains a lot, not in the Midwest so much, but in the south, and how good Christian folks can wrap their brains around this guy (give up all sense of decency) in order to further the end. Yup. People believe some weird stuff and are willing to give up a lot of self preservation to make their dreams come true.
They didn't have the correct Twix candy bars on the pillow to sway him. He is a much harder bargainer than that. And the TV was on the wrong channel.
@seb: sadly, 30 mil is pennies. Seldon is old and looking for a place to put his money. Old people make dumb bets (Ryan already threw in the flag). If only he had a playboy bunny to see him to his end (actually, if only all of us had that..) Ryan will make sure it goes where it needs to, but it needs to go to a lot more places than he can doll out. If you think Adelsten' warchest is large, Spielberg might have a thing to say, and he will. A few of my friends are saying he is going on a dinosaur splurge. I don't know what that means exactly, but something is going to go extinct.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This whole Iran deal renegement was heavily driven by the Israeli lobby, the only country benefitting from it. The strings have never been more visible.
And the Saudis, right? They might hate Israel but that isn't an enemy they can actually move against (except for the normal funding of Sunni terrorists ofc), but Iran doesn't have US protection. The kings and princes of KSA are pragmatic enough that they can hate Iran together with Israel - they can't unify the ME under their banner (against Israel) as long as the Iranians are funding Shia terrorists...
If only the Iranians had some better salesmen at the helm they could have sold the Iran nuclear deal to Trump! Invited him or his advisors to Iran, let them inspect sites, the full tour. How hard would it have been to sway Trump by showing him the lot and telling him what a good deal it was, made only very much gooder if the bestest president and negotiator ever approved of it?
Sure, the Saudis disliked it too. But Israel was the main outside agitator and driver behind it. Netanyahu came to Congress to preach on the evils of Iran when the Iran deal was being made and two weeks ago launched a disinformation campaign that the Trump admin ran with the moment he pulled the curtains down on those file cabinets. The Saudis are important, but they don't have the same political weight as the Israeli lobby in the US.
Trump would not have been convinced by Iran as that would be him admitting he was wrong before. As demonstrated, Trump will rather burn it all down then let himself look bad to his fans.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @seb: sadly, 30 mil is pennies. Seldon is old and looking for a place to put his money.
Dude, that was just a payment because it was a Tuesday. Adelson had already put up $150m just for the mid-terms, iirc.
Old people make dumb bets (Ryan already threw in the flag).
Ryan's decision wasn't just a political judgement. It's a combination of likely losing the House, flying cover for Nunes and Trump, babysitting the Freedom caucus, and having nowhere to go with legislation even if he gets past all that crap.
In contrast, he can walk away while he's still the biggest rainmaker outside of the president, and as a private citizen he's much more able to skim that for himself.
If you think Adelsten' warchest is large, Spielberg might have a thing to say, and he will. A few of my friends are saying he is going on a dinosaur splurge. I don't know what that means exactly, but something is going to go extinct.
Cool. At this point I say feth it, bury money with other money. Let Spielberg go nuts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Sure, the Saudis disliked it too. But Israel was the main outside agitator and driver behind it. Netanyahu came to Congress to preach on the evils of Iran when the Iran deal was being made and two weeks ago launched a disinformation campaign that the Trump admin ran with the moment he pulled the curtains down on those file cabinets. The Saudis are important, but they don't have the same political weight as the Israeli lobby in the US.
Trump would not have been convinced by Iran as that would be him admitting he was wrong before. As demonstrated, Trump will rather burn it all down then let himself look bad to his fans.
Saudi politics are still fundamentally inward focused - the focus is on keeping their own population under control so they can keep buying Rolls Royces by the dozen. They're certainly not passive in the region, but they're not like Israel, who spend lots of political capital and actual dollars to target regional enemies, and want the Americans doing as much of that work as possible.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've known gambling addicts as well as a psychologist who specializes in gambling addiction, so I can't really get on board with calling it a fool tax. Imagine if heroin were legal and an encouraged leisure activity at many popular vacation destinations, because for some people that's how pretty much how it works.
I'm not saying I believe gambling should be illegal necessarily, but I do believe our culture has an unhealthy attitude towards gambling and its victims.
Well. Certainly US had plenty of loose money. Poker economy dried up a lot when US got locked out as huge % of the so called fish(or loose money) went away from tables shared by EU players(not that US doesn't have good players. Probably more than non-US. But also way more bad players and maybe % of bad player vs good player is more bad players in US)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Palestine "claims" that land... but, they never held it as a state. Israel kicked everyone's asses in '67, if nothing else its theirs by conquest. Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
Ummm...so invading and winning war makes it all right and legal? So if Russia invades and conquers say California suddenly that's legal and not illegal?
Okay so guess Russia isn't doing anything illegal in the Ukraine then if the Ukraine goverment is defeated in war? Right of conquest and all that.
Yeah the might makes right argument is bs. It basically amounts to "If Palestinians can mount terrorist attacks, then they are right to do so because it is possible."
As you say, once other countries start getting their own hammers, they're going to start looking for nails. It won't even necessarily be foreign operations, it will likely just be much stronger negotiating positions. Right now if Germany indicates disapproval, it means nothing unless the US shows an equal level of disapproval. In a world where Germany has force projection of its own, though, I think a lot of Americans who've grown up only knowing US world dominance will be in for quite a shock.
Anyone with even a moderate amount of knowledge of world history should know that any situation where the Germans are going to build up their military power is a bad idea.
I think Germany should get nuclear weapons. (Not German, just live here). It's a far more responsible and positive influence on the world than most of the other nuclear powers. Taking in a million refugees caused by American and UK military blunders was a really morally good thing.
whembly wrote: Palestine is not in a position of negotiating strength. However, they, and the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations...
Whembly, that's absolute nonsense. It isn't even an exaggeration of anything, its just an absolutely ridiculous fantasy.
You know that eyeroll you want to give when some leftwinger would post 'no blood for oil'? What you just typed is a couple of magnitudes more ridiculous, because at least oil prices have some connection to mid east policy. What you just posted isn't even that. It's just make believe ridiculousness.
So no, the rest of the world is not secretly hoping for Israel to destroy itself. If you genuinely believe that, I think it is best you stop, realise that every part of the process you've undergone to reach that belief was actually a process of creating an elaborate but very silly fantasy, and in order to be of any use in a conversation on this subject you will have to spend months, possibly years, deconstructing the ideas that underpin such a ridiculous notion.
Okay... let's gameplan this out.
These some Palestinians "protesting" at the Israeli border... and the military stands down. These "protesters" breaches the wall...
whembly wrote: Palestine "claims" that land... but, they never held it as a state. Israel kicked everyone's asses in '67, if nothing else its theirs by conquest. Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
Ummm...so invading and winning war makes it all right and legal? So if Russia invades and conquers say California suddenly that's legal and not illegal?
Okay so guess Russia isn't doing anything illegal in the Ukraine then if the Ukraine goverment is defeated in war? Right of conquest and all that.
Okay... *you* gameplan this out for me... how does Ukraine get Crimea back?
Go...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: There is obviously nothing possible in between liberal application of lethal force and completely standing down.
You're avoiding the question.
What happens if that border isn't enforced?
Will the Palestinian be able to ignore that? Are they going to just saunter across the border to do some everyday business and have a cuppa tea?
The problem is that everybody wants to see what is basically a violent riot as some sort of armed invasion. People throwing rocks and molotov cocktails isn't an unfamiliar sight in Europe. Somehow the police manages to handle that quite well without opening up on the crowd.
Most of them are protestors. Israel has placed enough snipers to take out those few aligned with Hamas that are armed. Imagine if any Western army had done this during the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, just open up on every protest.
whembly wrote: Palestine "claims" that land... but, they never held it as a state. Israel kicked everyone's asses in '67, if nothing else its theirs by conquest. Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
Ummm...so invading and winning war makes it all right and legal? So if Russia invades and conquers say California suddenly that's legal and not illegal?
Okay so guess Russia isn't doing anything illegal in the Ukraine then if the Ukraine goverment is defeated in war? Right of conquest and all that.
Okay... *you* gameplan this out for me... how does Ukraine get Crimea back?
Go...
Your gameplan, what does the US gain from recognizing an illegal annexation?
Da Boss wrote: There is obviously nothing possible in between liberal application of lethal force and completely standing down.
You're avoiding the question.
What happens if that border isn't enforced?
Will the Palestinian be able to ignore that? Are they going to just saunter across the border to do some everyday business and have a cuppa tea?
There isn't a border, just ask Israel. Palestine isn't a state. The border there is imaginary.
Also Palestinians cross the 'border' every day. As Israel relies on a great deal of labor for Palestine. The border fence is massive and ypu can just arrest those that climb over or get through. Israel never had a problem with detaining Palestinians before.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The problem is that everybody wants to see what is basically a violent riot as some sort of armed invasion. People throwing rocks and molotov cocktails isn't an unfamiliar site in Europe. Somehow the police manages to handle that quite well without opening up on the crowd.
Most of them are protestors. Israel has placed enough snipers to take out those few aligned with Hamas that are armed. Imagine if any Western army had done this during the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, just open up on every protest.
Here's the thing... the Hamas admitted that they were using most of the protesters has human shields.
Furthermore, there were no less than 10 detonations of bombs at the fence and grenades as well.
This is more than just a rowdy bunch of people with sticks and stones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: The problem is that everybody wants to see what is basically a violent riot as some sort of armed invasion. People throwing rocks and molotov cocktails isn't an unfamiliar site in Europe. Somehow the police manages to handle that quite well without opening up on the crowd.
Most of them are protestors. Israel has placed enough snipers to take out those few aligned with Hamas that are armed. Imagine if any Western army had done this during the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, just open up on every protest.
whembly wrote: Palestine "claims" that land... but, they never held it as a state. Israel kicked everyone's asses in '67, if nothing else its theirs by conquest. Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
Ummm...so invading and winning war makes it all right and legal? So if Russia invades and conquers say California suddenly that's legal and not illegal?
Okay so guess Russia isn't doing anything illegal in the Ukraine then if the Ukraine goverment is defeated in war? Right of conquest and all that.
Okay... *you* gameplan this out for me... how does Ukraine get Crimea back?
Go...
Your gameplan, what does the US gain from recognizing an illegal annexation?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The problem is that everybody wants to see what is basically a violent riot as some sort of armed invasion. People throwing rocks and molotov cocktails isn't an unfamiliar site in Europe. Somehow the police manages to handle that quite well without opening up on the crowd.
Most of them are protestors. Israel has placed enough snipers to take out those few aligned with Hamas that are armed. Imagine if any Western army had done this during the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, just open up on every protest.
Here's the thing... the Hamas admitted that they were using most of the protesters has human shields.
Furthermore, there were no less than 10 detonations of bombs at the fence and grenades as well.
This is more than just a rowdy bunch of people with sticks and stones.
Of course Hamas says that, because Hamas wants the Israelis to open up. And the Israelis are only too happy to oblige. The problem is that if Hamas is so dangerous why has no Israeli died? So far its a one sided massacre.
And 10 explosions of what? What size bombs? The IDF has been clear that the fence has not been breached. So whatever they have been using is insignificant. We're talking about grenades versus armored vehicles and entrenched infantry.
This is more then just a bunch of rowdy people true, but the overwhelming amount are only rowdy people.
Sure, you sanction and never accept it. People coming from occupied territories, don't recognize their passports and such.
Not doing so only emboldens enemies like China and Russia to the detriment of the US world order. Make them pay for it, make it too costly for a prestige project. They might never give it back, but you can sure run their country into the ground so they won't get a chance for another victim.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The problem is that everybody wants to see what is basically a violent riot as some sort of armed invasion. People throwing rocks and molotov cocktails isn't an unfamiliar site in Europe. Somehow the police manages to handle that quite well without opening up on the crowd.
Most of them are protestors. Israel has placed enough snipers to take out those few aligned with Hamas that are armed. Imagine if any Western army had done this during the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, just open up on every protest.
Here's the thing... the Hamas admitted that they were using most of the protesters has human shields.
Of course they do.
The only thing Hamas has in any abundance whatsoever is angry people. More specifically poor angry people.
Hamas was relatively deep pockets thanks to their wealthy sponsors in KSA, UAE, etc. so when they tell the middle child in a family of 8 that they will take care of their family if only they go and stab a few Israelis they do it not just because of ideology, but also because is the closest they can do to provide for their family.
Who do you think pays for food, healthcare and housing in Gaza? It's Hamas.
The West Bank has something closer to a functioning economy, but Israeli encroaching makes it really, really hard and Fatah are caught between the Hamas rock and the Israel hard place.
And everyone goes along because an unstable, quasi-terrorist Palestinian leadership just reinforces the Israeli narrative that they won't yield to terror and that Palestinians can't be trusted with nice things like citizenship or a functioning economy, using paternalistic language much like apartheid South Africa or slave owners would use saying "see, without me they'd be even worse" because having cheap labor just across the fence is also the icing on the Israeli economy who does a great job with their high-tech companies but doesn't mind if the lowly jobs are done by poorly paid Palestinians.
Just about every Israeli will tell you how they're not racist because they know this Palestinian bricklayer or plumber who is so hard working or that Palestinian barista who does an awesome latte.
Ultimately, nobody is able to point to a particularly compelling *policy* reason for the Embassy move, and how it improves the US position, though it will play wonderfully with the domestic base. What we can say is that for all the talk about "security", the casualty counts are entirely one-sided, almost to the point of exclusivity, particularly the body counts. The embassy move was held off for years and decades for a reason, because everyone knew that doing exactly this thing was going to directly result in people's deaths. This wasn't rocket science, human lives were traded for domestic political reasons. We can see this in the people who were in attendance and invited at the opening, we can see this in the language used in the ceremonies.
Also, on that note, either Kushner went off script in a markedly tone-deaf manner, or the WH is intentionally scrubbing their transcripts.
I think compelling policy reason is the Trump admin dirty word. Nothing they have done so far makes sense, and saving a Chinese company is just icing on the cake.
As for Kushner, I don't think he went off script. What he says sounds more like what the current admin believes then the transcript. Besides, now that it has become routine to lie to the press, would it really be surprising if they doctored some documents? Seems like a small step.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
Yeah pretty much. Cooking for oneself also involves the barrier of knowing how (not a big barrier, but still) and doesn't resolve the issue of healthy ingredients being way more expensive.
I always refer to what I call the "food trinity" which is healthy, good tasting, and inexpensive. You get two.
Or know what the heck you are doing, and get all three.
Again - it is not that expensive, it is a matter of buying, dividing, and freezing,
Look for books on meal prep - planning out what you are doing, a week at a time, handles the 'holy trinity'.
The Auld Grump - this week it is pork chops for $0.99, and chicken leg quarters for $0.89, corn on the cob 5/$1, and zucchini for $0.99. With 2/$4 cantalope for dessert.
I find your sentiment to be more or less untrue, but like you yourself said in a previous post to this one, the line of discussion has gotten off-topic.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around that - because it is not something that I do sometimes - it is the way I pretty much always do things - so being told it is impossible seems like somebody saying that rain doesn't make you damp - something that I know from empirical evidence is possible.
I will say that it became easier once I married - price drops with bulk.
But, really, I think that it comes down to habits - and my habits support that kind of diet. (I will admit to a weakness for casseroles - a habit that only began after I got married. Because Megan complained that I tend to eat curried everything. )
I will use half the pork chops this week, and use the other half next week - ditto on the chicken.
Again, its not a border. According to Israel its just a fence around limbo. I can't believe you would just handwave away war crimes by saying "militarized border".
Um... it's a militarized boarder who's capable of wiping them out.
I'd say they've been very restrained.
So anything short of genocide counts as restraint?
Trying to win the Most Hyperbolic Award™ today...eh?
You need to *listen* to the Hamas:
MEMRI (@MEMRIReports)
5/15/18, 7:23 AM Senior Hamas Official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar on Gaza Protests: This Is Not Peaceful Resistance, It Is Supported by Our Weapons pic.twitter.com/aut0Q7SPD9
I mean... this is what I'm seeing:
Media: This is a peaceful protest!
Israel: WTF?!?!
Hamas: WTF??!?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, its not a border. According to Israel its just a fence around limbo. I can't believe you would just handwave away war crimes by saying "militarized border".
Okay... a fence with armed soldiers... that is being attacked.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, its not a border. According to Israel its just a fence around limbo. I can't believe you would just handwave away war crimes by saying "militarized border".
Okay... a fence with armed soldiers... that is being attacked.
Shooting their own people (technically Palestine is not a country, just Israeli occupied territory) yeah that's quite problematic. I thought us in the West tended to frown upon governments shooting people in their own country. But here we are, back in Cold War era Central American political rethoric.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Because all Palestinians are Hamas? This is as bad as the people arguing all Israelis are zionists.
No. Didn't say that.
Again, why are you ignoring what the Hamas leadership said?
MEMRI (@MEMRIReports)
5/15/18, 7:23 AM Senior Hamas Official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar on Gaza Protests: This Is Not Peaceful Resistance, It Is Supported by Our Weapons pic.twitter.com/aut0Q7SPD9
Um... it's a militarized border who's capable of wiping them out.
I'd say they've been very restrained.
theres a lot of heavily militarized borders. Generally anytime 60 people die on one, especially when theyre all from one side, thats considered a massacre. If all we're doing is applauding that Israel could have killed more than that, then one must question the intent of such a low bar statement of support.
I am confident that no such statement of restraint would have been made had the incident involved literally any other nation.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Because all Palestinians are Hamas? This is as bad as the people arguing all Israelis are zionists.
No. Didn't say that.
Again, why are you ignoring what the Hamas leadership said?
MEMRI (@MEMRIReports)
5/15/18, 7:23 AM Senior Hamas Official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar on Gaza Protests: This Is Not Peaceful Resistance, It Is Supported by Our Weapons pic.twitter.com/aut0Q7SPD9
Again, why are you ignoring the majority aren't Hamas? Just because both sides are trying to hijack the narrative doesn't make it more true. Do violent elements in a massive protest justify indiscriminate force? Jeez, US protests must be pretty bloody...
Disciple of Fate wrote: Because all Palestinians are Hamas? This is as bad as the people arguing all Israelis are zionists.
No. Didn't say that.
Again, why are you ignoring what the Hamas leadership said?
MEMRI (@MEMRIReports)
5/15/18, 7:23 AM Senior Hamas Official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar on Gaza Protests: This Is Not Peaceful Resistance, It Is Supported by Our Weapons pic.twitter.com/aut0Q7SPD9
Again, why are you ignoring the majority aren't Hamas? Just because both sides are trying to hijack the narrative doesn't make it more true. Do violent elements in a massive protest justify indiscriminate force? Jeez, US protests must be pretty bloody...
I'm not.
It's just that what happened yesterday wasn't a "peaceful" protest.
Um... it's a militarized border who's capable of wiping them out.
I'd say they've been very restrained.
theres a lot of heavily militarized borders. Generally anytime 60 people die on one, especially when theyre all from one side, thats considered a massacre. If all we're doing is applauding that Israel could have killed more than that, then one must question the intent of such a low bar statement of support.
I am confident that no such statement of restraint would have been made had the incident involved literally any other nation.
This. If East Germany had gunned down 60 people lobbing rocks and explosives at the Berlin wall you certainly wouldn't ever see it described as restraint.
I mean, consider that in one day, Israel has killed around 1/4 of the total number of people killed trying to cross the Berlin Wall in its entire lifetime.
Um... it's a militarized border who's capable of wiping them out.
I'd say they've been very restrained.
theres a lot of heavily militarized borders. Generally anytime 60 people die on one, especially when theyre all from one side, thats considered a massacre. If all we're doing is applauding that Israel could have killed more than that, then one must question the intent of such a low bar statement of support.
I am confident that no such statement of restraint would have been made had the incident involved literally any other nation.
Don't you just love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning?
The Iranian government has responded with a firm hand, arresting hundreds. At least 21 people have been killed, according to the Associated Press, as state-run media have instead showcased a wave of pro-government protests and repeatedly played nationalistic songs.
The Iranian government has responded with a firm hand, arresting hundreds. At least 21 people have been killed, according to the Associated Press, as state-run media have instead showcased a wave of pro-government protests and repeatedly played nationalistic songs.
In particular, Haley said the U.S. calls on Iran’s government to stop censoring social media outlets and to restore Internet access –- and on the international community to “do more” than issue statements of support, saying, “We cannot allow” the ongoing crackdown on protesters “to happen.”.....
America’s antagonists on the Security Council had harsh words for why the session was even called, arguing the issue is not one of international security, but rather domestic politics.
“The situation is not an issue that belongs on the agenda of the Security Council,” the representative from Bolivia said, saying it will “run the risk of the Security Council becoming a political tool exploited for each member’s ends.”
To that criticism, Haley preemptively pushed back, arguing, “Freedom and human dignity cannot be separated from security.”
“Every UN member state is sovereign, but member states cannot use sovereignty as a shield when they categorically deny people human rights and fundamental freedoms,” she added.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Because all Palestinians are Hamas? This is as bad as the people arguing all Israelis are zionists.
No. Didn't say that.
Again, why are you ignoring what the Hamas leadership said?
MEMRI (@MEMRIReports)
5/15/18, 7:23 AM Senior Hamas Official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar on Gaza Protests: This Is Not Peaceful Resistance, It Is Supported by Our Weapons pic.twitter.com/aut0Q7SPD9
Again, why are you ignoring the majority aren't Hamas? Just because both sides are trying to hijack the narrative doesn't make it more true. Do violent elements in a massive protest justify indiscriminate force? Jeez, US protests must be pretty bloody...
I'm not.
It's just that what happened yesterday wasn't a "peaceful" protest.
True, but it also wasn't an "open fire on the crowd" protest. What Israel did was in no way proportional to the situation. The issue is that the US should call that out. Israel isn't going to fall because the only killed 10 protestors instead of 60.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Because all Palestinians are Hamas? This is as bad as the people arguing all Israelis are zionists.
No. Didn't say that.
Again, why are you ignoring what the Hamas leadership said?
MEMRI (@MEMRIReports)
5/15/18, 7:23 AM Senior Hamas Official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar on Gaza Protests: This Is Not Peaceful Resistance, It Is Supported by Our Weapons pic.twitter.com/aut0Q7SPD9
Again, why are you ignoring the majority aren't Hamas? Just because both sides are trying to hijack the narrative doesn't make it more true. Do violent elements in a massive protest justify indiscriminate force? Jeez, US protests must be pretty bloody...
I'm not.
It's just that what happened yesterday wasn't a "peaceful" protest.
So? A drunken brawl or a hooligan gathering aren't peaceful either and police find the way not to shoot them (I assume with considerable restraint, but that's what you train them for).
Disciple of Fate wrote: Because all Palestinians are Hamas? This is as bad as the people arguing all Israelis are zionists.
No. Didn't say that.
Again, why are you ignoring what the Hamas leadership said?
MEMRI (@MEMRIReports)
5/15/18, 7:23 AM Senior Hamas Official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar on Gaza Protests: This Is Not Peaceful Resistance, It Is Supported by Our Weapons pic.twitter.com/aut0Q7SPD9
Again, why are you ignoring the majority aren't Hamas? Just because both sides are trying to hijack the narrative doesn't make it more true. Do violent elements in a massive protest justify indiscriminate force? Jeez, US protests must be pretty bloody...
I'm not.
It's just that what happened yesterday wasn't a "peaceful" protest.
So? A drunken brawl or a hooligan gathering aren't peaceful either and police find the way not to shoot them (I assume with considerable restraint, but that's what you train them for).
Clearly, it's ok because they were "only" Palestinians (basically what I'm seeing here). . .
I mean, feth, how many cops killed people during the Philiadelphia SB celebrations? (not how many died, how many were killed by authorities) Even during the Civil Rights Movement, police didn't kill 60 protestors in a single event. Even some of the most racist, ardent supporters of segregation began telling his cops/deputies to NOT send the dogs or fire hoses on protestors, because it put them in a bad light, and they'd lose national support.
In fairness to Whembly, his stance on the Israel/Palestine issue has been pretty consistent, even if I vehemently disagree with much of his reasoning and conclusions.
David Robinson was given life for a crime he didnt commit, has finally been released after 18 years in prison, 9 years after the real killer died and almost 14 years after the real killer confessed. The case against him was composed of a single paid informant and a cellmate who claimed Robinson had confessed (but...had never actually been Robinson's cellmate), and both recanted their stories.
The police detective involved, John Blakely, has...resigned, no worse for wear, and not absolutely no consequences for the prosecutor either.
Yup. I'm all for the death penalty in theory, in a perfect world (or at least I can see the arguments, sometimes).
In this world, though; I am totally against it. We can't do it well, we can't do it fairly, and we shouldn't do it at all until we can. Which will maybe be never, and that's OK.
Aye, its hard to support the death penalty in such light.
But even aside from that...the fact that this case is what it is, that the police chose to frame an innocent man, that the prosecution chose to take such an obviously poor case and then continue fighting it for a decade and a half after it was obviously wrong, and that there is no mechanism for consequences for such travesties of justice and waste of taxpayer resources is...astounding.
Drain that swamp!
https://www.google.com/amp/dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/05/14/texas-congressman-lobbying/amp/ See, this is why politicians ultimately don't give a damn about us, because even if they use hush money to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit, don't pay the money back, and resign in disgrace when it becomes public, they can still get a job as a lobbyist for $160K a year.
So the North Korean dance continues. Having bought enough time and peace, North Korea has just cancelled a high level meeting with South Korea and says its unsure if the one with the US can continue. No point in it anyway really, the US deal doesn't matter, its all empty promises.
N Korea cancels talks with South Korea and warns US
North Korea has cancelled high-level talks with South Korea because of anger over military exercises, state media reports.
The North's official KCNA news agency said the exercises between the US and the South were a "provocation".
It also warned the US over the fate of the historic summit between Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump that is scheduled for 12 June.
In March, Mr Trump stunned the world by accepting an invitation to meet Mr Kim.
"We will both try to make it a very special moment for World Peace!" the US leader tweeted at the time.
Some 100 warplanes, including an unspecified number of B-52 bombers and F-15K jets began the Max Thunder drills on Friday.
The US and South Korea insist such drills are purely for defence purposes, and based out of a mutual defence agreement they signed in 1953.
They also say the exercises are necessary to strengthen their readiness in case of an external attack.
fingers crossed this is just a bit of sabre rattling and the talks do go ahead.
Now there's the NK we all know...
Yeah, I think this is all a side show. (it may royally piss off China though...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: So the North Korean dance continues. Having bought enough time and peace, North Korea has just cancelled a high level meeting with South Korea and says its unsure if the one with the US can continue. No point in it anyway really, the US deal doesn't matter, its all empty promises.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So the North Korean dance continues. Having bought enough time and peace, North Korea has just cancelled a high level meeting with South Korea and says its unsure if the one with the US can continue. No point in it anyway really, the US deal doesn't matter, its all empty promises.
I mean isn't it true? Setting aside the Iran deal for a second, the Trump admin has already backtracked multiple times on promises it made to Kim. Even if you could get a deal ratified by Congress there is no guarantee that the bill will even make it to a vote before Trump changes his mind and kills it. They don't know what they want from or can offer to North Korea, and they have less than a week to decide that when they have already wasted months. When Trump's strategy is to wing it, what faith is there put in a deal he might sleep on and declare bad the next day?
N Korea cancels talks with South Korea and warns US
North Korea has cancelled high-level talks with South Korea because of anger over military exercises, state media reports.
The North's official KCNA news agency said the exercises between the US and the South were a "provocation".
It also warned the US over the fate of the historic summit between Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump that is scheduled for 12 June.
In March, Mr Trump stunned the world by accepting an invitation to meet Mr Kim.
"We will both try to make it a very special moment for World Peace!" the US leader tweeted at the time.
Some 100 warplanes, including an unspecified number of B-52 bombers and F-15K jets began the Max Thunder drills on Friday.
The US and South Korea insist such drills are purely for defence purposes, and based out of a mutual defence agreement they signed in 1953.
They also say the exercises are necessary to strengthen their readiness in case of an external attack.
fingers crossed this is just a bit of sabre rattling and the talks do go ahead.
Now there's the NK we all know...
Yeah, I think this is all a side show. (it may royally piss off China though...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: So the North Korean dance continues. Having bought enough time and peace, North Korea has just cancelled a high level meeting with South Korea and says its unsure if the one with the US can continue. No point in it anyway really, the US deal doesn't matter, its all empty promises.
Happened 3 times before, why shouldn't we expect it again for the 4th time
NinthMusketeer wrote: In other news, do we have a reasonably solid estimate on what percentage of the population is the delusional base for the GOP? That is anyone who approves of the Trump administration is undoubtedly denying reality, so cannot be expected to vote on it. To my knowledge it's in the 30-40% range but I'm not sure on that. I ask this because I'm wondering how dramatic the response will be as it is revealed how corrupt the administration is. What portion of the country is willing to roll over and let it happen?
I ask because simple acceptance of blatant corruption is one thing that has me worried.
We've acquiesced to a horribly corrupt system as being normal for a long time now. Both parties have been doing this for years and SCOTUS even went so far as to label pay to play lobbying as normal and not corruptive without narrowly defined specific quid pro quo arrangements in the McCutcheon case. The more distressing aspect of the Trump presidency to me is that it's seems to have engaged a shift of the Overton window to allow the kind of personal brand monetization of the office of the Presidency that was previously never expected or condoned. IIRC d-usa made a good post about this a few pages ago, Trump and a lot of his cabinet treat the Federal govt like a private corporation in all the worst ways, cashing in on it like it's a brand letting money overrule accountability and productivity. The Republicans seem all too willing to accept Trump's used car salesman self promoting reality tv star shilling private sector experience as equivalent to the private sector experience of somebody like Mitt Romney. I wasn't a big Romney fan but I thought he had a solid resume and I think presidential candidates should have a mix of private sector and governance experience. Stuff like having his son in law give the speech in Jerusalem as if we didn't have a State Department full of foreign policy professionals whose sole purpose is to help the nation handle these kind of decisions in a crass showcase of nepotism and Trump brand building does not bode well for future presidencies. If this is the new normal I shudder to think of what comes next.
Politico’s Playbook, a newsletter that positions itself as a must-read morning briefing for DC insiders, does big business selling that brand: During creator Mike Allen’s tenure, a week-long sponsorship cost $60,000, and as recently as last week it was “presented by Goldman Sachs.” The newsletter was Allen’s baby, and he ran it until he left to start Axios in 2016. Mike Allen’s Playbook was aptly described by my colleague Alex Pareene as “a daily exercise in favor-trading carried out by people using him as a conduit and people using him as an unpaid spokesman.” As New York’s Jonathan Chait wrote, Allen would accept “lucrative payments from advertisers and lend his editorial voice to hyping, and sometimes parroting, their agenda.” It was a very expensive disgrace that pioneered a whole new kind of money-making, pseudo-journalism venture: the access newsletter.
Ads are more clearly marked in Playbook these days, and Allen is now sharing his worldly wisdom at Axios instead, but it’s important to remember this shameful history as we dive into Playbook’s Tellin’ It Like It Is special today:
Good Friday morning. AND, WELCOME TO THE REALITY OF WASHINGTON. ... In the last two days, we’ve seen the world get introduced to two elements of D.C. that many of us know well: political intelligence and big-dollar fundraising. Here are a few things that happen in D.C. that might — but shouldn’t — catch some people by surprise:
— YES, Paul Ryan flew across the country to meet with Sheldon Adelson, and when the super PAC asked for $30 million, he had to leave the room. Yep, it’s weird. That’s how campaign finance works. They can do everything but ask for the big dough. Happens routinely in both parties.
“Weird” is not the word I would go for. “Insanely corrupt” works better for me, personally. It doesn’t make you clever or savvy to already be well aware of this terrible thing, nor to diminish its importance by describing it as routine. Just because your shirt has been on fire for a while now does not mean the flames are no longer worthy of mention. If people are truly surprised by this information and not just outraged, that means journalists, including Playbook’s reporters, are failing at their job of informing Americans exactly how corrupt their political system is.
Today’s edition continues:
— YES, guys like Michael Cohen routinely get paid amounts like $1.2 million to offer insights about their boss or former boss. Yeah, it’s crazy. But many readers of this newsletter would not have their McMansion in McLean, their BMW, their membership at Army Navy, second homes in Delaware, cigar lockers and endless glasses of Pinot Noir at BLT Steak and Tosca if that kind of stuff didn’t happen. Newsflash: $1.2 million is not even a rounding error for massive corporations. (The smart companies route these deals through law firms.)
A scintilla of information gives a company an edge. That price tag would be completely worth it for a member of Hill leadership — and intel on Trump is worth much more than that. It seems like Cohen offered squat. See WaPo story on Cohen advising AT&T on Time Warner merger
I do respect the roast of the Playbook reader here, but Playbook cultivated this readership. It exists to serve the BMW-driving class of Washington insiders, and it serves them just as much as the readers serve Playbook by giving them the subscriptions that entice literally Goldman Sachs to sponsor their newsletter. Playbook gives corporations like AT&T and Novartis and their representatives, including the “smart” ones, the intel they need to Win The Day. They make life easier for people whose entire job it is to make America worse on behalf of their corporate paymasters. You don’t get to spend years carefully growing a large readership of bastards and then turn around and say wow, aren’t you guys all bastards?
But most telling is Playbook’s acceptance of the “offering insights” spin that AT&T and Novartis have offered in the wake of the latest Cohen news. It’s true that corporations routinely pay lobbying and consulting firms for “insight” into what politicians are thinking, but for all their posturing as savvy insiders, Playbook is playing at deep naiveté if they think payments like this, routine as they are, are merely for intel-gathering and not straight-up buying influence and access.
— YES, people work for years on the Hill for $60,000 to make three times as much money on K Street to work much shorter days. And, guess what, random 24-year old Hill aide: they don’t like you for your personality. You’re boring and green. They want to know what your boss is talking about, what he’s worked up about and what he’s thinking about on random bill X.
First of all, people often make a lot less than $60,000 for a long time on the Hill. Your first job on the Hill can easily pay $30,000 or less. But again, Playbook betrays its comfortable position nestled among the swamp things here by saying this is Just How Things Work, rather than a continuing threat to democracy.
— YES, people pay for access. It’s called a fundraiser. Why do you think many restaurants in D.C. have five private rooms? Why do you think some companies buy massive townhouses on Capitol Hill? Why do you think members of Congress hold PAC retreats at swanky resorts, and lobbyists go in droves? It ain’t for the camaraderie.
I... know? I don’t imagine many people think fundraisers are about anything other than access, except the liars whose quotes Playbook prints and who they give cover to on a daily basis? Playbook consistently mistakes the public outrage and disgust at the Cohen payments for surprise. The average American already hated Washington for exactly these reasons. The only people who pretend fundraisers are about anything other than access are people who read Playbook religiously—or sponsor it.
— YES, all of the people who say they are against the system participate in it. Yes, the people who rage against the machine are greasing the skids. Watch cable TV, look for a lawmaker who says the system is broken and then take a gander at their campaign finance report. Bet you they have tons of PAC contributions, and tons of lobbyists giving them dough.
All of the people who say they’re against it participate in it? Fact check: Not me, mate! Maybe they’re just talking about the lawmakers they see on cable TV—which is a huge problem in itself. Those aren’t the only people who matter, nor are they the only people who should matter, and a journalistic enterprise predicated on tracking only who’s winning and losing and what soundbite politicians are using today what is doomed to fail readers. It is accurate to say that basically every politician is tainted by big money, but does that give you the right to smugly sit back in your chair and say ugh, you CRETINS, of COURSE that’s how the system works, while—and I can’t stress this enough—accepting a sponsorship from Goldman Sachs?
— AND NO, the swamp is not drained. Give us a break. We’re not defending the status quo — but welcome to reality. This is the campaign finance/lobbying/government system Congress created and D.C. fostered.
Welcome to reality, of which we are the arbiters. Everyone except us, Playbook, created this system in DC; we’re just the ones brave enough to tell you about it—sponsored by Morgan Stanley, which, by the way, of course had nothing to do with the creation of this system.
The conversation around the payments to Cohen is a fine needle to thread: It’s important to acknowledge that this sort of thing does happen all the time without excusing it in any sense. It would seem to be unpalatably radical to admit corruption is baked into every step of Washington decision-making, that the people who sponsor your newsletter are currently using their vast wealth to make America worse, that probably the only way forward is to tear the whole thing down and start again. How can you exist as Politico Playbook if you fully acknowledge the real extent of lobbying and influence in Washington? How can you serve the worst insiders in DC while telling them that they’re snakes? You can’t, so don’t pretend you can have it both ways.
Um... it's a militarized border who's capable of wiping them out.
ROFL
Let me ask you a serious question: WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? Because it's clearly some premium gak. Even if you armed the entire population of Gaza to the equivalent of the US army, they're only outnumbered eight to one. That's beating armed soldiers to death with stones and winning numbers.
Interestingly, Haaretz is running an article that mentions, interestingly, that Hamas reached out to Israel to get a cease fire going, and, SURPRISE Israel told them to go to hell.
Um... it's a militarized border who's capable of wiping them out.
ROFL
Let me ask you a serious question: WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? Because it's clearly some premium gak. Even if you armed the entire population of Gaza to the equivalent of the US army, they're only outnumbered eight to one. That's beating armed soldiers to death with stones and winning numbers.
Interestingly, Haaretz is running an article that mentions, interestingly, that Hamas reached out to Israel to get a cease fire going, and, SURPRISE Israel told them to go to hell.
Seems likely it’s all been another game for North Korea. Doubt they went into these talks with any good faith in seeing them through. I take it they won’t be dismantling squat now. It’s good propaganda to show a hand of friendship to enemies and then double down on victimhood so you can look like the reasonable ones being oppressed.
@Prestor Jon, I am aware of what was already there but I also think that saying the current corruption is even close to the same level is a false equivalency.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Prestor Jon, I am aware of what was already there but I also think that saying the current corruption is even close to the same level is a false equivalency.
I agree that the corruption in the White House and cabinet is worse but in Congress its just same gak different day.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Prestor Jon, I am aware of what was already there but I also think that saying the current corruption is even close to the same level is a false equivalency.
I agree that the corruption in the White House and cabinet is worse but in Congress its just same gak different day.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Prestor Jon, I am aware of what was already there but I also think that saying the current corruption is even close to the same level is a false equivalency.
I agree that the corruption in the White House and cabinet is worse but in Congress its just same gak different day.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Prestor Jon, I am aware of what was already there but I also think that saying the current corruption is even close to the same level is a false equivalency.
I agree that the corruption in the White House and cabinet is worse but in Congress its just same gak different day.
Is it really worse, or just more obvious?
Even if it’s the same the brazen crassness of it makes it worse. This kind of behavior from the executive branch shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Prestor Jon, I am aware of what was already there but I also think that saying the current corruption is even close to the same level is a false equivalency.
I agree that the corruption in the White House and cabinet is worse but in Congress its just same gak different day.
Is it really worse, or just more obvious?
Even if it’s the same the brazen crassness of it makes it worse. This kind of behavior from the executive branch shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone.
We have had worse..Johnson, Jackson, Harding, Buchanan...these guys are close..but without social media and the 24 hours news cycle, how much about it would we really know?
So... Israel made those "protesters" attack the soldiers...
So, thousands of at best lightly armed people attacked a dug in position occupied by armed soldiers, dozens killed thousands wounded, not one Israeli casualty reported of any type.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Prestor Jon, I am aware of what was already there but I also think that saying the current corruption is even close to the same level is a false equivalency.
I agree that the corruption in the White House and cabinet is worse but in Congress its just same gak different day.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems likely it’s all been another game for North Korea. Doubt they went into these talks with any good faith in seeing them through. I take it they won’t be dismantling squat now. It’s good propaganda to show a hand of friendship to enemies and then double down on victimhood so you can look like the reasonable ones being oppressed.
Alternately they saw a chance to play Trump and did.
Talk about a getting a deal going. Wait for Trump to inevitably double down on something. Iran deal. Military exercises. Take your pick.
Then call the whole thing off and let Trump take the blame.
Of course the negotiations could still go forward and all this is just posturing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Prestor Jon, I am aware of what was already there but I also think that saying the current corruption is even close to the same level is a false equivalency.
I agree that the corruption in the White House and cabinet is worse but in Congress its just same gak different day.
Is it really worse, or just more obvious?
Even if it’s the same the brazen crassness of it makes it worse. This kind of behavior from the executive branch shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone.
We have had worse..Johnson, Jackson, Harding, Buchanan...these guys are close..but without social media and the 24 hours news cycle, how much about it would we really know?
Knowing about it is what makes it worse. Yes corruption is still bad even when it’s hidden behind closed doors and stays out of media reports but brazenly monetizing the office of the presidency is worse. It’s worse mainly for two reasons: 1 by committing these acts in full view of the American public and the world without facing universal condemnation from both parties and Congress normalizes this kind of behavior and allows it to perpetrated by future administrations 2 the lack of decorum, integrity and professionalism demeans the office of the presidency now and lowers the standard of acceptable behavior for future administrations. I disagreed with a lot of policies advocated by Obama and Bush43 but I believe they were both good people and conducted themselves in a presidential manner during their terms. If we allow and condone boorish behavior and blatant corruption then we are telling future presidents and candidates that they can get away with this gak too.
So... Israel made those "protesters" attack the soldiers...
So, thousands of at best lightly armed people attacked a dug in position occupied by armed soldiers, dozens killed thousands wounded, not one Israeli casualty reported of any type.
I know a good bs story when I hear one.
So... is it the disproportionate response that troubles you?
We have had worse..Johnson, Jackson, Harding, Buchanan...these guys are close..but without social media and the 24 hours news cycle, how much about it would we really know?
Grant is actually the best comparison, but even he took six months to reach the level of scandal Trump pulled off in his first hundred days.
We have had worse..Johnson, Jackson, Harding, Buchanan...these guys are close..but without social media and the 24 hours news cycle, how much about it would we really know?
Grant is actually the best comparison, but even he took six months to reach the level of scandal Trump pulled off in his first hundred days.
I was always under the impression that Grant was more "out of his league" and "incompetent" more than deliberately corrupt. Jackson was straight up malevolent.
Remember a couple of weeks ago when the right wing media was making a big noise about Mueller's investigation being stopped because the judge in the Manafort case wasn't sure Mueller had the scope to lead such a prosecution? That produced lots of triumphant noise from the right wing, and Trump even spoke about it in a campaign rally. Never mind it was a discussion purely about process and whether it should be Mueller or standard prosecutors who bring these charges, the right wing and Trump cheered for one judge's uncertainty as a great victory.
Thing is, Manafort is up on charges in both Washington DC and seperate charges in Virginia. The earlier statement was from the judge hearing the charges in Virginia. But in the matter in Washington DC the judge has reviewed the scope given to Mueller, and found these charges fall squarely within Mueller's authority and the prosecution can continue. Weirdly, the right wing media has gone completely silent on this. Wonder why.
whembly, follow your own point. Actually commit to focusing on one of your own arguments. You claimed "the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations". I pointed out that's completely bonkers. In response, you just ignored that entirely, and lurched off to arguing about the specifics of the shootings in Israel.
You didn't defend your claim that "the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations", and so you don't try to defend that silly nonsense. Instead you hamfistedly change the subject.
This is the problem, whembly. You hide from any analysis of your argument, because you have no interest in exploring any of the things you claim to believe. You just want to dump talking points, and when those talking points are challenged you just dump some different talking points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: This. If East Germany had gunned down 60 people lobbing rocks and explosives at the Berlin wall you certainly wouldn't ever see it described as restraint.
If Iran did this there'd be a US carrier group already on its way, and whembly would demanding people explain to him why we're defending a regime that would massacre civilians like that.
But Israel does it, and suddenly the defence that they could have killed so many more so good job Israel becomes a thing people actually pretend to believe.
When it was revealed Farenthold had settled the sexual harassment suit with government money, the guy promised to repay that with his own money. He never did. As the House Speaker and as a Republican party leader, Paul Ryan actually has it within his power to severely curtail Farenthold's access to elected representatives, and make it impossible for Farenthold to function as a lobbyist.
And of course Ryan didn't do this. No-one thought it even remotely plausible that Ryan might do that. Because we are at a point where we see Republican leaders offered a chance to do something decent, and we don't even think it is possible they might consider it.
Your party. Your scumbags. Your vote that keeps putting them in power to keep doing this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems likely it’s all been another game for North Korea. Doubt they went into these talks with any good faith in seeing them through. I take it they won’t be dismantling squat now. It’s good propaganda to show a hand of friendship to enemies and then double down on victimhood so you can look like the reasonable ones being oppressed.
NK has already had a huge win - they got a US president to agree to meet on neutral terms. Kim was raised to be equal to the US president. Now they're searching for a second status boost - either the US jumps to the NK request and cancels the war games, or NK cancels the talks with the US president. Either way it's a huge win for NK, either Kim has the US president dancing to their tune, or Kim proves he is in control and is choosing when he will meet with the US president.
This is exactly why the standing order from the State dept was the US president will not meet with NK without preconditions. Which Trump ignored, and which so many other people completely forgot when they decided to cheer on Trump for agreeing to meet with NK.
It is both. Because it is so bad it is more obvious, and it is so bad in large part because they don't care that its so obvious. I mean why would any of Trump's appointees even bother to hide their corruption at this point? They work for a guy who broke his promise to divest from his businesses, all Trump did was put up a meaningless shell, and Trump has faced no sanction for this, and no criticism from anyone on his own side.
Meanwhile we have a Qatari government official stating he was approached by Michael Cohen, who told them money paid to him would be filtered to the president and result in favourable support, and absolutely no-one anywhere is surprised this happened.
When it was revealed Farenthold had settled the sexual harassment suit with government money, the guy promised to repay that with his own money. He never did. As the House Speaker and as a Republican party leader, Paul Ryan actually has it within his power to severely curtail Farenthold's access to elected representatives, and make it impossible for Farenthold to function as a lobbyist.
And of course Ryan didn't do this. No-one thought it even remotely plausible that Ryan might do that. Because we are at a point where we see Republican leaders offered a chance to do something decent, and we don't even think it is possible they might consider it.
It’s not as if the Democrats were well on their way to enacting a carefully laid plan of honest forthright good governance when suddenly a van full of Republicans and a talking dog shows up and ruined everything. The system won’t get better until people can look past the us vs them con of the two party duopoly.
whembly, follow your own point. Actually commit to focusing on one of your own arguments. You claimed "the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations". I pointed out that's completely bonkers. In response, you just ignored that entirely, and lurched off to arguing about the specifics of the shootings in Israel.
You didn't defend your claim that "the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations", and so you don't try to defend that silly nonsense. Instead you hamfistedly change the subject.
This is the problem, whembly. You hide from any analysis of your argument, because you have no interest in exploring any of the things you claim to believe. You just want to dump talking points, and when those talking points are challenged you just dump some different talking points.
This is funny coming from you as you can't wait to pound the democrat/lefty talking points...
So, I'm assuming you're okay with those Palestinian breaching that wall... eh?
Prestor Jon wrote: Your posts seem to be getting much more partisan lately.
There's nothing 'lately' about it. I've said many times the Democrats are a regular, run of the mill, mediocre political party, while the Republicans of the last roughly 20 years have been a disaster of historic scale.
Corruption in DC and exlawmakers becoming lobbyists exploiting loopholes is a bipartisan issue.
There's plenty of Democratic corruption, and no shortage of dysfunction in the laws and regs trying to prevent that corruption. But there's also no point overlooking that this Republican presidency is the most blatantly corrupt administration in living memory, and before this the next most blatantly corrupt period was when Jack Abrahamoff worked with Republicans, which happened to be the last time Republicans controlled the presidency and congress.
Let me put it this way - any political party is going to attract people who are just there to claim a chunk of the money flow, and don't care if they break ethical standards and hurt people to get their share. But most political parties also attract a lot of people who happen to believe on some level in the actual causes of the party. The Republicans has very few of the latter. How many people in establishment circles do you think genuinely believe in trickle down economics, and would be there fighting for tax cuts for the rich if there was no money in it for them? As result the balance of grifters to believers in the Republican party is way off, and the result is the level of corruption is much higher.
The system won’t get better until people can look past the us vs them con of the two party duopoly.
It's important to highlight corruption wherever it is. I'm on record as saying Democratic Senator Bob Menendez should be in prison, and it's a major problem with the current laws that the guy got away with it.
But it's also important not to put up false 'both sides' stories when the problem isn't equal. Sometimes the solutions to problems are partisan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: This is funny coming from you as you can't wait to pound the democrat/lefty talking points...
So, I'm assuming you're okay with those Palestinian breaching that wall... eh?
Oh look, whembly is still avoiding any kind of answer, after I challenged him on his ridiculous claim that the rest of the world wants Israel to destroy itself.
So given he hasn't made any attempt to clarify or retract that ridiculous claim, I think we can accept that's what he believes. So he believes that right now France has a secret motive to make Israel to destroy itself. He thinks any Norwegian statement on protecting the human rights of Palestinians is actually cover for their secret desire to make Israel destroy itself. When New Zealand votes in favour of a UN resolution condemning excessive force by the IDF, it isn't because NZ has a longstanding commitment to international standards, it's because New Zealand is secretly plotting to destroy Israel.
This is what whembly believes. It makes no sense and whembly doesn't care.
You've also grilled Bernie Sanders on his economic BS.
At any rate I have an analogy I use to describe the two parties as they currently are from a functional perspective (not addressing corruption here):
Democrats would replace every stop sign on the road with a traffic light. Expensive, overdone, and wildly inefficient but it would function at the end of the day.
Republicans would replace every traffic light with a stop sign.
At any rate I have an analogy I use to describe the two parties as they currently are from a functional perspective (not addressing corruption here):
Democrats would replace every stop sign on the road with a traffic light. Expensive, overdone, and wildly inefficient but it would function at the end of the day.
Republicans would replace every traffic light with a stop sign.
Funny story. All the traffic lights in my town the other day went into "Stop" mode where they just flash red. They were doing some work on the whole system townwide for a few hours.
That was the best traffic had been in this town for years. I didn't have to deal with lights that only turned green for 10 seconds and than sat red for 2 minutes every time a car came to the intersection on a side street.
fingers crossed this is just a bit of sabre rattling and the talks do go ahead.
Well. NK had never nothing really to gain from talks anyway. Even without Trump US hasn't been exactly trusty partner to talk with and with Trump any word is about as trustworthy as I can throw ahead M1A2 Abrams.
Removing nukes was never an option. Getting those up and working isn't just matter of principle for NK. It's mattter of pure SURVIVAL. They get nukes up to stage that makes US unwilling to invade or NK gets invaded and removed from play. Simple as that.
There's a theory going around that Trump favouring Chinese tech company ZTE is because of Chinese money going to a Trump development in Indonesia. The problem is the theory doesn't work, because Trump's stake in the Indonesian development is bugger all, it's just a licensing deal that will net Trump around $3m. Trump isn't gifting favours for the sake of $3m licensing that Trump was going to get paid anyway.
There's a much simpler reason Trump decided to go in to bat for ZTE. It's a condition put on Trump by China, in their on-going trade negotiations. It's not proven, but it's claimed the Chinese gave Trump 10 requirements, and ZTE was #5 on that list. Trump is doing what China demands because Trump has put himself in a place of incredible weakness in those negotiations. Not only is he relying on idiots like Mnuchin to argue the US side, Trump brazenly started the war, which means he is responsible for any negative impacts to Americans from any retaliation. Which is why China's response focused on soy beans and other products that will massively impacted communities in key electorates. Trump can't let China continue with those retaliations, so China is free to exert stuff like ZTE instead.
Thanks, that's a pretty good example. I try and point out crap wherever it is, and if at one point in time one side has a lot more crap than another, there's no point pretending that isn't true for sake of a false balance.
And I like the analogy, and intend to steal it
tneva82 wrote: Well. NK had never nothing really to gain from talks anyway. Even without Trump US hasn't been exactly trusty partner to talk with and with Trump any word is about as trustworthy as I can throw ahead M1A2 Abrams.
There was plenty for NK to gain. They're short of many crucial resources, particularly energy. Getting a deal where NK got a nice supply of coal and oil in exchange for giving up their nuke program is what past deals have been built around, and it's what this deal was shaping up to be, until something shifted on the US side and Pompeo started retracting all the stuff about trading economic support for no more nukes.
Remember, NK doesn't need the nukes. Without them they've still got the ability to kills millions of South Koreans in a few hours with conventional artillery. The idea of US invasion is something they sell to their population, it isn't something the leadership actually thinks is likely. In fact the NK leadership is probably acutely aware that US invasion is made more likely by NK developing nukes.
The first thing to remember is the whole NK regime is basically an extortion racket. With that in mind, then it becomes clear this latest cooling by NK isn't a genuine walkaway, it's just working for a stronger bargaining position, to get as much as possible out of the US. From here Trump can kowtow or he can hold firm and maybe lose the deal.
It's NK testing how politically important the deal is to Trump, basically.
Just popping back to the tale of the NHS, and how much it costs me.
Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.
In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.
My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.
whembly wrote: This is funny coming from you as you can't wait to pound the democrat/lefty talking points...
So, I'm assuming you're okay with those Palestinian breaching that wall... eh?
Oh look, whembly is still avoiding any kind of answer, after I challenged him on his ridiculous claim that the rest of the world wants Israel to destroy itself.
So given he hasn't made any attempt to clarify or retract that ridiculous claim, I think we can accept that's what he believes. So he believes that right now France has a secret motive to make Israel to destroy itself. He thinks any Norwegian statement on protecting the human rights of Palestinians is actually cover for their secret desire to make Israel destroy itself. When New Zealand votes in favour of a UN resolution condemning excessive force by the IDF, it isn't because NZ has a longstanding commitment to international standards, it's because New Zealand is secretly plotting to destroy Israel.
This is what whembly believes. It makes no sense and whembly doesn't care.
Look everyone, seb taking the time honored technique to put words on other people's mouth.
Seb: when much of the world provides cover or explicit support for Hamas... where their own charter calls for the destruction of Israel... yeah, the rest of the fething world wants Israel to destroy itself.
A group, with known terrorists using such group, trying to breach a security wall to do what seb? Explain to me what would happen if *this* group breaches that wall? What happens next?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: There's a theory going around that Trump favouring Chinese tech company ZTE is because of Chinese money going to a Trump development in Indonesia. The problem is the theory doesn't work, because Trump's stake in the Indonesian development is bugger all, it's just a licensing deal that will net Trump around $3m. Trump isn't gifting favours for the sake of $3m licensing that Trump was going to get paid anyway.
There's a much simpler reason Trump decided to go in to bat for ZTE. It's a condition put on Trump by China, in their on-going trade negotiations. It's not proven, but it's claimed the Chinese gave Trump 10 requirements, and ZTE was #5 on that list. Trump is doing what China demands because Trump has put himself in a place of incredible weakness in those negotiations. Not only is he relying on idiots like Mnuchin to argue the US side, Trump brazenly started the war, which means he is responsible for any negative impacts to Americans from any retaliation. Which is why China's response focused on soy beans and other products that will massively impacted communities in key electorates. Trump can't let China continue with those retaliations, so China is free to exert stuff like ZTE instead.
Could be some "good cop, bad cop" routine between Trump/Ross vs Chinese negotiators.
whembly wrote: Look everyone, seb taking the time honored technique to put words on other people's mouth.
No. It's the time honored practice of taking what people say and applying it to the world, which I can see is kind of an annoyance to the time honored practice of saying whatever suits the given purpose of the day with absolutely no care in the world for whether or not it makes any actual sense.
There is a difference between the world "providing cover or explicit support for Hamas" and the world thinking Israel has become the very thing it claims it wants to protect itself against. No one is blind to what Hamas is and what it purports. That's one big reason why most of the world would love to deal with someone other than Hamas, a goal that is constantly hampered by Israel who seems to like having Hamas in charge given all the effort they put into undermining competitors and actually providing cover and explicit support for Hamas themselves. All things that have been pointed out that you still haven't really responded to.
I'll even add another;
Hamas no longer calls for the destruction of Israel in it's charter. They got rid of that line in a 2017 rewrite. Of course they still want to do exactly that (or least they think it, which is really just the big wigs paying lip service to keep being the richest guys not living in Gaza), which just goes to show that what's written in the charter is kind of meaningless.
There's a reason barely anyone bothers to engage you anymore Whem, and Seb hit it right on the head. Holding a discussion, any discussion, with you is pointless. You'll just change the subject, backtrack to some previous talking point at random, or switch to absurdities. Sorry but he's completely right. When it comes to politics your style of discourse is make ridiculous claim and avoid having to explain it, which you're still doing.
Which I say because this is really an issue of why US politics threads in the past have always been dragged into the mud hole. It defeats the entire purpose of a discussion board if there are posters not actually engaging in discussion and instead playing written dodge ball. A lot of posters who share this behavior are no longer here, and it would be nice for the last hold out to learn what he's doing wrong.
Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.
In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.
My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.
Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.
£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60
My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)
My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).
Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!
...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).
Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.
However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).
In the past it has taken me over a page to get whembly to respond to a single point of one of his argument without letting him deflect and calvinball his way out of actually responding to that one point. By the next page it was as if that whole exchange never happened. That’s the tiresome aspect of it, because if you push him to actually expand on any of his talking point it’s just more talking points.
It’s honestly the main reason whembly is on my ignore list. Clicking to expand his posts reminds me to really consider if it’s worth responding.
I like opposing viewpoints, I like talking about differences, and I like hearing about why people think this way. But I hate smart people repeating stuff they were told to believe without being able (or unwilling) to explain why they believe these things.
Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.
In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.
My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.
Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.
£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60
My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)
My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).
Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!
...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).
Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.
However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).
But my taxes are the total - not just for de-spazzing me when I do a whoopsie.
If you don't mind me asking, how much of the tab does your employer pick up? Because I've got private healthcare through work (which is taxable, as it's a benefit in kind), and that's like, £60ish a month, or £720ish a year).
whembly wrote: Look everyone, seb taking the time honored technique to put words on other people's mouth.
No. It's the time honored practice of taking what people say and applying it to the world, which I can see is kind of an annoyance to the time honored practice of saying whatever suits the given purpose of the day with absolutely no care in the world for whether or not it makes any actual sense.
I disagree. It's his usual tactic to take atstatement and apply it in the worst manner possible... rather than to actually engage the subject in a specific manner. Instead of assuming the worst, maybe just simply ask.
There is a difference between the world "providing cover or explicit support for Hamas" and the world thinking Israel has become the very thing it claims it wants to protect itself against.
I don't think so.
No one is blind to what Hamas is and what it purports. That's one big reason why most of the world would love to deal with someone other than Hamas, a goal that is constantly hampered by Israel who seems to like having Hamas in charge given all the effort they put into undermining competitors and actually providing cover and explicit support for Hamas themselves. All things that have been pointed out that you still haven't really responded to.
Really?
No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.
What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread....
A nation has the right to protect the integrity of its border... and it's indisputible that in this event, that security fence *is* Israel's border. You may condemn Israel for putting that fence there or that they're illegally took their lands (I disagree, but that's not germane to this discussion), but it is their border... and that right is supplemented by a fething right of self-defense in the face of a hostile group. Hamas, elected to rule Gaza, rejects Israel’s right to exist and remains in a state of perpetual, declared war with Israel.
I'll even add another;
Hamas no longer calls for the destruction of Israel in it's charter. They got rid of that line in a 2017 rewrite. Of course they still want to do exactly that (or least they think it, which is really just the big wigs paying lip service to keep being the richest guys not living in Gaza), which just goes to show that what's written in the charter is kind of meaningless.
It's not meaningless... it was another bit of information in determining their rationale. To this day, they're still preaching for Israel's destruction.
There's a reason barely anyone bothers to engage you anymore Whem, and Seb hit it right on the head. Holding a discussion, any discussion, with you is pointless. You'll just change the subject, backtrack to some previous talking point at random, or switch to absurdities. Sorry but he's completely right. When it comes to politics your style of discourse is make ridiculous claim and avoid having to explain it, which you're still doing.
Which I say because this is really an issue of why US politics threads in the past have always been dragged into the mud hole. It defeats the entire purpose of a discussion board if there are posters not actually engaging in discussion and instead playing written dodge ball. A lot of posters who share this behavior are no longer here, and it would be nice for the last hold out to learn what he's doing wrong.
I'll submit to arguing in bad faith at times...
But, often times, like when discussions of the merits/demerits of heated topics, such as Voter ID laws or the Electoral College or Hillary's handling of classified information, I'd post numerous examples, sources and facts.
But, they're discounted because reasons. Or, it's my fault because "it's whem guuuuuys".
It boils down to folks arguing their opinions as facts... rather than simply disagreeing because you simply hold a different opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: In the past it has taken me over a page to get whembly to respond to a single point of one of his argument without letting him deflect and calvinball his way out of actually responding to that one point. By the next page it was as if that whole exchange never happened. That’s the tiresome aspect of it, because if you push him to actually expand on any of his talking point it’s just more talking points.
It’s honestly the main reason whembly is on my ignore list. Clicking to expand his posts reminds me to really consider if it’s worth responding.
I like opposing viewpoints, I like talking about differences, and I like hearing about why people think this way. But I hate smart people repeating stuff they were told to believe without being able (or unwilling) to explain why they believe these things.
I will make an effort to respond rather that calvinballing...
Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.
In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.
My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.
Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.
£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60
My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)
My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).
Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!
...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).
Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.
However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).
But my taxes are the total - not just for de-spazzing me when I do a whoopsie.
If you don't mind me asking, how much of the tab does your employer pick up? Because I've got private healthcare through work (which is taxable, as it's a benefit in kind), and that's like, £60ish a month, or £720ish a year).
My employer's contribution is nearly 2.5x is much as my contribution if I remember right (which is taxable as well).
We have had worse..Johnson, Jackson, Harding, Buchanan...these guys are close..but without social media and the 24 hours news cycle, how much about it would we really know?
Grant is actually the best comparison, but even he took six months to reach the level of scandal Trump pulled off in his first hundred days.
I was always under the impression that Grant was more "out of his league" and "incompetent" more than deliberately corrupt. Jackson was straight up malevolent.[/quote
We have had worse..Johnson, Jackson, Harding, Buchanan...these guys are close..but without social media and the 24 hours news cycle, how much about it would we really know?
Grant is actually the best comparison, but even he took six months to reach the level of scandal Trump pulled off in his first hundred days.
I was always under the impression that Grant was more "out of his league" and "incompetent" more than deliberately corrupt. Jackson was straight up malevolent.
To be frank it's specious to forgive Trump by comparing him with Grant or Harding and saying they were just as bad.
For one, the USA is vastly more important in the world today than 100 or 150 years ago.
For two, the office of President has expanded and gained more powers and responsibilities.
For three, the laws and morals about corruption have been strengthened and expanded.
Most importantly, Trump didn't run against Grant or Harding.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just popping back to the tale of the NHS, and how much it costs me.
Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.
In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.
My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.
Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.
£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60
My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)
My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).
Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!
...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).
Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.
However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).
But my taxes are the total - not just for de-spazzing me when I do a whoopsie.
If you don't mind me asking, how much of the tab does your employer pick up? Because I've got private healthcare through work (which is taxable, as it's a benefit in kind), and that's like, £60ish a month, or £720ish a year).
My employer's contribution is nearly 2.5x is much as my contribution if I remember right (which is taxable as well).
Granted it's a family plan, but man, that is eye watering to me!
No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.
What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread.....
Fine then. How about they start with not shooting to kill into a crowd that hasn't even reached the border yet? If they'd actually been a threat then sure, lethal force could potentially be justified, but this was just Israel looking for an excuse to shoot some Arabs and Hamas calluously counting on the IDF to do exactly what they did.
In the long run, Israel holds all the cards. When the party in a conflict that has all the power has an interest in prolonging it there won't ever be peace.
Did the US manage to wipe out that caravan of people coming for our border? Since nobody has ever been more restraint than the country shooting a crowd throwing stones that couldn’t even reach anyone.
I watched an Israeli drone drop tear gas cannisters into (a) a group of journalists with TV cameras and (b) a tent sheltering women and children.
Using snipers to shoot teenagers and old men armed with rocks and molotovs seems a little... heavy-handed.
And then that is without even considering *why* the Palestinians are so desperate. They live in the biggest open-air prison in the world. Electricity, food, healthcare, sanitation are scarce.
How anyone can see this as justified is beyond insane to me.
Edit: over 2000 people injured and ~60 killed. It's an absolute disgrace, and the fact that Trumpet is all over it just makes me want to puke.
Based on previous actions and who his dad is I would not bet against him being as dumb as he looks. Wouldn't it be something if Trump's son would be charged? Or is he as expendable as Jared?
d-usa wrote: Did the US manage to wipe out that caravan of people coming for our border? Since nobody has ever been more restraint than the country shooting a crowd throwing stones that couldn’t even reach anyone.
We're not manning our border fence with military equipment... are we?
The caravan didn't riot/protest... they simply showed up.
No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.
What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread.....
Fine then. How about they start with not shooting to kill into a crowd that hasn't even reached the border yet? If they'd actually been a threat then sure, lethal force could potentially be justified, but this was just Israel looking for an excuse to shoot some Arabs and Hamas calluously counting on the IDF to do exactly what they did.
In the long run, Israel holds all the cards. When the party in a conflict that has all the power has an interest in prolonging it there won't ever be peace.
Thank you.
Do we know for a fact that they indiscriminately shot the crowd? Or is it really a he said, he said situation...
Why do you think it's in Israel's interest to prolong a conflict like this? Seems to me that it's in the Hama leadership's interest to prolong this...
No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.
What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread.....
Fine then. How about they start with not shooting to kill into a crowd that hasn't even reached the border yet? If they'd actually been a threat then sure, lethal force could potentially be justified, but this was just Israel looking for an excuse to shoot some Arabs and Hamas calluously counting on the IDF to do exactly what they did.
In the long run, Israel holds all the cards. When the party in a conflict that has all the power has an interest in prolonging it there won't ever be peace.
Thank you.
Do we know for a fact that they indiscriminately shot the crowd? Or is it really a he said, he said situation...
Why do you think it's in Israel's interest to prolong a conflict like this? Seems to me that it's in the Hama leadership's interest to prolong this...
We have footage of people with gunshot wounds in the back and dead journalists in press vests to show the indiscriminate nature.
Israel prolongs it because if it does it never has to give anything up. Actual progress in the conflict represents a loss for Israel, as it holds all the cards.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just popping back to the tale of the NHS, and how much it costs me.
Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.
In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.
My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.
Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.
£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60
My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)
My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).
Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!
...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).
Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.
However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).
But my taxes are the total - not just for de-spazzing me when I do a whoopsie.
If you don't mind me asking, how much of the tab does your employer pick up? Because I've got private healthcare through work (which is taxable, as it's a benefit in kind), and that's like, £60ish a month, or £720ish a year).
My employer's contribution is nearly 2.5x is much as my contribution if I remember right (which is taxable as well).
Granted it's a family plan, but man, that is eye watering to me!
Yeah, that's savage!
Just to reiterate as it may have been missed. The amount Doc quoted above is total income tax - not just medical cover.
And if we are playing medical cost one-upmanship, I had an MRI scan earlier on this year. Just precautionary, was diagnosed with mild hearing impairment and they wanted to rule out a brain tumour pressing on an auditory nerve. Total cost? About £1.50 in hospital parking charges...
No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.
What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread.....
Fine then. How about they start with not shooting to kill into a crowd that hasn't even reached the border yet? If they'd actually been a threat then sure, lethal force could potentially be justified, but this was just Israel looking for an excuse to shoot some Arabs and Hamas calluously counting on the IDF to do exactly what they did.
In the long run, Israel holds all the cards. When the party in a conflict that has all the power has an interest in prolonging it there won't ever be peace.
Thank you.
Do we know for a fact that they indiscriminately shot the crowd? Or is it really a he said, he said situation...
Why do you think it's in Israel's interest to prolong a conflict like this? Seems to me that it's in the Hama leadership's interest to prolong this...
We have footage of people with gunshot wounds in the back and dead journalists in press vests to show the indiscriminate nature.
None of that shows when this happened. If said journalist was with the crowd agressively attacking the boarder, then that's a dangerous situation. If however, he was a truly peaceful effort, then yes Israel deserves to be criticized. In any case, I didn't see anything from the Israeli soldier's perspective, so we're not dealing with something with a clear picture.
Furthermore, no military force has ever been able to effectively and reliably control hostile armed mobs with exclusively nonlethal means.... rubber bullets and tear gas is not a panacea.
Israel prolongs it because if it does it never has to give anything up. Actual progress in the conflict represents a loss for Israel, as it holds all the cards.
No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.
What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread.....
Fine then. How about they start with not shooting to kill into a crowd that hasn't even reached the border yet? If they'd actually been a threat then sure, lethal force could potentially be justified, but this was just Israel looking for an excuse to shoot some Arabs and Hamas calluously counting on the IDF to do exactly what they did.
In the long run, Israel holds all the cards. When the party in a conflict that has all the power has an interest in prolonging it there won't ever be peace.
Thank you.
Do we know for a fact that they indiscriminately shot the crowd? Or is it really a he said, he said situation...
Why do you think it's in Israel's interest to prolong a conflict like this? Seems to me that it's in the Hama leadership's interest to prolong this...
We have footage of people with gunshot wounds in the back and dead journalists in press vests to show the indiscriminate nature.
None of that shows when this happened. If said journalist was with the crowd agressively attacking the boarder, then that's a dangerous situation. If however, he was a truly peaceful effort, then yes Israel deserves to be criticized. In any case, I didn't see anything from the Israeli soldier's perspective, so we're not dealing with something with a clear picture.
Furthermore, no military force has ever been able to effectively and reliably control hostile armed mobs with exclusively nonlethal means.... rubber bullets and tear gas is not a panacea.
Really, you can google the bloody images yourself, I have provided you with sources and you start inventing stories of journalists charging the border? And how does that explain the gunshot wound to people's backs that Amnesty reports? Are people running backwards towards the border?
And you want the Israeli perspective, look at the images of them hunkered down in firing positions pretty far away. If you had no context you would think the Israelis are involved in an actual war instead of a police action.
Nobody is saying they can't use live rounds if the situation calls for it. The issue most of us here have is that they use live rounds regardless.
Israel prolongs it because if it does it never has to give anything up. Actual progress in the conflict represents a loss for Israel, as it holds all the cards.
That argument doesn't make sense
It doesn't make sense because you don't understand the wider effect for Israwli politics of extending this war like situation. I will give a brief overview.
1. US financial support for the Israeli army because of this situation, which they might lose with a peace accord.
2. All that illegally occupied land can remain Israeli as long as the conflict continues with no discussion required as to giving it back. Furthermore it enables the establisment of further settlements.
3. Political gain. Netanyahu is depending on all this nationalism to gain votes. Being tough and fighting Palestine is giving him a lot of right wing support. If Netanyahu tries to end the current situation he might lose power and when he does there are a lot of nasty allegations about his behaviour that might come and haunt him. Basically the current majority in Israeli politics rely on this hard stance for their electorate.
Israel prolongs it because if it does it never has to give anything up. Actual progress in the conflict represents a loss for Israel, as it holds all the cards.
That argument doesn't make sense
It does though. Basically Israel holds all the advantages. They have overwhelming military, economic, and political power. Their own casualties are practically nil, the fighting is overwhelmingly one sided in its results, and the aftermath safely hidden from daily view behind concrete walls. The longer the current situation holds, the longer the Israeli claims in the West Bank have to become entrenched. Also, not unimportantly, keeping a defanged but scary looking enemy at the gates has a lot of domestic political advantage for the current government. Likewise, their rivals in the region are seeing their priorities shift, and interest in the Palestinian question and support of it wane as concerns in other areas of concern arise.
Essentially the Israelis can sit behind their walls as their strong hand gets stronger, with nothing to really stop them, and thats exactly what theyve been doing, while the Palestinians become increasingly left behind and desperate.
Pretty much the same basic theory Russias uses with frozen conflicts in places like Georgia and Ukraine. Paralyze smaller neighbors, keep the conflict frozen so aid and support to the smaller neighbor becomes difficult, and maintain the dominating status quo.
But I've been re-visiting the history books for some wisdom from the Founding Fathers.
Naturally, they weren't perfect, but it's amazing how prescient they were.
George Washington: Trade with all nations, alliance with none. Avoid foreign entanglements. Political parties are evil.
Thomas Jefferson. Banks are more dangerous than standing armies. Keep money out of politics.
John Adams. The biggest threat to the USA is Americans, or those who would put party interest before country.
James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
But as Madison knew too well, men are not angels, hence the bill of rights. How the USA could do with their wisdom and leadership right now.
That being said, if they were to return today, they'd probably get locked up for un-American activities or something
I am always amazed and astounded by just how much wisdom and generally great men happened to come together. They were still people will flaws, even significant ones, but it's a reminder that while there are really terrible people in the world there is also the opposite. Some people really do use power to benefit the broader society as best they can.
But I've been re-visiting the history books for some wisdom from the Founding Fathers.
Naturally, they weren't perfect, but it's amazing how prescient they were.
George Washington: Trade with all nations, alliance with none. Avoid foreign entanglements. Political parties are evil.
Thomas Jefferson. Banks are more dangerous than standing armies. Keep money out of politics.
John Adams. The biggest threat to the USA is Americans, or those who would put party interest before country.
James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
But as Madison knew too well, men are not angels, hence the bill of rights. How the USA could do with their wisdom and leadership right now.
That being said, if they were to return today, they'd probably get locked up for un-American activities or something
I wish we were as wary of political parties today as we were back then. If we could ditch 'em, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Our system of government was also clearly not set up to deal with them, it was set up to divide government institutions from each other to divide power, but takes little or no accounting of partisan capture of branches to be held in partisan (as opposed to institutional) opposition, nor capture of multiple branches by a single party to have them act in what the framers would have seen as collusional institutional unison.
zerosignal wrote: I watched an Israeli drone drop tear gas cannisters into (a) a group of journalists with TV cameras and (b) a tent sheltering women and children.
Using snipers to shoot teenagers and old men armed with rocks and molotovs seems a little... heavy-handed.
And then that is without even considering *why* the Palestinians are so desperate. They live in the biggest open-air prison in the world. Electricity, food, healthcare, sanitation are scarce.
How anyone can see this as justified is beyond insane to me.
Edit: over 2000 people injured and ~60 killed. It's an absolute disgrace, and the fact that Trumpet is all over it just makes me want to puke.
Hey you know what's cool? There is another thread for that issue. This is the US politics thread. You might go there with those points.
But I've been re-visiting the history books for some wisdom from the Founding Fathers.
Naturally, they weren't perfect, but it's amazing how prescient they were.
George Washington: Trade with all nations, alliance with none. Avoid foreign entanglements. Political parties are evil.
Thomas Jefferson. Banks are more dangerous than standing armies. Keep money out of politics.
John Adams. The biggest threat to the USA is Americans, or those who would put party interest before country.
James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
But as Madison knew too well, men are not angels, hence the bill of rights. How the USA could do with their wisdom and leadership right now.
That being said, if they were to return today, they'd probably get locked up for un-American activities or something
I wish we were as wary of political parties today as we were back then. If we could ditch 'em, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Our system of government was also clearly not set up to deal with them, it was set up to divide government institutions from each other to divide power, but takes little or no accounting of partisan capture of branches to be held in partisan (as opposed to institutional) opposition, nor capture of multiple branches by a single party to have them act in what the framers would have seen as collusional institutional unison.
Parties/factions were as, if not more, hotly contested back then too... people would just up and walk out to prevent quorum constantly.
...they even had duels back then.
Maybe that's the answer... duels allowed for politicians only! Put it on Pay-Per-View with the revenue used to reduce the outstanding debts!
But I've been re-visiting the history books for some wisdom from the Founding Fathers.
Naturally, they weren't perfect, but it's amazing how prescient they were.
George Washington: Trade with all nations, alliance with none. Avoid foreign entanglements. Political parties are evil.
Thomas Jefferson. Banks are more dangerous than standing armies. Keep money out of politics.
John Adams. The biggest threat to the USA is Americans, or those who would put party interest before country.
James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
But as Madison knew too well, men are not angels, hence the bill of rights. How the USA could do with their wisdom and leadership right now.
That being said, if they were to return today, they'd probably get locked up for un-American activities or something
I am always amazed and astounded by just how much wisdom and generally great men happened to come together. They were still people will flaws, even significant ones, but it's a reminder that while there are really terrible people in the world there is also the opposite. Some people really do use power to benefit the broader society as best they can.
And that's the problem IMO - nobody in the USA or Western Democracies, seems to be pulling together for the common ground.
That's not to say that there are not honest men and women in the USA, be they civil servants in Washington or Wyoming, trying their best to make the system work fairly.
We all read history, and we all know that Empires rise and fall, and maybe I'm exaggerating here, but there is something going wrong in the West.
And it's called corruption. It's always been with us, and it always will be with us, but if it's kept at a certain low level, it largely goes unnoticed.
But I would argue, since at least the 1970s, corruption is slowly growing in America to the detriment of civil society and the body politic.
It erodes trust in institutions and allows disillusionment to fester in the system. A slow poison that kills Empires...
It's not an over-night thing, and it didn't start with Donald Trump, but for want of a better word, it's starting to become 'normalised' under Trump.
Trump is a symptom of it, but it's what comes after Trump that should worry Americans...
If Trump can get away with it, then a future POTUS might think they too could double down on the Trump style...
But I've been re-visiting the history books for some wisdom from the Founding Fathers.
Naturally, they weren't perfect, but it's amazing how prescient they were.
George Washington: Trade with all nations, alliance with none. Avoid foreign entanglements. Political parties are evil.
Thomas Jefferson. Banks are more dangerous than standing armies. Keep money out of politics.
John Adams. The biggest threat to the USA is Americans, or those who would put party interest before country.
James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
But as Madison knew too well, men are not angels, hence the bill of rights. How the USA could do with their wisdom and leadership right now.
That being said, if they were to return today, they'd probably get locked up for un-American activities or something
I wish we were as wary of political parties today as we were back then. If we could ditch 'em, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Our system of government was also clearly not set up to deal with them, it was set up to divide government institutions from each other to divide power, but takes little or no accounting of partisan capture of branches to be held in partisan (as opposed to institutional) opposition, nor capture of multiple branches by a single party to have them act in what the framers would have seen as collusional institutional unison.
I remember a few years ago how surprised I was to learn that at one time, Senators weren't directly elected, but instead were chosen by their state until the 17th Amendment came along. Naturally, such a system was probably abused pre-17th, but there were a lot of merits to it as well, not least Senators not getting absorbed by political parties.
I would argue that a lot more indepedent, non GOP or Democrat Senators, is eaxctly what is needed in 2018. I think you'd get a better type of Senator.
And that's the problem IMO - nobody in the USA or Western Democracies, seems to be pulling together for the common ground.
That's not to say that there are not honest men and women in the USA, be they civil servants in Washington or Wyoming, trying their best to make the system work fairly.
We all read history, and we all know that Empires rise and fall, and maybe I'm exaggerating here, but there is something going wrong in the West.
And it's called corruption. It's always been with us, and it always will be with us, but if it's kept at a certain low level, it largely goes unnoticed.
But I would argue, since at least the 1970s, corruption is slowly growing in America to the detriment of civil society and the body politic.
It erodes trust in institutions and allows disillusionment to fester in the system. A slow poison that kills Empires...
It's not an over-night thing, and it didn't start with Donald Trump, but for want of a better word, it's starting to become 'normalised' under Trump.
Trump is a symptom of it, but it's what comes after Trump that should worry Americans...
If Trump can get away with it, then a future POTUS might think they too could double down on the Trump style...
Pretty much spot on. I actually am one of those civil servants and it's disheartening how vast a gulf there is between the strict ethics requirements us bureaucrats work under vs. what the elected and appointed officials are getting away with.
As you said it's the nature of empires - we're seeing that vacillation between attempts at mild but necessary reforms and pants on head stupidity that we saw with the Roman emperors during their decline.
In the modern era we've seen other Western empires settled down into prosperous post-imperial nations, but we've also seen the other path: like the Soviet Union falling apart into a morass of corruption, poverty, and violent bigotry.
The great thing about History, is that it all makes sense and creates a straight line of cause and effect. Too bad the present is not so clean cut. The future is even worse! :(
In 2010 I told my friends that by 2020 GW would either fail or undergo major reforms because the track it was on was simply unsustainable. In 2016 the age of Roundtree began.
I say this because I think it's analogous to the country and specifically the GOP, and they are close to the point where they may fail entirely. If the next recession hits (and it will hit hard) while still under Trump it could happen. The GOP have been digging their own grave by actively supporting the trend of wealthy elites reaping the majority of benefits from the recovery. There is already a simmering resentment against the rich from both sides ("drain the swamp") that doesn't get a lot of action because people have jobs and income. Once that goes away... They have run out of scapegoats. Even if the GOP base is onboard with whatever they tell them that doesn't amount to much when people are desperate--they are going to feel screwed over and lied to, something that is at least somewhat justified.
Then there's global warming. The GOP is very much seen as the party of denying it, something that will look more and more scummy as the century rolls on.
All in all I think a lot of responsible parties (including the partisan bullcrap of both political ones) are going to get bitten in the ass very hard, opening the door to finally rebuild the situation. Yes it will suck, and it will suck badly. But GW sucked the most in the year before they started getting better.
Just so we're clear: are you trying to advocate that every time a law enforcement officer fails to act in the way you think they should, they shouldn't be allowed to collect their pension?
Imma call bs on this one... but across my twittah feed, numerous news accounts:
Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller told Trump's legal team two weeks ago he will follow Justice Department guidance saying a sitting president cannot be indicted.
I mean, I think he's right... but Rudy just putting both feet in his mouth here...
whembly wrote: Imma call bs on this one... but across my twittah feed, numerous news accounts:
Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller told Trump's legal team two weeks ago he will follow Justice Department guidance saying a sitting president cannot be indicted.
I mean, I think he's right... but Rudy just putting both feet in his mouth here...
Has anyone ever suggested otherwise?
All the talk I've heard has been how a compromised Trump is insulated from the consequences of his actions by a sycophantic and complicit House.
Just so we're clear: are you trying to advocate that every time a law enforcement officer fails to act in the way you think they should, they shouldn't be allowed to collect their pension?
If by "...in the way you think they should...", you mean "doesn't perform his/her job in a manner that grossly endangers public safety", as was the case in this matter? Yep. you betcha. Fire them for cause and all the ramifications that should accompany it. The Dixon cop had it right.
Kanluwen wrote: Just so we're clear: are you trying to advocate that every time a law enforcement officer fails to act in the way you think they should, they shouldn't be allowed to collect their pension?
If by "...in the way you think they should...", you mean "doesn't perform his/her job in a manner that grossly endangers public safety", as was the case in this matter? Yep. you betcha. Fire them for cause and all the ramifications that should accompany it. The Dixon cop had it right.
But it's already been established that cops don't need to protect you. Why should this particular one be punished for not doing something he isn't required to do?
Kanluwen wrote: Just so we're clear: are you trying to advocate that every time a law enforcement officer fails to act in the way you think they should, they shouldn't be allowed to collect their pension?
If by "...in the way you think they should...", you mean "doesn't perform his/her job in a manner that grossly endangers public safety", as was the case in this matter? Yep. you betcha. Fire them for cause and all the ramifications that should accompany it. The Dixon cop had it right.
But it's already been established that cops don't need to protect you. Why should this particular one be punished for not doing something he isn't required to do?
Because he failed to follow established department procedure for responding to a mass shooting crime in progress.
But I've been re-visiting the history books for some wisdom from the Founding Fathers.
Naturally, they weren't perfect, but it's amazing how prescient they were.
George Washington: Trade with all nations, alliance with none. Avoid foreign entanglements. Political parties are evil.
Thomas Jefferson. Banks are more dangerous than standing armies. Keep money out of politics.
John Adams. The biggest threat to the USA is Americans, or those who would put party interest before country.
James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
But as Madison knew too well, men are not angels, hence the bill of rights. How the USA could do with their wisdom and leadership right now.
That being said, if they were to return today, they'd probably get locked up for un-American activities or something
I am always amazed and astounded by just how much wisdom and generally great men happened to come together. They were still people will flaws, even significant ones, but it's a reminder that while there are really terrible people in the world there is also the opposite. Some people really do use power to benefit the broader society as best they can.
And that's the problem IMO - nobody in the USA or Western Democracies, seems to be pulling together for the common ground.
That's not to say that there are not honest men and women in the USA, be they civil servants in Washington or Wyoming, trying their best to make the system work fairly.
We all read history, and we all know that Empires rise and fall, and maybe I'm exaggerating here, but there is something going wrong in the West.
And it's called corruption. It's always been with us, and it always will be with us, but if it's kept at a certain low level, it largely goes unnoticed.
But I would argue, since at least the 1970s, corruption is slowly growing in America to the detriment of civil society and the body politic.
It erodes trust in institutions and allows disillusionment to fester in the system. A slow poison that kills Empires...
It's not an over-night thing, and it didn't start with Donald Trump, but for want of a better word, it's starting to become 'normalised' under Trump.
Trump is a symptom of it, but it's what comes after Trump that should worry Americans...
If Trump can get away with it, then a future POTUS might think they too could double down on the Trump style...
But I've been re-visiting the history books for some wisdom from the Founding Fathers.
Naturally, they weren't perfect, but it's amazing how prescient they were.
George Washington: Trade with all nations, alliance with none. Avoid foreign entanglements. Political parties are evil.
Thomas Jefferson. Banks are more dangerous than standing armies. Keep money out of politics.
John Adams. The biggest threat to the USA is Americans, or those who would put party interest before country.
James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
But as Madison knew too well, men are not angels, hence the bill of rights. How the USA could do with their wisdom and leadership right now.
That being said, if they were to return today, they'd probably get locked up for un-American activities or something
I wish we were as wary of political parties today as we were back then. If we could ditch 'em, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Our system of government was also clearly not set up to deal with them, it was set up to divide government institutions from each other to divide power, but takes little or no accounting of partisan capture of branches to be held in partisan (as opposed to institutional) opposition, nor capture of multiple branches by a single party to have them act in what the framers would have seen as collusional institutional unison.
I remember a few years ago how surprised I was to learn that at one time, Senators weren't directly elected, but instead were chosen by their state until the 17th Amendment came along. Naturally, such a system was probably abused pre-17th, but there were a lot of merits to it as well, not least Senators not getting absorbed by political parties.
I would argue that a lot more indepedent, non GOP or Democrat Senators, is eaxctly what is needed in 2018. I think you'd get a better type of Senator.
I've been banging on repeal of the 17th for quite some time.
However, I don't think it'll encourage "better" Senators... just different. Whereas the Senator is more beholden to the party that control their state's legislature. Politically... same gak, different day. The difference is that the state's legislature gets a little bit more "say" Federally. Think of the Senators as the state's "Ambassadors" to Washington DC.
Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.
In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.
My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.
So around 23% on an income of $47,500 to cover both health care AND taxes.
In America you'd expect to pay around $7,500 in Federal taxes (income, medicare, and SSDI) on $47,500 - 15.7% - and another $6,000 in health care premiums - 12.6% - and then deductibles, copays, and prescription costs.
Yep, the American way is definitely the cheaper way to go....
Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.
In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.
My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.
Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.
£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60
My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)
My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).
Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!
...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).
Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.
However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).
That's some really GOOD insurance! I'd be paying a couple grand for all that, mostly because of the $1500 deductible.
whembly wrote: Look everyone, seb taking the time honored technique to put words on other people's mouth.
I asked you twice to confirm, retract, or clarify, and you pointedly avoided doing any of those.
Seb: when much of the world provides cover or explicit support for Hamas...
And now the walk back begins. "The rest of the world" becomes "much of the rest of the world". And the claim that other countries actively wanting Israel to destroy itself becomes a claim they support Hamas and Hamas wants to destroy Israel, therefore.
This version is still very silly of course, but what's important isn't the silliness of either the original claim or the revision, but the process where you felt free to claim something that ridiculous, and then felt no responsibility for it afterwards. You don't feel accountable for the accuracy of what you claim.
Could be some "good cop, bad cop" routine between Trump/Ross vs Chinese negotiators.
No, it's Trump scrambling to normalise the situation with China, looking to give up anything that won't have direct electoral consequences, which will mean giving up ground on a lot of trade issues. The black comedy here is that for all Trump's talk about the US being so bad at trade deals, he's now initiated what looks likely to be the first unfavourable trade negotiation for the US in the last hundred years.
So, the Senate actually passed the repeal of the net neutrality repeal. Anyone want to take bets on how far it will get in the House and if Trump will even sign it?
whembly wrote: We're not manning our border fence with military equipment... are we?
What? Of course you are. It makes perfect sense for the US to have this kind of hardware, because they engage with cartels so it's more than necessary, but asking if the US has military hardware on the border is a really weird question.
In addition to armed border guards toting some pretty serious firepower, there is also a Joint Task Force that organises the use of military assets in support of border control. Obviously it doesn't gift border control howitzers and Abrams, but drones and specially equipped helicopters are regularly deployed by the army to support border patrol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Israel prolongs it because if it does it never has to give anything up. Actual progress in the conflict represents a loss for Israel, as it holds all the cards.
My sister is dating this guy who's is in the last stages of getting divorced. I say last stages, but that stage has lasted for years. It is dragging out because the preliminary deal gives his ex-wife a very generous monthly allowance, worth far more than value of the assets she will get in any version of the final deal. As a result it has been in her best interests to drag this deal out for as long as possible, delaying and refiling, to keep that allowance as long as possible.
That's the same as what Israel is doing. Every year the deal drags out Israel is able to take and settle more land.
What's most interesting about the whole dynamic is that the new settlements aren't actually popular in Israel, but the relatively small number of hardliners who support them very strongly hold a very disproportionate level of power inside Israel's parliament.
Vaktathi wrote: I wish we were as wary of political parties today as we were back then. If we could ditch 'em, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Our system of government was also clearly not set up to deal with them, it was set up to divide government institutions from each other to divide power, but takes little or no accounting of partisan capture of branches to be held in partisan (as opposed to institutional) opposition, nor capture of multiple branches by a single party to have them act in what the framers would have seen as collusional institutional unison.
Its the great American political conundrum. You have an electoral system geared to producing two major political parties, and a legislative process that cannot handle partisan political parties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I remember a few years ago how surprised I was to learn that at one time, Senators weren't directly elected, but instead were chosen by their state until the 17th Amendment came along. Naturally, such a system was probably abused pre-17th, but there were a lot of merits to it as well, not least Senators not getting absorbed by political parties.
I would argue that a lot more indepedent, non GOP or Democrat Senators, is eaxctly what is needed in 2018. I think you'd get a better type of Senator.
I agree moving to independent senators would be wonderful, but the US isn't going to get there by returning to state appointed senators. You think the Democrat controlled legislature in Maryland is going to appoint someone who isn't a steadfast Democrat? You think the Republican Georgia legislature is going to appoint anyone other than a reliable Republican?
I'm less concerned about partisanship in Congress than I am about Congress being a campaign stop. In general across both parties politicians are a lot more sensible when not worrying about election results.
All the talk I've heard has been how a compromised Trump is insulated from the consequences of his actions by a sycophantic and complicit House.
Thing is, anything that Mueller would indict Trump over would have to be so clearly established by the evidence and such a terrible crime that even this batch of Republicans would be compelled to impeach over it.
Anything that isn't damning enough to force impeachment won't prompt an attempt to indict a sitting president, and anything that's damning enough to justify trying to indict a sitting president will be more than enough to have already forced impeachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, the Senate actually passed the repeal of the net neutrality repeal. Anyone want to take bets on how far it will get in the House and if Trump will even sign it?
Never going to get a vote in the House. It was a procedural miracle it got through the senate.
All the talk I've heard has been how a compromised Trump is insulated from the consequences of his actions by a sycophantic and complicit House.
Thing is, anything that Mueller would indict Trump over would have to be so clearly established by the evidence and such a terrible crime that even this batch of Republicans would be compelled to impeach over it.
Anything that isn't damning enough to force impeachment won't prompt an attempt to indict a sitting president, and anything that's damning enough to justify trying to indict a sitting president will be more than enough to have already forced impeachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, the Senate actually passed the repeal of the net neutrality repeal. Anyone want to take bets on how far it will get in the House and if Trump will even sign it?
Never going to get a vote in the House. It was a procedural miracle it got through the senate.
Keep in mind that impeachment may not necessarily mean a removal from office. Bill Clinton was not removed but he was impeached.
Donald Trump decided to make it clear just in case anyone wasn't quite sure that he is a straight up bigot. Today in a roundtable on immigration he stated “These aren’t people. These are animals.”
Having been fired, Rex Tillersen is now talking quite freely about Trump, "(America faces) a growing crisis in ethics and integrity". He continues "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom." And we're going to see a lot more of this, people suddenly becoming principled again once they leave Trump's circle of power.
And finally, the guy who leaked details about the payments in to Michael Cohen's shell company gave an interview to Ronan Farrow, who published it in the New Yorker. The leaked documents were suspicious activity reports that banks file with government, and leaking them could lead to five years in prison. The leaker says he decided to leak them after observing other suspicious activity reports had been removed from the database, those other reports showed much bigger payments from foreign parties. Hypothetically these reports might be classified, but there is no known instance of this happening before, making the disappearance of these files extremely suspicious, given what they likely indicate about the president and his coterie. The leaker talks about the legal threat he now faces, "To say that I am terrified right now would be an understatement.... This is a terrifying time to be an American, to watch all this unfold."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/missing-files-motivated-the-leak-of-michael-cohens-financial-records
That last one is... just damn. Anyone who still doubts the scale and scope of what is happening right just needs to wise up, real fast.
sebster wrote: Having been fired, Rex Tillersen is now talking quite freely about Trump, "(America faces) a growing crisis in ethics and integrity". He continues "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom." And we're going to see a lot more of this, people suddenly becoming principled again once they leave Trump's circle of power.
Yes, you also see it with Mitt Romney since he didn't get that secretary of state gig.
Ideally I'd like to see these people remain unemployable for the rest of their adult lives. No, Sean Spicer, you don't get to rehab your image.
Also, reading that article jfc. Cohen apparently is the stupidest criminal alive.
thekingofkings wrote: Keep in mind that impeachment may not necessarily mean a removal from office. Bill Clinton was not removed but he was impeached.
When people talk about impeachment, they don't just mean the House vote, which by itself is meaningless. They also mean it heading to the senate, where it would secure a conviction. Maybe not the correct technical phrasing, but whatever. No-one is talking about the straight vote in the House just by itself.
Ouze wrote: Yes, you also see it with Mitt Romney since he didn't get that secretary of state gig.
Ideally I'd like to see these people remain unemployable for the rest of their adult lives. No, Sean Spicer, you don't get to rehab your image.
Sean Spicer leaving the White House and thinking he could play it up as a jokester was incredible. It showed an extraordinary lack of awareness, and almost no understanding that what he was going wasn't just incompetent, it was completely immoral.
Also, reading that article jfc. Cohen apparently is the stupidest criminal alive.
I think living in the bubble of NY organised white collar crime has developed a kind of laziness in Cohen and a lot of the rest of Trump's NY set. You see it in Giuliani as well, the approach he's taken in trying to defend Trump has been a disaster, and I think it's because Giuliani doesn't realise his audience. He's used to talking to investigators who are happy to find an excuse to look the wrong way, because there's just no establishment expectation or support for going after connected people on white collar crimes.
These guys are getting caught because before now they operated in an environment that had no interest in investigating or prosecuting them. By running for and becoming president, Trump drew the attention of the FBI and many private individuals that think crimes should actually be investigated and punished.
But I think the biggest part of the story isn't Cohen, but the disappearing files. That indicates an active cover up by people a lot more important than Cohen.
thekingofkings wrote: Keep in mind that impeachment may not necessarily mean a removal from office. Bill Clinton was not removed but he was impeached.
It doesn't, but the senate has a more impeachment-favorable R/D split than the house. If the impeachment case is sufficiently strong that it passes the house vote then the senate confirming it and removing Trump from office is a formality.
(In the case of Clinton it was the other way around: the house had the more favorable split, and everyone knew from the beginning that the senate was going to vote against impeachment. It was pointless political theater to have the house vote at all.)
This is going to slip under the radar, but that letter is the Trump appointed head of the Office of Government Ethics writing to the DOJ stating that Trump may have committed a crime by omitting the debt to Michael Cohen in his financial disclosures, and that should be factored in to already existing investigations in to previous disclosures. It reads like boring administration speak, but the substance is what is effectively a criminal referral that is to be added to an existing criminal investigation. Which is a pretty amazing thing for the acting head of OGE to be sending to the DOJ.
This seems to be the problem with so much of the Trump scandal cutting through - there's no cinema to it. It's just regular people following regular, boring processes. Those processes are steadily building the picture of a criminal network that's shockingly brazen, but the actual day to day development of that picture is just stuff like the letter above.
Watching All The President's Men, the film is effective and brings you in, not really because of the details of the crimes uncovered. Think of the scene in the parking garage, it is the storytelling that gets you in - there's the feeling of danger from the lurking shadows, there's a mystery man you can barely see and he's whispering in cryptic riddles. The scene is exciting and engages you in a mystery, but the scene itself is actually pretty useless, there's no real information given. Imagine if instead of that meeting in the parking garage the reporters just got a letter saying 'to assist in existing enquiries I provide the suggestion that you focus some of your resources on following the money'. People would walk out of the movie saying 'I sort of stopped paying attention, did Nixon do it?'
Then you look at the real world Nixon investigation, Nixon was eventually brought down when the secret tapes were released and they showed he knew of the administration's connection to the break-in and approved of the plan to get the FBI to stop the investigation. Trump's admission in interview over why he fired Comey is already as clear a piece of evidence as Nixon's recording. But Trump's admission didn't have the same effect because it was just something he blurted out in a tv interview, it lacked the cinema of secret recordings rumoured about, partially revealed, and then finally released in full after a Supreme Court case.
At this point we're not really waiting on any more evidence of Trump's crimes. In all honesty we have that about in five ways. We're basically waiting on a moment of big cinema that captures the law breaking in a way that makes people realise the scale of what we know about Trump. Some former aide going before congress and tearfully telling us that Trump did all the stuff we already know he did. Or a secret recording smuggled out of the whitehouse in someone's mouth that has Trump saying he fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation, like Trump has already admitted. That's the thing about the 'smoking gun' - it isn't really about a piece of clear, indisputable evidence that suddenly proves everything. Evidence doesn't work that way. The smoking gun is actually about a piece of big theatre, where the drama of the moment flicks a switch in people's brains and gets them to actually engage with the available evidence.
We may, of course, never get that moment with Trump. But also we might get it, and it will be a strange moment, because very suddenly lots of people will suddenly know Trump's crimes, but they will know it based on actual evidence that was already in place.
sebster wrote: Donald Trump decided to make it clear just in case anyone wasn't quite sure that he is a straight up bigot. Today in a roundtable on immigration he stated “These aren’t people. These are animals.”.
To be clear, that comment came in reference to illegal immigrants, in particular violent illegal immigrants and members of transnational criminal organizations, with MS-13 getting a special mention in that exchange. And it wasn’t an immigration roundtable, it was a rally the troops criclejerk focused on sanctuary city laws.
Incredibly dishonest to frame that comment as him referring to immigration in general. The fact that you don’t even bother to post the quote, or a video link that focuses on this brief exchange, despite clearly showing the willingness and ability (as I type this, on this very page even) to post links to support your claims on other subjects, makes me think its deliberate dishonesty. Its like you were afraid to reveal the context, or you only read the Huffpo headlines and take that for gospel.
My question is why? Is there anyone on this board that dislikes Trump based on policy alone but doesn’t believe he’s also bigot that will somehow be swayed to believe otherwise by your paraphrasing? Do you think there is an ardent Trump supporter who will read your doctored quote, have a Grinch that Stole Christmas moment and do some soul searching?
There’s plenty of gak that you can throw at 45. So much so that you don’t need to make gak up. He’s the living breathing font of that gak. In fact, making gak up just makes the real gak less impactful at this point.
He made it in reference to undocumented immigrants including violent ones, not in particular is my read on it. And this is coming from the man who called most Mexicans rapists, so I fall more on the side of Sebster's view on this.
Disciple of Fate wrote: He made it in reference to undocumented immigrants including violent ones, not in particular is my read on it. And this is coming from the man who called most Mexicans rapists, so I fall more on the side of Sebster's view on this.
Even that articles very title says he’s only referring to some illegal immigrants. Which illegal immigrants was he referring to as animals than, if not the violent ones? The word “some” implies he’s not referring to the collective.
I’m not arguing that 45 isn’t a goon of the highest order, mind you. Just that he doesn’t need any quotes to be taken out of context or parsed to add to his repertoire of boneheaded comments.
Disciple of Fate wrote: He made it in reference to undocumented immigrants including violent ones, not in particular is my read on it. And this is coming from the man who called most Mexicans rapists, so I fall more on the side of Sebster's view on this.
Even that articles very title says he’s only referring to some illegal immigrants. Which illegal immigrants was he referring to as animals than, if not the violent ones? The word “some” implies he’s not referring to the collective.
I’m not arguing that 45 isn’t a goon of the highest order, mind you. Just that he doesn’t need any quotes to be taken out of context or parsed to add to his repertoire of boneheaded comments.
His staff was discussing deporting criminal immigrants, which is an awfully broad category. Not all criminals are violent, yet Trump starts ranting about animals. Did you hear what he said, he never used the word violent once in his response.
He considers most Mexicans to be animals by his own standard considering what he said about Mexicans in the past. He just piles them all on the gang/drug cartel groups without facts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: IMO the only animals put there are the ones who engage in sexual assault--putting base instinct over concious thought or morality.
nels1031 wrote: There’s plenty of gak that you can throw at 45.
I wish we wouldn't refer to Trump as "45". I'm not saying it's wrong per se, he is the President and this is a tradition done previously. My issue is that people more commonly associate "45" with the greatest weapon that ever was or ever will be invented, and it's very disrespectful to even think about Donald Trump in a way that might make people think of John Moses Browning's gift to mankind.
sebster wrote: Donald Trump decided to make it clear just in case anyone wasn't quite sure that he is a straight up bigot. Today in a roundtable on immigration he stated “These aren’t people. These are animals.”
No... he didn't call immigrants "animals"... he was talking about MS-13.
You fell for it man... hook, link, sinker...
You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump... by gratuitously feeding his #FakeNews mantra.
Frankly, I think Trump ought to apologize to the animals.
sebster wrote: Donald Trump decided to make it clear just in case anyone wasn't quite sure that he is a straight up bigot. Today in a roundtable on immigration he stated “These aren’t people. These are animals.”
No... he didn't call immigrants "animals"... he was talking about MS-13.
You fell for it man... hook, link, sinker...
You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump... by gratuitously feeding his #FakeNews mantra.
Frankly, I think Trump ought to apologize to the animals.
No, you get more Trump by republicans voting for Trump.
Actually iirc he also never says MS-13 either, just as he doesn't say violent. Take that as you will, because the women had a muchh broader question that didn't boil down to MS-13.
“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — we’re stopping a lot of them,” Mr. Trump said in the Cabinet Room during an hourlong meeting that reporters were allowed to document. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.”
This is just the latest in years worth of statements on illegal immigrants. We don’t need a spin to know what he thinks and says.
sebster wrote: Donald Trump decided to make it clear just in case anyone wasn't quite sure that he is a straight up bigot. Today in a roundtable on immigration he stated “These aren’t people. These are animals.”
No... he didn't call immigrants "animals"... he was talking about MS-13.
You fell for it man... hook, link, sinker...
You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump... by gratuitously feeding his #FakeNews mantra.
Frankly, I think Trump ought to apologize to the animals.
No, you get more Trump by republicans voting for Trump.
“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — we’re stopping a lot of them,” Mr. Trump said in the Cabinet Room during an hourlong meeting that reporters were allowed to document. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.”
Now, I think we need a bit more context; you know like 'You didn't build that", "Basket of Deplorables", and "Clinging to their Guns and Bibles" to get at the actual meaning of the President here.
However, since when has anyone let a good sound bite be ruined by context?
Disciple of Fate wrote: His staff was discussing deporting criminal immigrants, which is an awfully broad category. Not all criminals are violent, yet Trump starts ranting about animals. Did you hear what he said, he never used the word violent once in his response.
I see where the confusion is. The article that you linked and seem to be getting your info from has the conversation jumbled. The conversation with Sheriff Mims happens before the rant in question, at the mention of MS-13, a violent organization by most sensible standards , Trump sounds off with the rant, as he is want to do. MS-13 is his immigration boogeyman. Seems clear that he's only referring to the violent offenders.
There is video and the Whitehouse.gov transcript that show it in the correct sequence.
For what its worth, the transcript is interesting reading on its own.
I guess its the yanny/laurel thing. Different people hearing different things
Disciple of Fate wrote: He considers most Mexicans to be animals by his own standard considering what he said about Mexicans in the past. He just piles them all on the gang/drug cartel groups without facts.
I get that, but at this point do we need to omit wording or parse statements to cement your belief? Who doesn't/does think he's racist at this point that will be swayed by these new comments? There are no fence sitters at this point, imo. Its already baked into the cake.
It was a gak post, plain and simple. Sebsters, not yours, btw.
“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — we’re stopping a lot of them,” Mr. Trump said in the Cabinet Room during an hourlong meeting that reporters were allowed to document. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.”
This is just the latest in years worth of statements on illegal immigrants. We don’t need a spin to know what he thinks and says.
He was responding to a question from a sheriff regarding MS-13, not riffing on illegal immigrants in general...
These outlets are lying. Full stop.
If you can't admit the media's dishonesty on this... then how can we-the-people can ever have hope of holding our political class to account when you take them at face value?
Trump is a lying scumbag... the media should be better than Trump.
It's not like there's any legit shortage of things to criticize Trump over...
Even CNN's Jake Tapper is obliquely calling out his colleagues today for this...
Jake Tapper (@jaketapper)
5/17/18, 7:09 AM Here is the full context of President Trump’s “animals” comment during the immigration/sanctuary city roundtable, which came as a Sheriff was complaining about restrictions placed on ICE databases, and MS-13 gang members. pic.twitter.com/sI9uWXr1Sc
Disciple of Fate wrote: His staff was discussing deporting criminal immigrants, which is an awfully broad category. Not all criminals are violent, yet Trump starts ranting about animals. Did you hear what he said, he never used the word violent once in his response.
I see where the confusion is. The article that you linked and seem to be getting your info from has the conversation jumbled. The conversation with Sheriff Mims happens before the rant in question, at the mention of MS-13, a violent organization by most sensible standards , Trump sounds off with the rant, as he is want to do. MS-13 is his immigration boogeyman. Seems clear that he's only referring to the violent offenders.
There is video and the Whitehouse.gov transcript that show it in the correct sequence.
For what its worth, the transcript is interesting reading on its own.
I guess its the yanny/laurel thing. Different people hearing different things
Disciple of Fate wrote: He considers most Mexicans to be animals by his own standard considering what he said about Mexicans in the past. He just piles them all on the gang/drug cartel groups without facts.
I get that, but at this point do we need to omit wording or parse statements to cement your belief? Who doesn't/does think he's racist at this point that will be swayed by these new comments? There are no fence sitters at this point, imo. Its already baked into the cake.
It was a gak post, plain and simple. Sebsters, not yours, btw.
Did you miss me saying I saw the video, as in did you hear what he said? I did, so no, I'm not confused. Did you hear her full 2 min question? The question was about criminal immigrants, not just MS-13 and he starts ranting like they all are.
I guess I'm just baffled that you're using an article that that the title even says that he called "some" illegal immigrants animals as your proof that he called "all" illegal immigrants animals. Make that makes sense for me.
edit: I'll leave it at that my man. Clearly daylight between us on this issue. You got your opinion, and I got mine. Expect no other response on this issue.
When he says most Mexicans are rapists, I give him saying some immigrants are animals very little value, as he never says some. One directly contradicts the other, with the former speaking a lot more clearly about his actual beliefs when combined with what he said at other times.
By putting 2 and 2 together, he is saying most Mexicans are animals, not that some immigrants are for example.
sebster wrote: Donald Trump decided to make it clear just in case anyone wasn't quite sure that he is a straight up bigot. Today in a roundtable on immigration he stated “These aren’t people. These are animals.”.
To be clear, that comment came in reference to illegal immigrants, in particular violent illegal immigrants and members of transnational criminal organizations, with MS-13 getting a special mention in that exchange. And it wasn’t an immigration roundtable, it was a rally the troops criclejerk focused on sanctuary city laws.
Incredibly dishonest to frame that comment as him referring to immigration in general. The fact that you don’t even bother to post the quote, or a video link that focuses on this brief exchange, despite clearly showing the willingness and ability (as I type this, on this very page even) to post links to support your claims on other subjects, makes me think its deliberate dishonesty. Its like you were afraid to reveal the context, or you only read the Huffpo headlines and take that for gospel.
My question is why? Is there anyone on this board that dislikes Trump based on policy alone but doesn’t believe he’s also bigot that will somehow be swayed to believe otherwise by your paraphrasing? Do you think there is an ardent Trump supporter who will read your doctored quote, have a Grinch that Stole Christmas moment and do some soul searching?
There’s plenty of gak that you can throw at 45. So much so that you don’t need to make gak up. He’s the living breathing font of that gak. In fact, making gak up just makes the real gak less impactful at this point.
Do better, dude.
Wait a second, while I agree that Seb can get a bit left-biased at times he isn't saying Trump was commenting on all immigration; you're putting words in his mouth. All Seb was saying is 'here is further proof that Trump is bigoted, it happened during a meeting on immigration' which that statement certainly does regardless of the number of immigrants he is referring to. If anything you are the one twisting the circumstance to push a viewpoint here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: No, those are people too. Nothing good has ever come of claiming the right to define who is human and who isn't.
NinthMusketeer wrote: IMO the only animals put there are the ones who engage in sexual assault--putting base instinct over concious thought or morality.
nels1031 wrote: edit: I'll leave it at that my man. Clearly daylight between us on this issue. You got your opinion, and I got mine. Expect no other response on this issue.
It's a moot point anyway, in my opinion.
He's shown repeatedly that either he genuinely has a streak of the ol' racism, or is using racist dogwhistles to appeal to his supporters, which isn't actually better. His track record speaks to the former, as well as the latter. We can all agree to this, right? This isn't in dispute? That he has a long streak of throwing stuff like this out there?
So, with that in mind, did he actually call immigrants "animals" this time? Doesn't matter. Not at all. This isn't going to be the thing that blows it all open whether he did or didn't. It literally doesn't move the needle at all. We know what the puzzle looks like, we've got a ton of pieces in there, it doesn't matter if this exact one fits in that spot or not.
The Senate voted Wednesday to pass Democratic legislation to repeal the FCC's dismantling of net neutrality regulations and reinstate net neutrality, 52 yeas to 47 nays. The resolution being offered by Democrats passed with the support of all 49 members of the Democratic caucus and three Republicans -- Sens. Collins, R-Maine, John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said, "This is our chance -- our best chance -- to make sure the internet stays accessible and affordable for all Americans.
Under the original net neutrality rule, internet service providers were also banned from providing faster internet access and preferred services to companies for extra fees -- so called "fast lanes." The FCC voted in December 2017 to undo the net neutrality rules.
Don't expect the House to go along with the Senate on this. Opponents such as Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, said the Senate's vote later Wednesday on a measure reversing the Federal Communications Commission's decision that scrapped the "net neutrality" rule amounted to "political theater" with no prospects of approval by the GOP-controlled House.
Net neutrality prevented providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from interfering with internet traffic and favoring their own sites and apps.
nels1031 wrote:To be clear, that comment came in reference to illegal immigrants, in particular violent illegal immigrants and members of transnational criminal organizations, with MS-13 getting a special mention in that exchange. And it wasn’t an immigration roundtable, it was a rally the troops criclejerk focused on sanctuary city laws.
To be clear, it doesn't matter: Illegal or not. Dehumanising people is kinda fascist-adjacent. And it doesn't help that Trump mentioned his superior genes a few times and he, apparently, believes this bs. Or when somebody from his gang talks about camps for certain groups of people (muslims), or attacks on LGBT rights, reducing healthcare and social safety nets for disabled people and the elderly, and so on. Them drifting near those topics makes me uncomfortable (for historic reasons).
The Senate voted Wednesday to pass Democratic legislation to repeal the FCC's dismantling of net neutrality regulations and reinstate net neutrality, 52 yeas to 47 nays. The resolution being offered by Democrats passed with the support of all 49 members of the Democratic caucus and three Republicans -- Sens. Collins, R-Maine, John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said, "This is our chance -- our best chance -- to make sure the internet stays accessible and affordable for all Americans.
Under the original net neutrality rule, internet service providers were also banned from providing faster internet access and preferred services to companies for extra fees -- so called "fast lanes." The FCC voted in December 2017 to undo the net neutrality rules.
Don't expect the House to go along with the Senate on this. Opponents such as Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, said the Senate's vote later Wednesday on a measure reversing the Federal Communications Commission's decision that scrapped the "net neutrality" rule amounted to "political theater" with no prospects of approval by the GOP-controlled House.
Net neutrality prevented providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from interfering with internet traffic and favoring their own sites and apps.
One would have thought that with a predicted savaging in the mid terms and the Democrats looking to make NN *their* issue, that the House may want to try and get on board a clearly popular platform and undercut the Democrats, but no, theyre gonna do the thing anyway...
Trump enters the classic "ridiculous ultimatum" stage of international deal making. He's really painting himself into a corner with his legendary deal-making skills.
MAGA in full effect, you guys. Including pointless, wee lil peen waving nuclear brinkmanship.
feeder wrote: Trump enters the classic "ridiculous ultimatum" stage of international deal making. He's really painting himself into a corner with his legendary deal-making skills.
MAGA in full effect, you guys. Including pointless, wee lil peen waving nuclear brinkmanship.
It *really* doesn't help that Gaddafi actually came clean about his weapons programs and openly dismantled them before he suffered said fate.
High-ranking officials of the White House and the Department of State including John Bolton, White House national security adviser, are letting loose the assertions of a so-called Libya mode of nuclear abandonment: "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation", "total decommissioning of nuclear weapons, missiles, biochemical weapons" etc, while talking about a formula of "abandoning nuclear weapons first, compensating afterwards".
This is not an expression of intention to address the issue through dialogue.
It is essentially a manifestation of an awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq, which had been brought down due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers.
I cannot suppress indignation at such moves of the US, and harbour doubt about the US sincerity for improved DPRK-US relations through sound dialogue and negotiations.
TL;DR You know, we do hear all those crazy things you say for the sake of your political base, we take them seriously, we remember what happened to Libya and Gaddafi when they played ball, and we're calling BS.
Lawd... this is actual admissions within this NYT report, leaked by FBI and DOJ officials, attempting to justify their illegal spying and surveillance operation against the campaign of el Cheeto Trump in 2015 and 2016.
Yes, I said "illegal spying"... as it's apparent that the FBI used their counterintelligent apparatus... in lieu of opening up a criminal investigation (2 completely different operations).
Seems to me, the leakers are trying to set the narrative ahead of the big OIG report...
Lawd... this is actual admissions within this NYT report, leaked by FBI and DOJ officials, attempting to justify their illegal spying and surveillance operation against the campaign of el Cheeto Trump in 2015 and 2016.
Yes, I said "illegal spying"... as it's apparent that the FBI used their counterintelligent apparatus... in lieu of opening up a criminal investigation (2 completely different operations).
Seems to me, the leakers are trying to set the narrative ahead of the big OIG report...
I'm no legal expert on the vagueries of that level of administrative law, but the article appears to have addressed that point.
Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.
“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what they did.”
nels1031 wrote:To be clear, that comment came in reference to illegal immigrants, in particular violent illegal immigrants and members of transnational criminal organizations, with MS-13 getting a special mention in that exchange. And it wasn’t an immigration roundtable, it was a rally the troops criclejerk focused on sanctuary city laws.
To be clear, it doesn't matter: Illegal or not. Dehumanising people is kinda fascist-adjacent. And it doesn't help that Trump mentioned his superior genes a few times and he, apparently, believes this bs. Or when somebody from his gang talks about camps for certain groups of people (muslims), or attacks on LGBT rights, reducing healthcare and social safety nets for disabled people and the elderly, and so on. Them drifting near those topics makes me uncomfortable (for historic reasons).
Do better, dude.
You too.
To be clear, it DOES matter. MS 13 is one of the most violent organizations in existence, on par with ISIL.
Educate yourself on the Americas before you comment on the Americas.
nels1031 wrote:To be clear, that comment came in reference to illegal immigrants, in particular violent illegal immigrants and members of transnational criminal organizations, with MS-13 getting a special mention in that exchange. And it wasn’t an immigration roundtable, it was a rally the troops criclejerk focused on sanctuary city laws.
To be clear, it doesn't matter: Illegal or not. Dehumanising people is kinda fascist-adjacent. And it doesn't help that Trump mentioned his superior genes a few times and he, apparently, believes this bs. Or when somebody from his gang talks about camps for certain groups of people (muslims), or attacks on LGBT rights, reducing healthcare and social safety nets for disabled people and the elderly, and so on. Them drifting near those topics makes me uncomfortable (for historic reasons).
Do better, dude.
You too.
To be clear, it DOES matter. MS 13 is one of the most violent organizations in existence, on par with ISIL.
Educate yourself on the Americas before you comment on the Americas.
That really doesn't matter. People can try to dress it up as much as they want, people know what the Cheeto is getting at when he talks about groups and ethnicities. It's this nonsense where people try to 'clarify' after the fact that we get into this endless cycle of someone trying to pretend they have the credentials to talk about a specialized topic like criminal organizations or do a "Well actually..." on someone else.
nels1031 wrote: Incredibly dishonest to frame that comment as him referring to immigration in general. The fact that you don’t even bother to post the quote, or a video link that focuses on this brief exchange, despite clearly showing the willingness and ability (as I type this, on this very page even) to post links to support your claims on other subjects, makes me think its deliberate dishonesty. Its like you were afraid to reveal the context, or you only read the Huffpo headlines and take that for gospel.
It was at a roundtable on immigration, exactly like I said. If I'd gone with your suggestion and said Trump was referring to illegal immigrants that would have been misleading, because it isn't clear who Trump was referring to - he was answering a query about MS-13 and his response was fairly unclear, it may have only been about MS-13, it may have been about all deportees, or possibly all illegal aliens.
And ultimately the exact subject of that exact sentence doesn't really matter, unless someone wants to claim Trump is a detailed focused man who always makes sure he is saying specific things about very specifically defined subjects. Trump works in broad, fuzzy concepts, and one of the most common is Trump's willing to use sweeping, negative generalizations whenever the subject touches on immigration. It isn't hard to recognize a basic difference between 'these are animals' and 'some of them are very fine people' and know why they were applied in each case.
My question is why?
Because I've gotten quite a few comments for the size of my posts. This was one of three separate issues I was raising in that post and I believed it was the least important of the three, so I tried to summarize it as briefly as possible. I could have either gone in to a full breakdown of Trump's quote, and spammed the board with so much text that people would have stopped reading before they got to the really important stuff about disappearing SARs files, or I could have given a misleading summary like your suggestion, or I could do what I did and give a very quick overview that didn't give any detail on the vague comment. The last of the three was the best option, by far.
Do better, dude.
This is the internet. Someone's gonna whinge about something. But thanks for your contribution.
Lawd... this is actual admissions within this NYT report, leaked by FBI and DOJ officials, attempting to justify their illegal spying and surveillance operation against the campaign of el Cheeto Trump in 2015 and 2016.
Yes, I said "illegal spying"... as it's apparent that the FBI used their counterintelligent apparatus... in lieu of opening up a criminal investigation (2 completely different operations).
Seems to me, the leakers are trying to set the narrative ahead of the big OIG report...
I'm no legal expert on the vagueries of that level of administrative law, but the article appears to have addressed that point.
Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.
“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what they did.”
The article is clearly spin in attempt to give plausible cover for those DOJ/FBI officials in previous administration for actively monitoring a political campaign of the opposition party at the time.
The FBI, opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any:
1) incriminating evidence, or
2) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage.
Whereas if they had actual evidence, they'd open up a real criminalinvestigation.
Despite your dislike of Trump... put yourself back in '16 just before the election... for the FBI to do that... it's harrowing. I mean, its one thing if they can produce incontroversial evidence to justify it... but, so far, it's been wanting.
The IG is about to release a massive report on all of this, and this article (with leaks from DOJ/FBI folks!) smacks of some serious spin.
I'm mean, in this article it basically said that the FBI had an informant. FLAT. OUT.
whembly wrote: No... he didn't call immigrants "animals"... he was talking about MS-13.
You fell for it man... hook, link, sinker...
I know exactly what he fething said, and it isn't clear exactly who Trump was referring to, because it's generally not very clear who or what Donald is talking about because the guy is fuzzy brained idiot.
Which actually works for him, because it allows people like yourself to interpret his comments to suit yourself. Which in turn leads to a stupid debate parsing Trump's exact comment, which means we're not debating things that actually matter. Thing like SARs reports on Cohen disappearing from a federal database, or Trump's financial disclosures being referred by the OGE to the FBI.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Then there is his talk about “breeding”, he knows what he’s doing.
I actually don't think the usual dogwhistle strategy fits what Trump is doing. Dog whistling is a cynical strategy to use certain phrasings that racists will hear but which slip by the rest of the public, or at least provide deniability.
Trump isn't trying to sneak anything in. There's no planning here. He simply is a racist. The irony is that it's worked nicely for him, because after decades of dog whistling, people saw the guy straight up saying racist stuff and saw it as refreshingly honest.
In a sense it kind of was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Wait a second, while I agree that Seb can get a bit left-biased at times...
Last night in the real world I got called a neo-liberal and 'an accountant just so fething obsessed with money' when I questioned a few things claimed by a friend of a friend. So you know, what I see as a set of pretty straight forward, pragmatic principles based on a pretty clear eyed point of view ends up being seen as left biased by some people, and right biased by other people, because that's just how it works.
he isn't saying Trump was commenting on all immigration; you're putting words in his mouth. All Seb was saying is 'here is further proof that Trump is bigoted, it happened during a meeting on immigration' which that statement certainly does regardless of the number of immigrants he is referring to. If anything you are the one twisting the circumstance to push a viewpoint here.
Thankyou. Seriously, I just wanted to give a single sentence summary of the event, and honestly you could write a book trying to interpret the exact subject matter of Trump's little rant. So I just gave the particular quote, and the event in which it took place.
And honestly the exact subject just doesn't matter. Unless whembly or nels1031 or someone else wants to argue that Trump uses language like animals as freely when discussing groups of white people, it's pretty fething clear what just happened.
Oh look. So when I told you that the FBI started their investigation because of Downer's evidence, and you claimed that it was because of the Steele dossier, then I was completely right and you were completely wrong. You need to start admitting how wildly you have been misled by Nunes and the rest of the liars.
As to your other accusation - it's trash and you should feel ridiculous for ever suggesting it. FBI counterintelligence was used in response to foreign agents working in a major political campaign, and the same foreign powers operating propaganda efforts to influence the election in favour of that candidate. There is nothing contraversial about investigating that, and it's plainly absurd you're trying to claim otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The article is clearly spin in attempt to give plausible cover for those DOJ/FBI officials in previous administration for actively monitoring a political campaign of the opposition party at the time.
The FBI, opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any: 1) incriminating evidence, or 2) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage.
They had a report from a trusted ally that a Trump campaign staff member was bragging about Russian support for the Trump campaign. But you claim there was no evidence.
Political commentators generally take very little interest in thinking through the implications and consequences of arrogance and condescension on the right. How often are Republicans told by centrist surveyors of the cultural scene that they might benefit politically from reaching out to enthusiastically pro-choice young women, that the fire-and-brimstone approach of calling supporters of Planned Parenthood pro-infanticide and symbols of the fall of man might be counterproductive? How much respect for ideological opponents is evinced whenever conservative pundits call the activists of Black Lives Matter thugs and black Democrats dupes? Is the average liberal or leftist in America today more clueless or judgmental about lifestyles different from their own than Republicans who spent years warning that gay marriage and the decriminalization of homosexuality would justify and enable bestiality? Is the average left activist on campus more hostile to dissenting opinions than Ben Shapiro was when he argued that Iraq war critics should be prosecuted for sedition?
EDIT: Heck, how many times have Conservatives painted a broad brush on people? Are we going to argue that calling liberals snowflakes caused Obama to win in 2008?
Frazzled wrote: That's why Trump won. The left calls literally everyone less left than them racist. It's just a given at this point.
Trump won because 62,984,828 people voted for him, and that was enough to give make enough swing states basically coin flips, and then Trump was lucky enough to win most of those coin flips.
Exactly why 62,984,828 people chose to vote for Trump will be a question asked for generations. There was certainly some element of people wanting to spite the left, you're right there. What you're wrong about is thinking that means the left is doing something wrong - all the fault there lies with the people who cast their votes based on petty cultural war nonsense.
Frazzled wrote: If you say so. Please identify a Republican that hasn't been called a racist.
Everyone, this is called seahorsing or sealioning. It's a debate technique where a person pretends to engage in a good faith discussion, and asks for evidence from the other side to substantiate their claim. Typically the thing they ask for evidence for has a lot of well known, readily available proof, that the seahorser could go and see if they were actually interested. When someone provides that evidence, the seahorser either ignores it, demands more evidence or switches to something else they can demand evidence for. The game is for the seahorser to keep demanding more and more work from the other side, without ever giving credit for that work or considering the evidence provided, until the other person gives up providing that evidence, at which point the seahorser claims victory.
Here Kanluwen stated Trump had made his racism clear from past conversations. Frazzled began the seahorsing, asking "As soon as you can find one, post it." Spinner came in and acting in good faith gave that evidence, mentioning Trump being taken to court for refusing to rent to black people, and Trump saying a judge was unable to rule on Trump's university suit because the judge is Mexican. At which point fraz shifted, first giving a dismissive reply 'if you say so', and then shifted to asking for evidence of something different, a list of Republicans who've never been called racist.
The really insidious thing about seahorsing is it doesn't take conscious effort at bad faith like most other bad faith techniques. I highly doubt frazzled decided to use a manipulative technique just to jerk around other posters. What it takes is just for someone to come wandering in with their mind already made up on an issue, and a lazy, kind of defeatist attitude that there's no point trying to lay out reason and evidence for one's own position, instead all you need to do in debate is just avoid admitting you're wrong long enough for the other person to get annoyed and leave, and that counts as winning.
whembly wrote: No... he didn't call immigrants "animals"... he was talking about MS-13.
You fell for it man... hook, link, sinker...
I know exactly what he fething said, and it isn't clear exactly who Trump was referring to, because it's generally not very clear who or what Donald is talking about because the guy is fuzzy brained idiot.
Which actually works for him, because it allows people like yourself to interpret his comments to suit yourself. Which in turn leads to a stupid debate parsing Trump's exact comment, which means we're not debating things that actually matter. Thing like SARs reports on Cohen disappearing from a federal database, or Trump's financial disclosures being referred by the OGE to the FBI.
It's very clear.
Unless, you think the AP is wrong in correcting their account?
The Associated Press
Verified account
@AP Follow Follow @AP More
AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s “animals” comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members.
Oh look. So when I told you that the FBI started their investigation because of Downer's evidence, and you claimed that it was because of the Steele dossier, then I was completely right and you were completely wrong. You need to start admitting how wildly you have been misled by Nunes and the rest of the liars.
Uh... we have congressional testimony where Comey/McCabe said the FISA warrant wouldn't have been granted without the dossier.
As for Downer... how about you stop taking things as gospel as much of that is in dispute. The story FBI/DOJ regarding this keeps fething changing.
As to your other accusation - it's trash and you should feel ridiculous for ever suggesting it. FBI counterintelligence was used in response to foreign agents working in a major political campaign, and the same foreign powers operating propaganda efforts to influence the election in favour of that candidate. There is nothing contraversial about investigating that, and it's plainly absurd you're trying to claim otherwise.
It's not an accusation... it's a goddamn fact that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign. That's what this NYT article is "easing" into the going narrative. Unless you think they're full of it... it is the NYT after all.
It's a BFD, because a criminal investigation involves the full might of the DOJ toolbox...namely subpoena/indictment power. But, they didn't have a strong enough rationale to trigger a criminal investigation... so, they chose a completely different method by invoking counterintelligence process, which is supposed to be used to surveil foreign entities, that were instead used on American targets.
So... please, with tears in my eyes, think about this for a bit - is that this is looking like an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation on an opposition political campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The article is clearly spin in attempt to give plausible cover for those DOJ/FBI officials in previous administration for actively monitoring a political campaign of the opposition party at the time.
The FBI, opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any:
1) incriminating evidence, or
2) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage.
They had a report from a trusted ally that a Trump campaign staff member was bragging about Russian support for the Trump campaign. But you claim there was no evidence.
Which means dick. It shouldn't even be no where near enough rationale to trigger a full scale counterintelligence investigation. The DOJ actually has department regulations mandating what to do in the event of possible monitoring of political figures. The bar *is* fething HIGH, which obviously were ignored.
And a drunken low-level staffer trying to impress your ambassador shouldn't even merit a radar ping.
Frazzled wrote: That's why Trump won. The left calls literally everyone less left than them racist. It's just a given at this point.
Trump won because 62,984,828 people voted for him, and that was enough to give make enough swing states basically coin flips, and then Trump was lucky enough to win most of those coin flips.
Exactly why 62,984,828 people chose to vote for Trump will be a question asked for generations. There was certainly some element of people wanting to spite the left, you're right there. What you're wrong about is thinking that means the left is doing something wrong - all the fault there lies with the people who cast their votes based on petty cultural war nonsense.
Okay... that doesn't compute man. Some of *the* reasons why people held their noses and pulled the lever for Trump was:
1) Judges. Mainly because of the leftward pull that Democrats & Obama done during the last administration.
2) The blue state vs. red state divide is a thing (and more granularly, the City v. Rural divide).
3) The Media... non-political junkies tune out most of this stuff, but they recognize the dishonesty that much of the media does... hence why the #FakeNews mantra Trump spews out resonates.
Frazzled wrote: If you say so. Please identify a Republican that hasn't been called a racist.
Everyone, this is called seahorsing or sealioning. It's a debate technique where a person pretends to engage in a good faith discussion, and asks for evidence from the other side to substantiate their claim. Typically the thing they ask for evidence for has a lot of well known, readily available proof, that the seahorser could go and see if they were actually interested. When someone provides that evidence, the seahorser either ignores it, demands more evidence or switches to something else they can demand evidence for. The game is for the seahorser to keep demanding more and more work from the other side, without ever giving credit for that work or considering the evidence provided, until the other person gives up providing that evidence, at which point the seahorser claims victory.
Here Kanluwen stated Trump had made his racism clear from past conversations. Frazzled began the seahorsing, asking "As soon as you can find one, post it." Spinner came in and acting in good faith gave that evidence, mentioning Trump being taken to court for refusing to rent to black people, and Trump saying a judge was unable to rule on Trump's university suit because the judge is Mexican. At which point fraz shifted, first giving a dismissive reply 'if you say so', and then shifted to asking for evidence of something different, a list of Republicans who've never been called racist.
The really insidious thing about seahorsing is it doesn't take conscious effort at bad faith like most other bad faith techniques. I highly doubt frazzled decided to use a manipulative technique just to jerk around other posters. What it takes is just for someone to come wandering in with their mind already made up on an issue, and a lazy, kind of defeatist attitude that there's no point trying to lay out reason and evidence for one's own position, instead all you need to do in debate is just avoid admitting you're wrong long enough for the other person to get annoyed and leave, and that counts as winning.
Huh, I didn't know that technique had a term. I'll add it to the surprisingly long list of surprisingly useful things I have learned in Dakka OT.
Unless, you think the AP is wrong in correcting their account?
You're missed what happened there. Again.
That Trump made his comment after MS-13 was raised, that's important context and so any report that goes in to detail of the conversation should include that part. This doesn't mean it is provably about MS-13, because seen in its full context Trump could have been referring to MS-13, to all deportees or even to all illegal aliens. So AP messed up in not giving that context and allowing the reader to make their own call, but that doesn't mean it is proof it was absolutely about MS-13 alone.
Uh... we have congressional testimony where Comey/McCabe said the FISA warrant wouldn't have been granted without the dossier.
Nunes claims that's what McCabe stated in his testimony. McCabe rejects that, saying he said no such thing and that the dossier was one of many important pieces of intel used to get the FISA warrant.
Of course, you believe serial liar Nunes, and present that claim from Nunes without even noting it is rejected by the person who supposedly said it. Because of course you do. It's how you roll.
The story FBI/DOJ regarding this keeps fething changing.
The right wing bs story keeps changing, as they have to keep making up new interpretations while the old versions are repeatedly proven false by new intel.
The actual set of events understood by sensible people working on a basic assumption that the FBI is a secretive evil cabal plotting to destroy Trump has been perfectly clear for some time now. Because there's real power in starting from a base assumption that isn't bonkers crazy.
It's not an accusation... it's a goddamn fact that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.
That's a manipulative, dishonest summary. The investigation was started by the FBI, without the knowledge of the DOJ or anyone connected to Obama.
Shame on you for spreading such nonsense.
Which means dick. It shouldn't even be no where near enough rationale to trigger a full scale counterintelligence investigation.
It didn't trigger a full scale operation. At that point it was five people, working as quietly as possible. The expansion happened as further evidence was found.
"Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said at the hearing.
Falling rocks, FFS. This is what happens when you have a party whose guiding principle in appointments seems to be having everything run by people with the greatest contempt for their job and complete ignorance of everything they deal with.
I think that one beats the snowball, honestly. They have at least admitted that sea level rise exists, and used an explanation based off an effect that does happen. Still pitiful that such mind-bending stupidity is an improvement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: *corrects blatant lies for the 40,000th time*
You should get a public service award at this point.
Hey, if you guys want you can request annexation by the Dominion of Canada. Trudeau might be a bit of a clown, but I imaigne its better than what you have now.
Think about it.
But seriously, blaming the ocean rising on erosion? What.
"Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said at the hearing.
Falling rocks, FFS. This is what happens when you have a party whose guiding principle in appointments seems to be having everything run by people with the greatest contempt for their job and complete ignorance of everything they deal with.
So the solution is simple, for every rock dropped in you take a bucket of water out. Boom, Republicans just fixed rising sea levels, genius isn't it
Manafort's son in law Jeffrey Yohai has flipped and taken a deal from Mueller's team. Yohai was charged with the banking offenses that peripheral guys always get charged with. When you add this to Rick Gates already having flipped, the case against Manafort starts looking pretty imposing.
The human drama in the background of this is one reason Manafort was scrambling for money in 2016 and 2017 was Yohai made horrific mess of a real estate deal, and ended up being sued by Dustin Hoffman, among others. Now a year later, Yohai is divorced from Manafort's daughter, and now cut off from Manafort's money Yohai had his public defender cut a deal with Mueller. Must be pretty weird around the Manafort dinner table these days.
You'll all be pleased to know that I'm continuing my quest to understand the future by looking at the past.
Looking at the writings of Alexander Hamilton, one of the reasons why he wanted the electoral college was to stop a demagogue from seizing power. Mob rule as it were.
Mr Hamilton, if you're looking down on us from heaven, something went horribly wrong, because the demagogue only won because of your electoral college
The lesser of two evils won the popular vote but lost the election.
As somebody said earlier, I don't think the founders predicted such a weak and feeble party controlling all the levers of government.
I think they had this naïve belief that people would take the business of government very seriously...
Frazzled wrote: That's why Trump won. The left calls literally everyone less left than them racist. It's just a given at this point.
Trump won because 62,984,828 people voted for him, and that was enough to give make enough swing states basically coin flips, and then Trump was lucky enough to win most of those coin flips.
Exactly why 62,984,828 people chose to vote for Trump will be a question asked for generations. There was certainly some element of people wanting to spite the left, you're right there. What you're wrong about is thinking that means the left is doing something wrong - all the fault there lies with the people who cast their votes based on petty cultural war nonsense.
There are millions of Americans still alive who voted for Richard Nixon, and we'll never know why they cast a vote for Tricky Dicky.
We've no chance of finding the reasons for people voting for Trump.
If I were American back in 2016, I wouldn't have voted at all - the candidates were awful.
The biggest change that is currently possible would be to set term limits for congress. We already have them for the POTUS. The original idea that the founding fathers had is that you would come, do your duty to the country, and then go back to what you were doing before. Our modern congress critters have no such controls, and some of them have been in office longer than I have been alive. Congress should be in office for 12 years max. That's 2 terms as a senator, or 6 as a congressman, or a mix of the two. This way we don't have the same people doing the same things for an entire generation. That's part of how we got to this current situation with our government and the election.
Nixon was a pretty competent and effective politician. That's why people voted for him.
After his unfortunate brush with the law, which no-one knew about until it was exposed, he was never in another election. Thus, we can't say people voted for him knowing he was a crook.
The strong contrast with Trump is that obvious. Trump's venality, grifting, stupidity, and general awfulness has been plain for years except to people who deliberately turned a blind eye.
Looking at the writings of Alexander Hamilton, one of the reasons why he wanted the electoral college was to stop a demagogue from seizing power. Mob rule as it were.
It's important to note that the Electoral College has in practice never functioned in the manner intended.
The College was supposed to be made of independent electors who could veto the popular vote if they thought the popular vote was brain dead stupid, but almost from day its been an unwritten rule that as the popular vote goes so do the electors and some states have made it law. Only once in US history have electors ever voted against the popular winner and that was back in the Antebellum years when the electors for Virginia decided that a slave owner openly flaunting his black mistress wasn't classy enough for the office of Vice President.
In fairness, it's really kind of an idiotic idea, and super elitist. Pretty much everyone realized it was a stupid idea from day one, but the college makes national elections easier to game so we keep it around. Showcases that all out bluster about the founder's having a great vision for a nation of equals is kind of post-Founding hogwash. The Founders were a bunch of rich white guys who wanted to ensure that even if all else failed rich white guys would always be okay.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: The biggest change that is currently possible would be to set term limits for congress. We already have them for the POTUS. The original idea that the founding fathers had is that you would come, do your duty to the country, and then go back to what you were doing before. Our modern congress critters have no such controls, and some of them have been in office longer than I have been alive. Congress should be in office for 12 years max. That's 2 terms as a senator, or 6 as a congressman, or a mix of the two. This way we don't have the same people doing the same things for an entire generation. That's part of how we got to this current situation with our government and the election.
A good idea
But sadly, will never happen. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas as the saying goes.
America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
That famous historical quote should never be forgotten
Sometimes it takes an outsider to come in and say this is gak, get it fixed.
Looking at the writings of Alexander Hamilton, one of the reasons why he wanted the electoral college was to stop a demagogue from seizing power. Mob rule as it were.
It's important to note that the Electoral College has in practice never functioned in the manner intended.
The College was supposed to be made of independent electors who could veto the popular vote if they thought the popular vote was brain dead stupid, but almost from day its been an unwritten rule that as the popular vote goes so do the electors and some states have made it law. Only once in US history have electors ever voted against the popular winner and that was back in the Antebellum years when the electors for Virginia decided that a slave owner openly flaunting his black mistress wasn't classy enough for the office of Vice President.
In fairness, it's really kind of an idiotic idea, and super elitist. Pretty much everyone realized it was a stupid idea from day one, but the college makes national elections easier to game so we keep it around. Showcases that all out bluster about the founder's having a great vision for a nation of equals is kind of post-Founding hogwash. The Founders were a bunch of rich white guys who wanted to ensure that even if all else failed rich white guys would always be okay.
Now that part of the plan worked splendidly
Eh? John Adams barely had two pennies to rub together. Hancock never had more than the clothes on his back, him being a poor farmer and all.
Tom Paine came to the USA with no more than a crust of bread in his pocket.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: The biggest change that is currently possible would be to set term limits for congress. We already have them for the POTUS. The original idea that the founding fathers had is that you would come, do your duty to the country, and then go back to what you were doing before. Our modern congress critters have no such controls, and some of them have been in office longer than I have been alive. Congress should be in office for 12 years max. That's 2 terms as a senator, or 6 as a congressman, or a mix of the two. This way we don't have the same people doing the same things for an entire generation. That's part of how we got to this current situation with our government and the election.
This is really a double-edged sword. Term limits prevent bad incumbents from sticking around, but they also prevent good incumbents from staying and accumulating the experience necessary to run the government effectively. And they likely increase the level of campaigning far beyond even the absurd point that it's at now. If you take away the ability to relax a bit and enjoy the incumbent advantage you increase the proportion of time where a new representative is forced to campaign as hard as possible and reduce the attention they can spend on their actual duties. Finally you have to face the question of where these people are going to go if they can't be full-time career politicians. And the likely answer is right into the industries whose lobbyists have the strongest ties to them, encouraging corruption even more than the lobbying and campaign system already does.
Now, perhaps term limits are still a good idea, but it's important to recognize the fact that they are not a purely good thing.
Eh? John Adams barely had two pennies to rub together. Hancock never had more than the clothes on his back, him being a poor farmer and all.
Tom Paine came to the USA with no more than a crust of bread in his pocket.
They weren't all as rich as Jefferson
Yet none of the men you list actually ended up running the country in any meaningful way except for the rich one and Adams. It's notable that Adams was wildly unpopular even with his Presidential wins which were mostly grudge victories he got by not being other people. He also was in fact quite well off. He didn't own a plantation or anything, but even in the 18th century being a lawyer paid well. In fact he ranks middle of the pack in terms of adjusted net worth for US Presidents (the comparatively poorest US president for those interested was Harry Truman).
Hancock never held office under the Constitution (only the Articles of Confederation) and was mostly irrelevant by the time the Constitution was being worked on. While the signers of the Declaration of Independence were indeed from of diverse background, they were a very different group of men compared to the one that actually ended up running things in a meaningful way. The overwhelming majority of the founders, even before accounting for that, were rich white guys like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Rutledge, Blair, Shippen, Jay, Brown so on and so forth. And it's the rich ones who actually ended up running things for the most part.
Frazzled wrote: That's why Trump won. The left calls literally everyone less left than them racist. It's just a given at this point.
Trump won because 62,984,828 people voted for him, and that was enough to give make enough swing states basically coin flips, and then Trump was lucky enough to win most of those coin flips.
Exactly why 62,984,828 people chose to vote for Trump will be a question asked for generations. There was certainly some element of people wanting to spite the left, you're right there. What you're wrong about is thinking that means the left is doing something wrong - all the fault there lies with the people who cast their votes based on petty cultural war nonsense.
I will re-post this link as it was an interesting interview with some folks who tried to dig in and answer that question on a person by person basis, especially people that voted for Obama twice and then flipped to Trump.
I am not a fan of the technique they used, as it draws more from the Journalist side than the Quant side, but it did lead to some interesting discussion and a better perspective on Trump voters. The problem with just using interviews as the basis of yoru analysis is that.... welll... people are really, really good at self-delusion and rationalization. We all wear masks, and many times you simply can not take what some one says at face value without digging in much deeper with a lot of follow-up questions.
To be honest, the people I'm more annoyed at isn't the true Trump believers or even those who voted Republican in 2016.
No, I'm more annoyed at all those people who supported the actions of the Republican party but then didn't vote for Trump and seem to think that absolves them of blame for Trump. Trump is the inevitable endgame of the politics that they supported. He is the inevitable outcome of a party pushing facts aside.
You couldn't have got to Trump without the anti-reality stances of the Republican party on issues such as climate change, economics, etc. pushing the party into the position where it cannot use facts or legitimate research anymore as nobody worth their salt in an academic field can support their arguments as the evidence shows they don't work.
The Republican party adopting positions in stark contrast to the evidence, and their membership and voters willingly going along with it rather than calling them out on it are the cause of Trump. That primed people to be willing to eat up Trumps bs as it was only a step from the bs the Republican party had been pushing for years.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: The biggest change that is currently possible would be to set term limits for congress. We already have them for the POTUS. The original idea that the founding fathers had is that you would come, do your duty to the country, and then go back to what you were doing before. Our modern congress critters have no such controls, and some of them have been in office longer than I have been alive. Congress should be in office for 12 years max. That's 2 terms as a senator, or 6 as a congressman, or a mix of the two. This way we don't have the same people doing the same things for an entire generation. That's part of how we got to this current situation with our government and the election.
This is really a double-edged sword. Term limits prevent bad incumbents from sticking around, but they also prevent good incumbents from staying and accumulating the experience necessary to run the government effectively. And they likely increase the level of campaigning far beyond even the absurd point that it's at now. If you take away the ability to relax a bit and enjoy the incumbent advantage you increase the proportion of time where a new representative is forced to campaign as hard as possible and reduce the attention they can spend on their actual duties. Finally you have to face the question of where these people are going to go if they can't be full-time career politicians. And the likely answer is right into the industries whose lobbyists have the strongest ties to them, encouraging corruption even more than the lobbying and campaign system already does.
Now, perhaps term limits are still a good idea, but it's important to recognize the fact that they are not a purely good thing.
I think all of the negatives you allege aren’t bad at all. If a candidate lacks the experience and/or knowledge to do the job they’re running for then they’re a bad candidate. Voting for somebody so they can hopefully gain enough experience to eventually do their job well sometime in the future sounds like a horrible reason to keep electing somebody to me. Most of us get a 90 day probationary period to demonstrate our ability to perform our job well enough to keep it, Congress isn’t such a difficult job that it requires multiple 2 year terms to figure it out. There shouldn’t be a seniority system in Congress to be abused by incumbents in gerrymandered districts. Instead of usin merit or subject matter knowledge to determine congressional leadership positions we just give them to whomever has managed to stick around for a few decades and then those representatives use those positions as leverage to keep running for more terms creating de facto life long terms for representatives that only get older and more insulated and out of touch with their constituencies every year while amassing disgustingly large personal fortunes.
How do term limits increase time spent campaigning? Incumbents like Nancy Pelosi have been in office for decades. How would limiting her to 6 terms make her campaign more than she has in running for 16 terms? Term limits would require that Congress actually work to solve problems within the time they had instead of constantly kicking problems down the road and running on the same unresolved issues over and over again. Politicians would either work to enact solutions or ignore problems and be forgotten once their terms are over.
We already see more former congress members becoming lobbyists now then ever before and the deliberately vague anti lobbyist laws are exploited and the loopholes are obvious and egregious https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/tom-daschle-officially-lobbyist-221334 Voting for incumbents just to keep them in office to prevent them from becoming lobbyists sounds like a crazy idea to me. Why don’t we just demand that Congress fix the lobbyist laws instead?
It does seem as though modern day USA is doomed to have a gun massacre every few months, so the issue will rarely be out of the news.
The political aspect of the Sante Fe mass shooting is that it will inject more fire into the bellies of the student protests against guns. I think demographically the situation is moving away from the hardline NRA position.
With the House, the issue for me is less about the term limit and more about the term length. Out of a 22 months between being sworn in and the next election, at least 12 months are spend campaigning for your next term rather than focusing on the current term.
With elections in general, there is something to be said about the “couple months of campaign and you’re done” model.
Kilkrazy wrote: It does seem as though modern day USA is doomed to have a gun massacre every few months, so the issue will rarely be out of the news.
The political aspect of the Sante Fe mass shooting is that it will inject more fire into the bellies of the student protests against guns. I think demographically the situation is moving away from the hardline NRA position.
Indeed, and I think the NRA itself is acting as the catalyst for that, theyre doubling down on *really* stupid sound bytes filled with classic partisan dogwhistles in ads and features that are Goebbellian in nature that turn off most people under 60, and largely failed to deliver anything on a Federal level to the gun rights expansion people even when a perfect vehicle presented itself (such as the WH petition on repealing the NFA getting six digits worth of signatures before Trump shut the page down), and just broadly pushing a very partisan political message instead of attempting to expand and incorporate younger groups and different ethnic and social demographics.
Basically theyre acting like an attack wing of the Republican party and not a civil rights and education organization.
That was already the reality before this decision. Again, what did the US actually achieve with this besides shifting some staff from Tel Aviv and pissing off everybody?
)
