I don't recall Obama getting approval for those "low-level" excursion in the ME...
He, and many others, argued that he had the authority under the initial Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists that followed 9/11 because ISIS was just a follow up of those same groups.
Congress critters, and many others, argued that he didn't have the authority under that authorization, but even though they bitched about it they neither wanted to pull support from active military operations, nor did they want to do explicitly authorize that force.
Congress, to this day, has every ability and every right to either pass an authorization or force Obama/Trump/Whoever to withdraw US troops. But it's easier for them to complain about the executive branch doing executive things than to actually make a decision about anything and then be responsible for the outcomes caused by that decision.
Hard hitting questions for Zuckerberg. Hatch actually asked him how Facebook sustains its business model if users don't have to pay for the service. 5 seconds of googling or asking the intern too much work?
So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?
Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?
EDIT: well to be honest...the crimes Cohen is reportedly being investigated for are bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He provided the probable cause for that out of his own damn mouth in public...such that, he wouldn't shut up.
Pony up credible evidence of wrongdoing between Coie and Clinton in front of a judge and we'll see what can be done.
Just Tony wrote: So am I to assume that everyone would be completely opposed to privatizing all teaching jobs? Because we're fresh out of realistic options at this point. State governments don't want to pay teachers a fair wage, from what I see, and if we're going to pay for our children's education anyway, might as well skip that unnecessary government step.
Sure. How do you guarantee EVERY child can still go to school afterwards, even kids whose parents barely make enough money to buy food and can't possibly afford tens of thousands of dollars for tuition at a for-profit school?
So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?
Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?
EDIT: well to be honest...the crimes Cohen is reportedly being investigated for are bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He provided the probable cause for that out of his own damn mouth in public...such that, he wouldn't shut up.
Pony up credible evidence of wrongdoing between Coie and Clinton in front of a judge and we'll see what can be done.
Uh... it's common knowledge that the DNC & HRC campaign used Perkins Coie as a go-between to fund the Steele Dossier...
Just Tony wrote: So am I to assume that everyone would be completely opposed to privatizing all teaching jobs? Because we're fresh out of realistic options at this point.
Are we? Cutting military spending by 25% and closing the myriad tax loopholes exploited by corporations would outpace the money saved by slashing public sector wages by a pretty massive amount.
I'm not against the notion that some public sector figures are overpaid, I just don't care because the amount of money we're wasting by overpaying those people is peanuts compared to the money we're lining the pockets of Lockheed Martin et all with.
I don't recall Obama getting approval for those "low-level" excursion in the ME...
He, and many others, argued that he had the authority under the initial Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists that followed 9/11 because ISIS was just a follow up of those same groups.
Congress critters, and many others, argued that he didn't have the authority under that authorization, but even though they bitched about it they neither wanted to pull support from active military operations, nor did they want to do explicitly authorize that force.
Congress, to this day, has every ability and every right to either pass an authorization or force Obama/Trump/Whoever to withdraw US troops. But it's easier for them to complain about the executive branch doing executive things than to actually make a decision about anything and then be responsible for the outcomes caused by that decision.
You are absolutely correct and it's a total abdication of Congress in this regard.
I know the President has a LOT of leeway to engage in armed conflict due to past precedents that totally the fault of Congress. I just wished they'd sack up and recoup their Declaration of War powah...
Disciple of Fate wrote: Hard hitting questions for Zuckerberg. Hatch actually asked him how Facebook sustains its business model if users don't have to pay for the service. 5 seconds of googling or asking the intern too much work?
It could be a formality thing just to get it on the record.
I don't think that's right... President's Pardon power is plenary in federal jurisdiction. I don't think that applies to the states. (I did quick google to confirm... but couldn't find anything supporting my point. Do you have a resource that states presidents can pardon state conviction? Or maybe I'm getting criminal stuff mixed up with civil stuff... )
The pardon extends to crimes recognized under federal law. This means that anything that's also a Federal crime, not something unique to the state, can be pardoned, even if tried in a state court.
So the trick would be to charge them under something unique to New York rather than something mirrored in Federal law, like many election law are.
So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?
Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?
EDIT: well to be honest...the crimes Cohen is reportedly being investigated for are bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He provided the probable cause for that out of his own damn mouth in public...such that, he wouldn't shut up.
Pony up credible evidence of wrongdoing between Coie and Clinton in front of a judge and we'll see what can be done.
Uh... it's common knowledge that the DNC & HRC campaign used Perkins Coie as a go-between to fund the Steele Dossier...
Common knowledge amounts to nothing more than hearsay in court, even if it is true. You need actual PROOF for a warrant.
I don't think that's right... President's Pardon power is plenary in federal jurisdiction. I don't think that applies to the states. (I did quick google to confirm... but couldn't find anything supporting my point. Do you have a resource that states presidents can pardon state conviction? Or maybe I'm getting criminal stuff mixed up with civil stuff... )
The pardon extends to crimes recognized under federal law. This means that anything that's also a Federal crime, not something unique to the state, can be pardoned, even if tried in a state court.
So the trick would be to charge them under something unique to New York rather than something mirrored in Federal law, like many election law are.
Ouze wrote: If Trump gets impeached I can't see any way possible Pence remains a viable candidate. I think he's irrevocably tainted by association.
Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...
Well, he lost, so....
Doesn't really answer my question...
I'm generally curious... He lost Florida by 537 votes.
Had Clinton never been impeached, I wonder if we would have a Gore Presidency...
It's quite possible. After all, that would only require 0.000176% of the participating voters who didn't vote for Gore to change their minds and vote for him, or a similarly tiny percentage of eligible voters who didn't vote at all to show up and vote for him. It's not hard to believe that there were 537 people out of the 16 million in Florida who decided not to vote for Gore over the Clinton impeachment.
So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?
Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?
EDIT: well to be honest...the crimes Cohen is reportedly being investigated for are bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He provided the probable cause for that out of his own damn mouth in public...such that, he wouldn't shut up.
Pony up credible evidence of wrongdoing between Coie and Clinton in front of a judge and we'll see what can be done.
Uh... it's common knowledge that the DNC & HRC campaign used Perkins Coie as a go-between to fund the Steele Dossier...
Common knowledge amounts to nothing more than hearsay in court, even if it is true. You need actual PROOF for a warrant.
This ^ Not to mention the level of proof required is extraordinarily high, it'll be interesting to see what the FBI had (note, it was the FBI not Mueller's investigation that did the search, even if it was on a tip from Mueller) that was convinced a judge.
And on another note, it means whatever they grabbed is now in the FBI's investigation not just Mueller's, so even if Mueller gets fired (and Congress chickens out of impeachment) there's now evidence of whatever crime Cohen committed, and any links that stem from that will be investigated.
This post was extremely confusing to me, because Ben Wyatt is the name of the current treasurer of Western Australia, a guy who's job is to manage the state budget. For a second I was completely blown away by both your memory that I work for the WA state government, and your research in looking up who the treasurer was.
Then I remembered the name of the character in Parks & Recreation
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: I'm guessing the issue is the same the world over though with that. It will cost money to save money. You have to spend money right now to save 10 times the amount in future, but you can't get that starting money now, and no one wants to pay it in the public sector.
To an extent, some process improvement involves large up front investment in computer systems*. But a lot of process improvement is literally just cutting the resources and telling the manager to figure it out. "We've reviewed and think you only need 1.5 FTE in transactions, so the second 0.5 FTE is being taken to fill an existing gap somewhere else in the organisation. You'll figure out how to cope."
*Probably more than anything else, that's the area where government really sucks. Does anyone know of a single instance where a government rolled out a new IT system that would save money and improve the service, and it just worked?
Just Tony wrote: So am I to assume that everyone would be completely opposed to privatizing all teaching jobs? Because we're fresh out of realistic options at this point. State governments don't want to pay teachers a fair wage, from what I see, and if we're going to pay for our children's education anyway, might as well skip that unnecessary government step.
Sure. How do you guarantee EVERY child can still go to school afterwards, even kids whose parents barely make enough money to buy food and can't possibly afford tens of thousands of dollars for tuition at a for-profit school?
You do realize that children in low income communities both urban and rural are already languishing in underperforming public schools failing to achieve an adequate education with no hope for a better outcome because their parents are too poor to send them to a better school, right? It’s not like the current system of a centuries old outmoded process designed to churn out minimally qualified factory labor for the industrial revolution without interfering with planting/harvesting farming schedules is ensuring that every student is meeting or exceeding federal and state mandated grade level standards and test scores. We shouldn’t be so heavily invested in the stays quo when it’s been leaving the poor kids behind and stuck in the same vicious cycle for decades.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its Carlson digging deep. Fox News learned that Daniels found out about Cohen's fetish for pandas. Now obviously Trump couldn't let his good friend get blackmailed, who knows what he might say? So generous as he is, he allowed Cohen to pay off Daniels to keep quiet about the pandas (who may or may not have been FBI plants by Obama in the first place). I'm still missing Clinton, but its almost going full circle
Clinton carried the Soros money to the pandas, to convince the pandas to be part of it.
KTG17 wrote: Honestly I don't even know the proper place to post this but here we go.
Trump bombed Russia's ally in a country where Russia is directly supporting their ally.
The US military obliterated a group of Russian 'mercenaries', much like the ones fighting around Donetsk airport back in the day.
I can't for the life of me, remember a time when any of this would have been considered. We are really living in different times.
The US and Soviet Union had a healthy respect for one another, despite all the games they played. I don't think that is going to be the case with the US and Russia in the foreseeable future. I think things are going to go gradually downhill.
increasingly, as Seb put it in the Russia poisoning thread, I am suspecting we may be dealing with people on all sides who just arent actually very good at their jobs.
The current US administration is its own form of circus, while the Kremlin stages its own display, and a lot of actors are on relatively long leashes and blunder into stupid mistakes because theyre not coordinating through centralized channels and are led by people who are far more into politics and causes than being professional at what they do.
Properly coordinated professional forces dont blunder into well supported entrenched and prepared positions held by a global superpower.
I definitely think that that Wagner mercenaries getting blasted was just a Russian screw up. The Wagner Group is, more or less, part of the Russian war machine. They're fully equipped with armor, and were a big part of the force that invaded Ukraine. (Along with soldiers who were "on vacation," according to Putin.) Russia uses them so they can have thinly veiled plausible deniability for whatever they do. They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up."
Russia said "We don't know them. We have no idea what's going on. Go head."
The theory running around that makes most sense to me is that Russia had no idea Americans were embedded with the Kurds at this position and gave the orders to hit them. When we contacted them to tell them they were about to get lit up, Russia had to let the attack carry on and disown the guys as doing otherwise would unquestionably establish that they are actually pulling the strings with Wagner. There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.
Soviets and Americans have been killing each other by proxy since 1945.
Prestor Jon wrote: They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.
This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. I can't believe Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush, or Obama would have green lit this. I am not even sure Reagan would have. Someone would have called the ambassador, or called Moscow directly.
I
Under Nixon, US went to defcon 2 and threatened full nuke fun to stop the Soviets in the Israeli 1973 war.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm still wondering what genius at Fox News decided that it was worth paying Tucker Carlson a salary after he flamed out on CNN when John Stewart went on his show and humiliated him so bad on national evening television it got Carlson's show cancelled. That segment alone should have been enough to kill any job prospects.
Dismal failure in conventional circles doesn't just not hurt trying for a job in conservative circles, it's a job requirement. The primary thing is to never, ever swerve from the message, no matter how ridiculous it gets. Guys who have respect in mainstream credibility are likely to have independent thoughts, and worse than that they might feel the need to express those independent thoughts, and have the power to do so knowing there's another audience for them out there away from the conservative bubble.
But guys who've failed dismally out in the real world can be trusted to stick to the conservative message no matter how crazy it gets. Tucker knows all this, so the day the President's personal lawyer, a man who is also the deputy chair of the Republican National Finance Committee is raided by the FBI, Tucker will sit there and talk about panda sex.
nobody wrote: Obama did make smaller venue stops, but I was more referring to skipping campaign stops in those states (number of Wisconsin stops after the primary? 0).
Nate Silver said, admittedly somewhat harshly, that criticism of Clinton for not visiting Wisconsin is a way of sorting people who understand the election from people who don't. Because with the way the electoral college fell, Wisconsin is a small state that fell on the blue side of Michigan and Pennsylvania - if Clinton doesn't win Mi and Pa she loses no matter what happens in Wi, if she wins those states Wi doesn't matter either way.
Also, Clinton visited Pa and Mi a lot, and her result there was actually worse than Wi, relative to 2012. The problem wasn't the states Clinton targeted, the problem was her visits to the states weren't winning any votes.
[quote[And no, Republicans are very happy with blocking funds for their own voters while relying on othering, bibles, and guns to keep them in check. Paul Ryan got a reputation as a granny starver for a reason.
Sort of. In a broad, abstract sense Republicans love the idea of tighter budgets. But when it comes to the actual details of spending on individual programs then Republicans, at least at the federal level, spend like drunken sailors. Did you see the recent spending omnibus? End of the day each Republican made sure the special interest elements important to his state got more money, and the result was a significant increase in spending.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: The problem for the GOP is that there are large elements of the base that have formed a bonafide cult of personality around Trump. I forget which GOP Congressman said it, but he described how it's gotten 'tribal'. That when you show up for an event, they don't even care much about issues. The only thing they want to know is whether you support Trump or not. And the GOP can't afford to have parts of their base sit out elections, at least not at a national level and not at many state levels.
Yep. The problem for Republicans is that while Trump has a negative popularity rating, he's a lot more popular than any other Republican or any policy the party has. Going against Trump is electoral suicide - ask Jeff Flake or any other never-Trumper who ended up looking at their numbers in the next election and calling it a day. Going against Trump means his base will probably primary you, and if they don't they'll sit out the election and doom your chances.
There's no cynical manipulation being planned by the GOP. They're just stuck in a really place, and trying to figure out how to either survive Trump or survive getting rid of him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: If Trump gets impeached I can't see any way possible Pence remains a viable candidate. I think he's irrevocably tainted by association.
Yep, if we see evidence so strong that Trump is forced to resign or is impeached, it's basically impossible to see Pence survive. You can't get through a general election being asked endlessly what you knew and when you knew it.
Ford survived, because he wasn't VP when Nixon committed his crimes. Agnew was VP then, but he had been forced to resign over his own, entirely seperate scandal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: She did in fact say during the deposition that she can't be sure Greitens did the very thing he's being indicted for, and in fact may have only "dreamed" it.
But that's where you're wildly misrepresenting her statement. She said she saw the flash through the blindfold, and received the threat. She's not said anything to bring those elements in to doubt. Pretending that's been questioned is lying.
What she's said she is unclear about is whether she saw the phone afterwards. Maybe she did, maybe she mistakenly remembered that part after the fact. Big deal.
Dial back the sanctimony seb... jeez, it's reaction like this that gets this thread locked down.
gak posting got the thread locked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...
Bill Clinton wasn't tainted, his popularity only grew. But it hurt Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Politics is weird.
The more relevant question is Ford. Because in that case it became clear to everyone at the time that Nixon had committed crimes, and Ford pardoned Nixon of those crimes. That act killed Ford's popularity. What would Pence do? Pardon Trump, or try and rally Trump voters to his cause while Trump is being prosecuted. Both choices make election impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Soviets and Americans have been killing each other by proxy since 1945.
Before then. It's basically wiped from US memory but the US sent troops in to Russia to fight during the Russian Civil war. About 400 US soldiers died.
As the House prepares to vote this week on a largely symbolic balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, its own budget watchdog delivered a stark reality check Monday that forecasts the return of $1 trillion-plus annual deficits and a ballooning public debt that will approach $29 trillion by the end of the next decade.
"If current laws governing taxes and spending generally remained unchanged, the federal budget deficit would grow substantially over the next few years," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in its 10-year budget forecast, "with accumulating deficits driving debt held by the public to nearly 100 percent of GDP by 2028."
As the House prepares to vote this week on a largely symbolic balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, its own budget watchdog delivered a stark reality check Monday that forecasts the return of $1 trillion-plus annual deficits and a ballooning public debt that will approach $29 trillion by the end of the next decade.
"If current laws governing taxes and spending generally remained unchanged, the federal budget deficit would grow substantially over the next few years," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in its 10-year budget forecast, "with accumulating deficits driving debt held by the public to nearly 100 percent of GDP by 2028."
Hang on, what? I could not have seen this coming. You mean the Republican tax cut that was meant to pay for itself didn't end up suddenly spurring so much new growth that it paid for itself? I mean sure, a Republican president promised the same thing in 1981 and it didn't work. And then promised the same thing in 1986 and it didn't work. Then a different Republican president promised the same thing in 2001 and it didn't work, then promised the same thing again in 2003 and it didn't work.
And now it turns out that doing the exact same thing in 2017 didn't work this time either. What could be happening? What theory could possibly explain how cutting taxes actually reduces revenue?
I don't think that's right... President's Pardon power is plenary in federal jurisdiction. I don't think that applies to the states. (I did quick google to confirm... but couldn't find anything supporting my point. Do you have a resource that states presidents can pardon state conviction? Or maybe I'm getting criminal stuff mixed up with civil stuff... )
The pardon extends to crimes recognized under federal law. This means that anything that's also a Federal crime, not something unique to the state, can be pardoned, even if tried in a state court.
So the trick would be to charge them under something unique to New York rather than something mirrored in Federal law, like many election law are.
Ouze wrote: Because it doesn't matter at all in any way. He's not on trial, first off, and comments to congress means absolutely nothing.
You want to know what the consequences of this will be? Here you go.
People are acting shocked that Facebook collected user details and sold them to third parties to exploit for marketing, when collecting the details of users and selling them to third parties to exploit for marketing is Facebook's entire business model.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Hard hitting questions for Zuckerberg. Hatch actually asked him how Facebook sustains its business model if users don't have to pay for the service. 5 seconds of googling or asking the intern too much work?
It could be a formality thing just to get it on the record.
If that was the case why didn't they ask him in 2010
Ouze wrote: Because it doesn't matter at all in any way. He's not on trial, first off, and comments to congress means absolutely nothing.
You want to know what the consequences of this will be? Here you go.
People are acting shocked that Facebook collected user details and sold them to third parties to exploit for marketing, when collecting the details of users and selling them to third parties to exploit for marketing is Facebook's entire business model.
Yeah, what is more problematic is what FB collects outside of FB, like call history on phones with the app unrelated to FB and what sites you visit just because they might have an visible or invisible link to FB. The attempt to feign ignorance is likely the most annoying though.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Hard hitting questions for Zuckerberg. Hatch actually asked him how Facebook sustains its business model if users don't have to pay for the service. 5 seconds of googling or asking the intern too much work?
It could be a formality thing just to get it on the record.
If that was the case why didn't they ask him in 2010
Ouze wrote: Because it doesn't matter at all in any way. He's not on trial, first off, and comments to congress means absolutely nothing.
You want to know what the consequences of this will be? Here you go.
People are acting shocked that Facebook collected user details and sold them to third parties to exploit for marketing, when collecting the details of users and selling them to third parties to exploit for marketing is Facebook's entire business model.
Yeah, what is more problematic is what FB collects outside of FB, like call history on phones with the app unrelated to FB and what sites you visit just because they might have an visible or invisible link to FB. The attempt to feign ignorance is likely the most annoying though.
Yeah, it's not the collecting of data that people are upset about it's that people had their data collected just for being friends of someone who actually agreed to it. By and large when companies tell people up front the data will be collected people are 90% more OK with it. Also there's the issue of FB collecting outside-of-FB data like you mentioned. The collecting call history just for having the app installed is pretty shady and ought to have some legal oversight.
The reason why people are shocked is that they had no idea that if they happened to have a "friend" who installed the "yourdigitallife" app, their personal details would be scraped and sold to third parties without so much as a courtesy message to inform them it was happening.
Secondly, that Facebook knew this and covered it up for three years.
It doesn't matter if Facebook excuse themselves through some legal reason about EULA, or blah-di-blah "we're sorry and we'll do better next time". The damage has been done.
As the House prepares to vote this week on a largely symbolic balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, its own budget watchdog delivered a stark reality check Monday that forecasts the return of $1 trillion-plus annual deficits and a ballooning public debt that will approach $29 trillion by the end of the next decade.
"If current laws governing taxes and spending generally remained unchanged, the federal budget deficit would grow substantially over the next few years," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in its 10-year budget forecast, "with accumulating deficits driving debt held by the public to nearly 100 percent of GDP by 2028."
Hang on, what? I could not have seen this coming. You mean the Republican tax cut that was meant to pay for itself didn't end up suddenly spurring so much new growth that it paid for itself? I mean sure, a Republican president promised the same thing in 1981 and it didn't work. And then promised the same thing in 1986 and it didn't work. Then a different Republican president promised the same thing in 2001 and it didn't work, then promised the same thing again in 2003 and it didn't work.
And now it turns out that doing the exact same thing in 2017 didn't work this time either. What could be happening? What theory could possibly explain how cutting taxes actually reduces revenue?
Seems funny to me that when the trickle-down cuts were tried after the 29 crash, and in fact deepened the Great Depression, that politicians on both sides of the aisle recognized the abject failure which is why we went what. . . just a bit under 60 years without major trickle-down policy in place, and most of congress on board with the idea that some level of regulation in the economy was absolutely necessary.
Just Tony wrote: So am I to assume that everyone would be completely opposed to privatizing all teaching jobs? Because we're fresh out of realistic options at this point.
Are we? Cutting military spending by 25% and closing the myriad tax loopholes exploited by corporations would outpace the money saved by slashing public sector wages by a pretty massive amount.
I'm not against the notion that some public sector figures are overpaid, I just don't care because the amount of money we're wasting by overpaying those people is peanuts compared to the money we're lining the pockets of Lockheed Martin et all with.
While it wouldn't necessarily be bad to examine the military budget and trim some fat, at the same time our military strength and readiness are the man reason we haven't had the kind of attacks that other countries as hated as us have enjoyed. I'd love a top-down reevaluation of the ENTIRE federal budget, and trim fat across the board. But congressional salaries are major thing for me, especially since they are effectively double dipping from their law firms, real estate empires, etc.
Vulcan wrote:
Just Tony wrote: So am I to assume that everyone would be completely opposed to privatizing all teaching jobs? Because we're fresh out of realistic options at this point. State governments don't want to pay teachers a fair wage, from what I see, and if we're going to pay for our children's education anyway, might as well skip that unnecessary government step.
Sure. How do you guarantee EVERY child can still go to school afterwards, even kids whose parents barely make enough money to buy food and can't possibly afford tens of thousands of dollars for tuition at a for-profit school?
Nobody is deadlocked into a minimum wage/underpaid job. Ever. Sure, it may take effort. Sure, it may be a job you legitimately hate. However, when it comes down to it, the SECOND you are responsible for raising a child, what you like or hate is completely irrelevant? My dream was to be a comics penciller or to play punk music for a living. My reality is as a machinist making $26.10 an hour as of my $1.30 raise last week (a raise that was the direct result of the new tax laws, along with some saucy new bonus, but that's another topic for another time). While I don't hate machining, it's not necessarily pleasant or fun. However, since I will be putting my 5 year old in private school this fall, and my 16 year old is moving to a private alternative school as well, I can't rightly afford to play clubs in the evenings.
We have welfare assistance programs for the disadvantaged, THOSE are what public school would be for if the rest of the education system was privatized. Someone already pointed out the quality of those schools, but if there were less government run schools to fund, then maybe the schools left could have a higher caliber staff and curriculum.
d-usa wrote: I’m sticking to my previous impeachment theory:
If stuff turns up, and the Dems come up ahead in the midterms, I can see the GOP come on board with impeachment. If they do, it won’t happen until after January 2019. The GOP wants Pence, and by not impeaching until Trump hits 2 years +1 day Pence will remain eligible for 2 more Terms of his own. So nothing will happen that would take 4 years away from Pence, but I can see the GOP cutting their losses and placing their bets on 10 years of Pence.
I would argue Pence is ultimately poisoned by association.
Just Tony wrote: but if there were less government run schools to fund, then maybe the schools left could have a higher caliber staff and curriculum.
Could. . . but wouldn't. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to see what DeVos and her ilk have done with privatized education.
I think John Oliver has covered charter schools pretty well, and while they're not the same as private schools, I think it's a good example of what happens when schools are run basically for profit instead of for education.
You know things are going badly when you try and lie about the raid on your lawyer's house, and you can't even get back up from the lawyer himself.
In his rant, Trump claimed the FBI raid was a "break-in". But when he talked about what happened, Cohen said "I will tell you that members of the FBI that conducted the search and seizure were all extremely professional, courteous and respectful. And I thanked them at the conclusion."
Fun times ahead.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah, what is more problematic is what FB collects outside of FB, like call history on phones with the app unrelated to FB and what sites you visit just because they might have an visible or invisible link to FB. The attempt to feign ignorance is likely the most annoying though.
Yeah, my point probably wasn't as clear as it should have been. I'm not trying to say its okay that's Facebook does this, I'm saying it was inevitable given what Facebook is.
A couple of weeks ago I was at a kid's party and there was a trampoline. A couple of the older boys thought it would be fun to jump on the trampoline at the same time, and do chest bumps. About the third attempt they misjudged and smashed their faces together. It isn't okay that they got hurt and everyone did everything they should to fix it, but there was also a really strong feeling that the initial idea made the end result really inevitable.
That's the feeling I have about what's happening with Facebook. Of course some sleazy people were going to use a really large supply of personal data for some really sleazy purposes, and of course a company under pressure to meet multi-billion revenue targets was going to look the other way when they learned a purchaser of data was planning on using it for nefarious purposes.
d-usa wrote: I’m sticking to my previous impeachment theory:
If stuff turns up, and the Dems come up ahead in the midterms, I can see the GOP come on board with impeachment. If they do, it won’t happen until after January 2019. The GOP wants Pence, and by not impeaching until Trump hits 2 years +1 day Pence will remain eligible for 2 more Terms of his own. So nothing will happen that would take 4 years away from Pence, but I can see the GOP cutting their losses and placing their bets on 10 years of Pence.
I would argue Pence is ultimately poisoned by association.
Which is sad, given his fiscal track record in Indiana, it'd be nifty to apply that to the current budget issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just Tony wrote: but if there were less government run schools to fund, then maybe the schools left could have a higher caliber staff and curriculum.
Could. . . but wouldn't. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to see what DeVos and her ilk have done with privatized education.
At that point, you vote with your wallet. Like every other privatized service on the planet.
I realize I'm trying to pitch capitalist solutions to pro-socialist persons here, but since we AREN'T the EU, we need to work in the confines of the US economic system, and stick with what works.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Seems funny to me that when the trickle-down cuts were tried after the 29 crash, and in fact deepened the Great Depression, that politicians on both sides of the aisle recognized the abject failure which is why we went what. . . just a bit under 60 years without major trickle-down policy in place, and most of congress on board with the idea that some level of regulation in the economy was absolutely necessary.
My understanding is the tax cuts were put in place before the crash, and are something that some people claim is a cause of the crash. Which might be true, I've never studied the period in serious detail.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah, what is more problematic is what FB collects outside of FB, like call history on phones with the app unrelated to FB and what sites you visit just because they might have an visible or invisible link to FB. The attempt to feign ignorance is likely the most annoying though.
Yeah, my point probably wasn't as clear as it should have been. I'm not trying to say its okay that's Facebook does this, I'm saying it was inevitable given what Facebook is.
A couple of weeks ago I was at a kid's party and there was a trampoline. A couple of the older boys thought it would be fun to jump on the trampoline at the same time, and do chest bumps. About the third attempt they misjudged and smashed their faces together. It isn't okay that they got hurt and everyone did everything they should to fix it, but there was also a really strong feeling that the initial idea made the end result really inevitable.
That's the feeling I have about what's happening with Facebook. Of course some sleazy people were going to use a really large supply of personal data for some really sleazy purposes, and of course a company under pressure to meet multi-billion revenue targets was going to look the other way when they learned a purchaser of data was planning on using it for nefarious purposes.
Agreed, but the amount of work that has gone into ignoring it if not just covering it up is just staggering. Its hard to assess the full extent but this time they might have broken laws in certain countries regarding privacy. But FB being FB and a monopoly means that they will just get away with it. The way Zuckerberg presents himself is also rubs me the wrong way, its all such a disingenous act.
Just Tony wrote: we need to work in the confines of the US economic system, and stick with what works.
Yeah, we'd really be able to have a modern, technological society if we just took a hatchet to literacy rates. Privatization, pretty much by definition, can't deliver service to all individuals and for certain things (like education) that's untenable.
I'll just wait for the "then we could just repeal child labor laws and kids could pull themselves up by their bootstraps!"
Just Tony wrote: At that point, you vote with your wallet. Like every other privatized service on the planet.
I realize I'm trying to pitch capitalist solutions to pro-socialist persons here, but since we AREN'T the EU, we need to work in the confines of the US economic system, and stick with what works.
Yeah, this is everything wrong with how people try to use economics. It isn't about competing factions, "I'm team capitalism so I cheer for team capitalist ideas". Economics is a toolset, a set of concepts and models that help people figure out how stuff works, why some stuff doesn't work, and what systems can be put in place to improve how stuff works.
The problem with the US system is that most funding comes from state and local governments. This means wealthy states provide a lot more funding, and kids unlucky enough to be born in poor areas end up poorly resourced schools. The fix is for the federal government to come in and establish a decent base level of funding for each kid, + more for an areas difficulties (poverty, geographic dispersion).
You might want to reply that in America that kind of federal intervention can't happen, and you'd be about 10% right. Because its already been about 90% implemented with NCLB. Everyone focused on the standardised testing nonsense, and missed that the real idea behind NCLB was to get federal funding in to schools to make sure there were resources there to actually help every kid. The problem is the idea was half implemented, the funding was an add on to existing sources, rather than the base amount. But most of the structure is in place.
Unfortunately, ideology and grift are happy bed fellows, and charter schools do a great job of selling their non-solution, and paying a lot of both Democrat and Republican congressmen to pretend it works. A stupid amount of money is flowing to those schools as a result, and the actual problems that cause the US to have middling results remain unaddressed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Agreed, but the amount of work that has gone into ignoring it if not just covering it up is just staggering. Its hard to assess the full extent but this time they might have broken laws in certain countries regarding privacy. But FB being FB and a monopoly means that they will just get away with it.
All true. And I think it was all entirely inevitable, caused by the very basic business model of Facebook.
The way Zuckerberg presents himself is also rubs me the wrong way, its all such a disingenous act.
This time last year the guy was sounding out a presidential run. It was probably never anything more than the idle dreams of a stupidly rich man, but it's interesting how far things have shifted.
Been a while since I posted on a US politics thread
and as I usually do, I will mostly comment on foreign policy, or in the USA's case, the complete vacuum of a coherent strategy.
The mood music suggests that Trump will adopt the time honoured tradition of lobbing a few Cruise missiles at Syria in response to the chemical attack this week.
Everybody will nod in satisfaction that something has been done, the usual hacks and lackeys in the US media will claim the deaths of a few camels as a sign of the USA sticking it to Putin,
and students of American history like me, will remember Cordell Hull, the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, Reagan's Crusade, and be reminded of a time when the USA took its foreign policy seriously...
A couple of extra facts on the Cohen raid that might be of interest to people;
1) The investigators aren't just looking for info relating to the Stormy Daniels payment, but also for evidence of what Cohen and Trump might have known about the deal that kept Karen McDougal quiet. She sold her story to the parent company of the National Enquirer, but David Pecker the CEO only bought the story to bury it, as he's a close friend of Trump. It's been suggested for a while now that Cohen and Trump knew about this deal, and McDougal's lawyer knew the deal was crooked but failed to tell his client. If any of this is true and records of Cohen's emails establish it, then we're talking a whole other set of charges for everyone involved, in addition to the election breaches that may have resulted from the payments to Daniels.
2) The FBI's public corruption squad is directly involved in the review of evidence found in the raid on Cohen. Cohen is not a public official. So these guys are there helping to build the case against some public official. No prizes as to who.
sebster wrote: A couple of extra facts on the Cohen raid that might be of interest to people;
1) The investigators aren't just looking for info relating to the Stormy Daniels payment, but also for evidence of what Cohen and Trump might have known about the deal that kept Karen McDougal quiet. She sold her story to the parent company of the National Enquirer, but David Pecker the CEO only bought the story to bury it, as he's a close friend of Trump. It's been suggested for a while now that Cohen and Trump knew about this deal, and McDougal's lawyer knew the deal was crooked but failed to tell his client. If any of this is true and records of Cohen's emails establish it, then we're talking a whole other set of charges for everyone involved, in addition to the election breaches that may have resulted from the payments to Daniels.
2) The FBI's public corruption squad is directly involved in the review of evidence found in the raid on Cohen. Cohen is not a public official. So these guys are there helping to build the case against some public official. No prizes as to who.
In response to your other point, and it's something I've wanted to say for a while, but is this Trump/Russia circus still rumbling on?
I'll be surprised if it adds up to anything more than a hill of beans. Short of murder or burning the declaration of independence, the only way Trump is leaving 1600 is if he loses the next election.
A lot of people seem to be fantasizing about Watergate, but when it's all said and done, a few junior officials will be sacrificed for the 'greater good,' there'll be the usual hand wringing about lessons learned, committees will be formed, and everybody will promise not to do it again.
And Trump will be fine. Only the lawyers and FBI agents working over time will profit from this.
The way Zuckerberg presents himself is also rubs me the wrong way, its all such a disingenous act.
This time last year the guy was sounding out a presidential run. It was probably never anything more than the idle dreams of a stupidly rich man, but it's interesting how far things have shifted.
Even back then it was a real headscratcher, nothing he stands for really makes him stand out from the crowd, he has zero experience in government and is terrible in public which is not so handy for a potential politician. His only claim to fame is FB, which would have given him a pretty incredible tool to campaign with though, given that he could hold full control of whatever campaign adds would be allowed. But even being the guy behind FB, how many people could realistically pick out his face from a crowd?
Just Tony wrote: At that point, you vote with your wallet. Like every other privatized service on the planet.
That's not how it works. You can't vote with your wallet because unlike, say, 40k models education is not optional. You have to have it, no matter bad the local options are. Your only choice if the local options are unacceptable is to move to another area, assuming you have the financial ability to do so. For-profit schools serving people without the ability to pay for elite private schools have all the incentive to cut quality as much as possible to keep profits high, and you have to keep buying. The inevitable outcome of privatization is that a wealthy minority get to have a decent education, while most people are trapped in a cycle of minimal education leading to zero job prospects leading to zero ability to pay for their kids to get better education and escape the cycle.
I realize I'm trying to pitch capitalist solutions to pro-socialist persons here, but since we AREN'T the EU, we need to work in the confines of the US economic system, and stick with what works.
If the US economic system doesn't allow a functioning school system then it's time to end the US economic system and replace it with socialism.
In response to your other point, and it's something I've wanted to say for a while, but is this Trump/Russia circus still rumbling on?
I'll be surprised if it adds up to anything more than a hill of beans. Short of murder or burning the declaration of independence, the only way Trump is leaving 1600 is if he loses the next election.
A lot of people seem to be fantasizing about Watergate, but when it's all said and done, a few junior officials will be sacrificed for the 'greater good,' there'll be the usual hand wringing about lessons learned, committees will be formed, and everybody will promise not to do it again.
And Trump will be fine. Only the lawyers and FBI agents working over time will profit from this.
I dunno, Trump being a threat seems to be the only think both parties (and most Americans) can agree on. Like those who posted before me, I put money on the Republicans beginning the impeachment process in order to save themselves, as soon as they find evidence to allow it. Pence is damaged goods, so no one really cares about giving him 10 years.
In slightly lighter, but just as irritating, Pennsylvania has its Dog Wardens going door-to-door checking for current licences for dogs. Yes, you have to pay for a licence here, either yearly, or lifetime (its $31.50 for the lifetime licence). If you aren't licenced, its a $300 fine. Granted, this cost funds the animan control program for each county, and also state inspections of kennels and such. But door-to-door is a bit excessive in my opinion
In response to your other point, and it's something I've wanted to say for a while, but is this Trump/Russia circus still rumbling on?
I'll be surprised if it adds up to anything more than a hill of beans. Short of murder or burning the declaration of independence, the only way Trump is leaving 1600 is if he loses the next election.
A lot of people seem to be fantasizing about Watergate, but when it's all said and done, a few junior officials will be sacrificed for the 'greater good,' there'll be the usual hand wringing about lessons learned, committees will be formed, and everybody will promise not to do it again.
And Trump will be fine. Only the lawyers and FBI agents working over time will profit from this.
I dunno, Trump being a threat seems to be the only think both parties (and most Americans) can agree on. Like those who posted before me, I put money on the Republicans beginning the impeachment process in order to save themselves, as soon as they find evidence to allow it. Pence is damaged goods, so no one really cares about giving him 10 years.
In slightly lighter, but just as irritating, Pennsylvania has its Dog Wardens going door-to-door checking for current licences for dogs. Yes, you have to pay for a licence here, either yearly, or lifetime (its $31.50 for the lifetime licence). If you aren't licenced, its a $300 fine. Granted, this cost funds the animan control program for each county, and also state inspections of kennels and such. But door-to-door is a bit excessive in my opinion
Let's say for argument's sake that you and the other posters are right, and that the GOP ditches Trump to save their own skin.
The question is: who do they get to replace Trump?
Can I remind people that the GOP candidates at the last election were utterly hopeless. Feeble. Not fit to run a bath, never mind run a super power. 12 traffic cones wrapped in the Stars and Stripes could have ran a better campaign.
Trump, this outsider, this buffoon, emerged from nowhere and picked off the GOP approved candidates one by one with total ease.
Why? Because the GOP is a hollowed out shell, a travesty of what it used to be.
If the American people had any sense, the GOP and the Democrats would be swept away and replaced by new parties. They've long passed their sell by date, and they're now starting to stink the country up.
Here in the UK, we have the exact same situation with our two main parties.
PS
The scary thing for the USA and the GOP is that any future candidate will look at Trump, judge his actions and words to be the path to success, and then double down on that
In 20-30 years, we could have a situation that any future POTUS candidate is so awful, they'll make Trump look like FDR, in much the same way that some people are yearning for GW Bush!
It's what comes after Trump that should worry American dakka members on this forum...
So Trump has essentially confirmed US attacks are on the way. In the thread I opened that, as usual, got closed, I said the air strikes would happen pretty much right away. It looks like its going to take a bit for assets to get moved into place (Like the Truman).
Should be interesting to say the least. The US has assets all over the region while Russia's is kind of confined. They will have ships off the coast so will probably be able to eye ball the launches. They have threatened to retaliate against the sources of those launches, and that could be why the Truman is heading there. I know the Russians have launched cruise missiles from subs from off the coast so I am sure one or two of those will be there. And with our carrier groups, we'll have some too.
And this follows the point I am trying to make about how things have changed with Russia. If the Russians shoot down some missiles, we'll just launch more. If they attack the sources of them, which is a huge escalation, they can kiss everything they have in the middle east goodbye. The same level of animosity the US showed the Wagner Group will be brought to the rest of the Russian units. What happens next I don't know. I am sure there will be all sorts of aerial stuff over the Baltics, Bering Strait, and so on. I think that is also part of the reason Trump has cancelled his trip to Peru. This isn't just a simple cruise missile launch.
On the other hand, if Russia is unable or holds back while the US wrecks far more than they did last time, not only will they look weak in front of everyone, they will continue to empower Trump/US military to take action when it wants.
You cannot look at current event without looking back at previous events to understand how things came to be. I think the groundwork is being laid out for some nasty stuff ahead. Trump and Putin are pretty much like mafia dons, who do not like to be disrespected. And what do mafia dons do when disrespected? They send messages.
Do I think this will lead to all out war? No, but it will get messy.
You guys really think that Republicans in Congress are going to vote to impeach a Republican President who, as of the week ending on April 8, is polling at 89% job approval with Republicans? There is no way that Republican politicians turn on Trump before their Republican constituents do. I don’t know what it will take to make Republican voters turn on Trump but until they do Republicans in Congress aren’t going to impeach him.
Trump, this outsider, this buffoon, emerged from nowhere and picked off the GOP approved candidates one by one with total ease.
Why? Because the GOP is a hollowed out shell, a travesty of what it used to be.
If the American people had any sense, the GOP and the Democrats would be swept away and replaced by new parties. They've long passed their sell by date, and they're now starting to stink the country up.
PS
It's what comes after Trump that should worry American dakka members on this forum...
These are probably the most true statements to be made on this subject. Have an exalt.
KTG17 wrote: And this follows the point I am trying to make about how things have changed with Russia. If the Russians shoot down some missiles, we'll just launch more. If they attack the sources of them, which is a huge escalation, they can kiss everything they have in the middle east goodbye. It same level of animosity the US showed the Wagner Group will be brought to the rest of the Russian units. What happens next I don't know. I am sure there will be all sorts of aerial stuff over the Baltics, Bering Strait, and so on. I think that is also part of the reason Trump has cancelled his trip to Peru. This isn't just a simple cruise missile launch.
Is it really that different from Russian rethoric the last few years though? The threatening with nukes, the threatening with tank divisions rolling through Europe, threatening to shoot down NATO jets in Syria after one of theirs got downed by Turkey. The aerial stuff has been ongoing since 2014 as well, with Russia getting incredibly reckless and grabbing headlines with dangerous aircraft manouvers close to NATO counterparts. Sure the bear can growl and roar a lot, but why is this the moment they are going to bite? Putin has zero to gain from stepping in between Assad and a limited US strike.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Is it really that different from Russian rethoric the last few years though? The threatening with nukes, the threatening with tank divisions rolling through Europe, threatening to shoot down NATO jets in Syria after one of theirs got downed by Turkey. The aerial stuff has been ongoing since 2014 as well, with Russia getting incredibly reckless and grabbing headlines with dangerous aircraft manouvers close to NATO counterparts. Sure the bear can growl and roar a lot, but why is this the moment they are going to bite? Putin has zero to gain from stepping in between Assad and a limited US strike.
I think its different, or at least building up to be. Its pretty crazy to think where we are even at right now, so I don't think its too extreme to guess where we will be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: You guys really think that Republicans in Congress are going to vote to impeach a Republican President who, as of the week ending on April 8, is polling at 89% job approval with Republicans? There is no way that Republican politicians turn on Trump before their Republican constituents do. I don’t know what it will take to make Republican voters turn on Trump but until they do Republicans in Congress aren’t going to impeach him.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
Paul Ryan isnt seeking re-election. I wonder if either he is tired of things, or wants to stay clear of them. Or maybe both. It could be a sign how messed up things are going to be for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is interesting:
Someone should take Trump's twitter away. He's veering wildly on Syria/Russia:
Donald Trump on Twitter:
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
Within the same hour:
Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?
Sounds like a man that doesn't remember what he did a week ago. Just a few days ago the US sanctioned Russia, now Russia needs the help of the US which is very easy? Stop the arms race, said by a man who is pushing the US defense budget higher than it has ever been and wants to build smaller usable nukes? What?
No, I think he is pretty transparent. I think he, like most of us, goes through a period of reflection about things and is quick to talk about it. I am sure Obama, Bush, Clinton, all went through it just didn't post it on twitter.
There are periods of reflection and making a 180 so fast that it sounds like two different people. It shouldn't happen this fast or that extreme. He's the leader of the strongest country in the world with a host of international responsibilities. You can't just go from "I'm going to blow the gak out of you" to "poor guys, we can help" in half an hour, its incredibly unstable and dangerous with the power he wields. If he really does reflect he wouldn't have tweeted those things in the first place. He isn't just a citizen anymore, he has responsibilities that go beyond just him as a person with opinions.
Well, regardless of what he is, he is still an emotional guy who is still new to politics.
Not defending him here, just speculating as to why he says what he says.
The decision to bomb Syria was made a couple of days ago. I am sure several times since he has thought about what he has ordered, and feels bad about what is to come and how we got here. I am sure at times Putin (for different reasons) does too, but doesn't show it.
Clinton didn't do some of the things he should have, I am sure Bush was kept up at night over what was happening in Iraq, and even Obama dropped leaflets over ISIS oil trucks warning them they were about to be bombed. Despite welding all that power they are still human and even though have made a decision, no doubt understand what is going to follow. Its just most do not talk about that guilt.
There is a terrible Michael Douglas movie about him being president... but in the movie he orders some arab country's intelligence service building to be bombed in retaliation for something they did. They decide to do it at night to limit casualties. After saying, "This is a very strong and presidential action you are making", Douglass responds how some custodian is going to be cleaning the floors when the bombs hit, and had nothing to do with what happened, while the decision makers are home asleep, and he feels bad about that.
While just a movie, I am sure that goes on a lot in the White House.
He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. There is a moment that being new just doesn't cut it anymore. There has been zero improvement in his way of communicating. When he did it on the campaign trail people could still laugh about it, when he does it now he offends allies and causes the stock market to lose millions.
Also I doubt Trump, the man that is pro torture and killing the family members of terrorists would feel bad about dropping a few bombs. Clinton, Bush and Obama, while still killing people, were on entirely different levels of morality at least.
I also doubt Trump feels guilt regarding this topic seeing as how he refuses to accept refugees from Syria into the US, the very people he suddenly pretends to care about. Actions speak louder than empty words. The problem is that Trump just doesn't really seem to care, not that he cares too much.
Disciple of Fate wrote: He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. There is a moment that being new just doesn't cut it anymore. There has been zero improvement in his way of communicating. When he did it on the campaign trail people could still laugh about it, when he does it now he offends allies and causes the stock market to lose millions.
Also I doubt Trump, the man that is pro torture and killing the family members of terrorists would feel bad about dropping a few bombs. Clinton, Bush and Obama, while still killing people, were on entirely different levels of morality at least.
I also doubt Trump feels guilt regarding this topic seeing as how he refuses to accept refugees from Syria into the US, the very people he suddenly pretends to care about. Actions speak louder than empty words. The problem is that Trump just doesn't really seem to care, not that he cares too much.
Okay well, you seem to conclude the man is incapable of emotional thoughts, even though it was the imagine of children dying in the last attacks that brought on the first strikes to begin with. He is not a machine, and no president has even been.
Just because he doesn't want the refugees in the US (and I don't either btw) doesn't mean you still can't be sympathetic to their plight.
Humans are complex creatures who can communicate a wide range of emotions. To think they will always react in a predictable pattern every time is unrealistic.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't understand this bizarre fantasy that the republicans are going to want to impeach President Trump. And even if they wanted to, for what crime?
Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. The clauses defining it are intentionally vague. An impeachable offense is then, ultimately, whatever the right number of Congresspeople say it is.
The most likely basis would be obstruction of justice, which is exactly what got Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton into trouble.
FWIW I don't see him being impeached either. It's not impossible but it's sure not likely.
You cannot look at current event without looking back at previous events to understand how things came to be. I think the groundwork is being laid out for some nasty stuff ahead. Trump and Putin are pretty much like mafia dons, who do not like to be disrespected. And what do mafia dons do when disrespected? They send messages.
Do I think this will lead to all out war? No, but it will get messy.
How have the gas attacks been confirmed, anyway? Not that they happened, but by whom? It just seems awfully convenient that a few days after Trump announces the US is withdrawing from the conflict, Assad would do the one thing to provoke the US into remaining and even escalating the violence...against his own regime. I've read that all combatants in the region have stockpiles of chemical warfare - it seems to me on the surface is that the US is getting played. Didn't a smaller version of this same scenario take place a year ago?
Disciple of Fate wrote: He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. .
I also don't think this is a very long time either. Most politicians work their way up to President by being a city councilman, state senator, congressman, etc etc long before they take a shot a president. Even Obama served 6 years in the senate and people thought that was too short.
Disciple of Fate wrote: He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. There is a moment that being new just doesn't cut it anymore. There has been zero improvement in his way of communicating. When he did it on the campaign trail people could still laugh about it, when he does it now he offends allies and causes the stock market to lose millions.
Also I doubt Trump, the man that is pro torture and killing the family members of terrorists would feel bad about dropping a few bombs. Clinton, Bush and Obama, while still killing people, were on entirely different levels of morality at least.
I also doubt Trump feels guilt regarding this topic seeing as how he refuses to accept refugees from Syria into the US, the very people he suddenly pretends to care about. Actions speak louder than empty words. The problem is that Trump just doesn't really seem to care, not that he cares too much.
Okay well, you seem to conclude the man is incapable of emotional thoughts, even though it was the imagine of children dying in the last attacks that brought on the first strikes to begin with. He is not a machine, and no president has even been.
Just because he doesn't want the refugees in the US (and I don't either btw) doesn't mean you still can't be sympathetic to their plight.
Humans are complex creatures who can communicate a wide range of emotions. To think they will always react in a predictable pattern every time is unrealistic.
The issue with Trump is that the unpredictability and is the only predictable thing. The dude is sending strong, direct, and belligerent but fundamentally confused and diametrically opposed signals in both quick rapid succession within minutes of each other and over long periods of time across years through the exact same communications channels.
That's not acceptable from a leader in any organization, much less the leader of a nation. That's not normal human behavior, and we're certainly not seeing anything centered around sympathy for the victims here, anger and being defied perhaps, but that's about it.
KTG17 wrote: Well, regardless of what he is, he is still an emotional guy who is still new to politics.
Trump is not new to politics, not one bit. You can say he is new to the responsibility of being a public official with life-and-death authority, and that he treats that authority with an unprecedented level of flippancy, but he is not new to politics.
Disciple of Fate wrote: He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. .
I also don't think this is a very long time either. Most politicians work their way up to President by being a city councilman, state senator, congressman, etc etc long before they take a shot a president. Even Obama served 6 years in the senate and people thought that was too short.
Obama only served 3.5 years as a Senator, and a year and a half of that was actively campaigning to be President.
Disciple of Fate wrote: He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. .
I also don't think this is a very long time either. Most politicians work their way up to President by being a city councilman, state senator, congressman, etc etc long before they take a shot a president. Even Obama served 6 years in the senate and people thought that was too short.
Obama only served 3.5 years as a Senator, and a year and a half of that was actively campaigning to be President.
7 years as State Senator as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: Ok well, new to ordering air strikes and dealing with the consequences of that, that part, yes.
Being new is part of the reason Presidents have advisors for this stuff, even in year 8 of a presidency.
But it doesn’t help if you keep on firing them, running them off, or making major policy decisions on Twitter without talking to any of them.
The sad truth is that anything released with a White House letterhead really isn’t trustworthy anymore, and that the only true policy comes in small Twitter bursts.
Disciple of Fate wrote: He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. There is a moment that being new just doesn't cut it anymore. There has been zero improvement in his way of communicating. When he did it on the campaign trail people could still laugh about it, when he does it now he offends allies and causes the stock market to lose millions.
Also I doubt Trump, the man that is pro torture and killing the family members of terrorists would feel bad about dropping a few bombs. Clinton, Bush and Obama, while still killing people, were on entirely different levels of morality at least.
I also doubt Trump feels guilt regarding this topic seeing as how he refuses to accept refugees from Syria into the US, the very people he suddenly pretends to care about. Actions speak louder than empty words. The problem is that Trump just doesn't really seem to care, not that he cares too much.
Okay well, you seem to conclude the man is incapable of emotional thoughts, even though it was the imagine of children dying in the last attacks that brought on the first strikes to begin with. He is not a machine, and no president has even been.
Just because he doesn't want the refugees in the US (and I don't either btw) doesn't mean you still can't be sympathetic to their plight.
Humans are complex creatures who can communicate a wide range of emotions. To think they will always react in a predictable pattern every time is unrealistic.
I'm just saying, I seriously doubt the capacity of a man to care if he says he ordered strikes over images of dead children when he also says they should kill the children of terrorists. It doesn't really sound like he cares about children when you have those two contradictory statements together.
As for the refugee part. He cares enough about them getting killed (so he says), but not enough to get them out of there and bring them to the US where it is safe?
The problem isn't that they should always act in a predictable pattern, the problem is that he reacts without the restraint a position like his calls for.
So I guess in conclusion, we all agree that Trump has lots of experience in politics, at least plenty enough to be president by now, should know better than be emotional and second guess his decisions, And while having all of this experience and insight, is obviously mentally imbalanced because he chooses not to act in that predictable path. He is also incapable of sympathizing with those in need, and is just out to make a mess out of the world at any cost while making himself richer in the process. Did I leave anything out? I feel like this is where we are going.
Its not so much that we don't try to understand the points other people make as a whole, but what opportunities we can take advantage of by trying to take apart each other's points. Like, if I can find a way to invalidate one part of the argument, then all of it is invalidated.
Its no wonder this thread gets locked down from time to time.
I am not even a Trump supporter either. I am not even a republican or democrat. I think there are clowns and criminals in both parties. But I can still look at things independently and give the benefit of the doubt.
But I am okay with concluding that he is the third anti-christ to keep the convo simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: As for the refugee part. He cares enough about them getting killed (so he says), but not enough to get them out of there and bring them to the US where it is safe?
I don't want to see them killed. And I do not want them brought to the US. So yes, I can accept he feels the same.
Disciple of Fate wrote: He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. .
I also don't think this is a very long time either. Most politicians work their way up to President by being a city councilman, state senator, congressman, etc etc long before they take a shot a president. Even Obama served 6 years in the senate and people thought that was too short.
Obama only served 3.5 years as a Senator, and a year and a half of that was actively campaigning to be President.
The point isn't the amount of time needed to be President. The point is that you can't keep behaving like you aren't. If he is still President in 6 years lets say, we can't still keep saying "well that's not long in politics". You expect some kind of change in behaviour that befits the position. Being 'new' to it only excuses things so far.
Okay but this is the same guy who said 'grab them by the pussy' too. So he had a lower bar to start from.
Will Trump ever be Presidential? Who knows. That's not the point. The point is that he is an emotional guy and that is why you see him saying and doing what he's doing. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong. Just trying to get in his head.
Disciple of Fate wrote: As for the refugee part. He cares enough about them getting killed (so he says), but not enough to get them out of there and bring them to the US where it is safe?
I don't want to see them killed. And I do not want them brought to the US. So yes, I can accept he feels the same.
It doesn't really work that way though. Imagine if no country would accept refugees. Then Syrians would be stuck in their own country dying. So then we have people claiming they care about Syrians dying, but actively preventing them from escaping their cause of death.
That level of care only works because other countries actually put in some effort beyond what could be termed as "thoughts and prayers".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: Okay but this is the same guy who said 'grab them by the pussy' too. So he had a lower bar to start from.
Will Trump ever be Presidential? Who knows. That's not the point. The point is that he is an emotional guy and that is why you see him saying and doing what he's doing. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong. Just trying to get in his head.
I agree, I only fall on the side that its wrong because I believe that Trump should realize he carries a far greater responsibility than the average private citizen with a twitter profile. That he does not want to give up twitter or tone it down just shows his priorities to me.
KTG17 wrote: Okay but this is the same guy who said 'grab them by the pussy' too. So he had a lower bar to start from.
Will Trump ever be Presidential? Who knows. That's not the point. The point is that he is an emotional guy and that is why you see him saying and doing what he's doing. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong. Just trying to get in his head.
Guess maniacy is emotional. But he has zero sympathy for others. He's in for money and others can go to hell. He has shown that for years. Not even particularly subtle about it. About as subtle as elephanth in building.
Disciple of Fate wrote: As for the refugee part. He cares enough about them getting killed (so he says), but not enough to get them out of there and bring them to the US where it is safe?
I don't want to see them killed. And I do not want them brought to the US. So yes, I can accept he feels the same.
It doesn't really work that way though. Imagine if no country would accept refugees. Then Syrians would be stuck in their own country dying. So then we have people claiming they care about Syrians dying, but actively preventing them from escaping their cause of death.
That level of care only works because other countries actually put in some effort beyond what could be termed as
Yeah well other countries have got used to us invading with trumped up charges, making mess and then abandoning it. What more can be expected from most dangerous country.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That level of care only works because other countries actually put in some effort beyond what could be termed as "thoughts and prayers".
Okay, send them all to the refugees to the Netherlands.
You could I guess (1) evacuate all Syrian children elsewhere but that is certainly impossible, or (2) try to end their suffering to some degree. I don't see anyone else moving to stop the nerve gas attacks. Leave it up to the UN and nothing will get done. All I see are people offering sympathy and not doing anything. And no fault to those who do not want a million Syrians brought into their country, which will cause the economic system to buckle and possibly create social issues for decades to come. It isn't like these refugees are going to go back to Syria any time soon. So these refugees will have kids. And they may integrate into society but they may also segregate themselves and no doubt deal with discrimination. We'll all meet back here in 20 years and see how Germany is doing after Merkle opened the floodgates. I am guess there will be social issues.
Allowing some refugees in, not an issue, allowing unchecked numbers is going to cause problems. You cannot just inject numbers like that into another society and not expect a whole host of issues.
And everyone knows that. The bleeding hearts hope for the best and the conservatives stand their ground.
And if you think this is something, wait till global warming renders much of the middle east unlivable. Wait till that mass migration takes place. We are some years off from that happening, but we will see it in our lifetime. Syria is a walk in the park.
So I do sympathize with them. It has to suck. I don't think I am offering much support. I just see it how it is. Being from Miami, I have seen first hand what unchecked migration has done. Most of Miami no longer speaks English. Many of you don't have a problem with that. But along with the language difference also comes cultural differences. I just don't have anything in common with my hometown anymore, nor any desire to return. Nor do my family or most of my friends from there. So I have seen first hand what opening up your borders to refugees can do. And the same will happen to Europe one day.
Someone will probably chime in here and call me racist, but I am not. I might be biased against some cultures but I certainly wont apologize for that. I just think you cannot integrate a huge number of different people from one culture into another without a natural segregation occurring. I see it happening from both sides, so its not all the refugees fault.
And a lot of people in Europe feel this way too. And if Europe was migrating to the middle east, there would be problems too.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That level of care only works because other countries actually put in some effort beyond what could be termed as "thoughts and prayers".
Okay, send them all to the refugees to the Netherlands.
The Netherlands, a country of 17 million people has 65.000 Syrian refugees. The US, a country vastly bigger and with a pop of 300 million only has about 18.000, mainly due to Obama...
The US has let in 80 times less Syrians than the Netherlands.
Europe's borders have been open since the 60's and 70's to large groups of Muslim immigrants. Its not nearly as bad as the doomsayers would have us believe.
And to add, Europe and the Middle East also take care of vastly larger groups of Iraqi refugees than the US. The US made the mess and leaves the rest of us to pick up the pieces.
KTG17 wrote: And if Europe was migrating to the middle east, there would be problems too.
The unspoken thing here though is "and there isn't anything anyone could or should do about it". Certainly, large amounts of refugees pose certain problems. Where to house them, how to feed them, how to treat traumas, just generally a lot of administration.
However, these questions are not unsolvable conundrums of philosophy that require decades of strict training to even begin to grasp what the articulation of them means in the first place. These are matters of logistics. This is the smokescreen that racists throw up every time the topic of how to handle refugees and immigration comes up. They pretend that every question is unsolvable when the true reason for them claiming that we can't accept others is "because I don't think they're fully human". That said, it's certainly the case that a lot of people don't care to face these logistical matters honestly because they're scared that we may have to change the priorities of society or otherwise confront the question of why there are refugees in the first place.
Poor ''refugees'' trying to come in the wealthiest countries in the world, instead of going to the nearest peaceful and welcoming country , for more safety ! They could just cross the border, stay in turkia, and be safe. I'm not buying that. Not even one of them has any right to come in the West. If they are looking for peace and safety, there are countries in the middle east that are at peace.
You cannot look at current event without looking back at previous events to understand how things came to be. I think the groundwork is being laid out for some nasty stuff ahead. Trump and Putin are pretty much like mafia dons, who do not like to be disrespected. And what do mafia dons do when disrespected? They send messages.
Do I think this will lead to all out war? No, but it will get messy.
How have the gas attacks been confirmed, anyway? Not that they happened, but by whom? It just seems awfully convenient that a few days after Trump announces the US is withdrawing from the conflict, Assad would do the one thing to provoke the US into remaining and even escalating the violence...against his own regime. I've read that all combatants in the region have stockpiles of chemical warfare - it seems to me on the surface is that the US is getting played. Didn't a smaller version of this same scenario take place a year ago?
At last ! Someone who can think rationaly and sensibly.
However, these questions are not unsolvable conundrums of philosophy that require decades of strict training to even begin to grasp what the articulation of them means in the first place. These are matters of logistics. This is the smokescreen that racists throw up every time the topic of how to handle refugees and immigration comes up. They pretend that every question is unsolvable when the true reason for them claiming that we can't accept others is "because I don't think they're fully human". That said, it's certainly the case that a lot of people don't care to face these logistical matters honestly because they're scared that we may have to change the priorities of society or otherwise confront the question of why there are refugees in the first place.
Some of that may be, on the other hand, it could very well be that some feel we have enough issues here on our own and don't want to take on more problems.
And again, I am from Miami, I have see Miami change. You can't make me feel otherwise about that. That's not racist, its simply reality.
Poor ''refugees'' trying to come in the wealthiest countries in the world, instead of going to the nearest peaceful and welcoming country , for more safety ! They could just cross the fronteer, stay in turkia, and be safe. I'm not buying that. Not even one of them has any right to come in the West. If they are looking for peace and safety, there are countries in the middle east that are at peace.
Omfg, that tired old gak? 90% of the refugees are being taken care of in the region itself. God forbid those that try to cross into Europe try to dream of a life beyond one spend in a refugee camp amiright?
They have the right by international law to request asylum in the West.
Poor ''refugees'' trying to come in the wealthiest countries in the world, instead of going to the nearest peaceful and welcoming country , for more safety ! They could just cross the fronteer, stay in turkia, and be safe. I'm not buying that. Not even one of them has any right to come in the West. If they are looking for peace and safety, there are countries in the middle east that are at peace.
Omfg, that tired old gak? 90% of the refugees are being taken care of in the region itself. God forbid those that try to cross into Europe try to dream of a life beyond one spend in a refugee camp amiright?
They have the right by international law to request asylum in the West.
Do bear in mind that godardc's idea of how to deal with the refugee wave during 2015 was to "let them drown in the Aegean". You're not discussing the topic with a moderate person.
Poor ''refugees'' trying to come in the wealthiest countries in the world, instead of going to the nearest peaceful and welcoming country , for more safety ! They could just cross the fronteer, stay in turkia, and be safe. I'm not buying that. Not even one of them has any right to come in the West. If they are looking for peace and safety, there are countries in the middle east that are at peace.
Omfg, that tired old gak? 90% of the refugees are being taken care of in the region itself. God forbid those that try to cross into Europe try to dream of a life beyond one spend in a refugee camp amiright?
They have the right by international law to request asylum in the West.
Do bear in mind that godardc's idea of how to deal with the refugee wave during 2015 was to "let them drown in the Aegean". You're not discussing the topic with a moderate person.
Yup, I was there for the gem too. But I'm doing it more for the other people reading, its important to keep pointing out that the idea they all want to come 'here' is false.
Retiring Senate Republicans
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Retiring House Republicans
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas
Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania
Rep. John Duncan, R-Tennessee
Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas
Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, R-New Jersey
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina
Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Mississippi
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California
Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kansas
Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas
Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-New Jersey
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas
Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Washington
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida
Rep. Ed Royce, R-California
Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pennsylvania
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas
Rep. Dave Trott, R-Michigan
Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Florida
Rep. Ryan Costello, R-Pennsylvania
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin
Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Florida
House Republicans who have resigned or will resign
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona
Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pennsylvania
Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pennsylvania
Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio
House Republicans running for another office
Senate:
Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pennsylvania
Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee
Rep. Evan Jenkins, R-West Virginia
Rep. Luke Messer, R-Indiana
Rep. Todd Rokita, R-Indiana
Rep. Martha McSally, R-Arizona
Governor:
Rep. Diane Black, R-Tennessee
Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho
Rep. Kristi Noem, R-South Dakota
Rep. James Renacci, R-Ohio
Rep. Steve Pearce, R-New Mexico
Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Florida
Other:
Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Oklahoma (nominated for NASA Administrator)
Poor ''refugees'' trying to come in the wealthiest countries in the world, instead of going to the nearest peaceful and welcoming country , for more safety !
I mean, when you are fleeing a warzone, going to a place far away from the conflict, with stable institutions and populations that dont want to kill each other is usually a big draw.
They could just cross the border, stay in turkia, and be safe.
Many do. The overwhelmingly vast majority have stayed in the ME region. However, Turkey does not have infinite capacity to take them, and there are legions of verified stories of refugees being mistreated, killed, abused, robbed denied entry, etc by Turkish security forces and other elements. Turkey is not a spectacularly safe place for lots of refugees and is not the most stable and welcoming of places at the moment either...
I'm not buying that. Not even one of them has any right to come in the West. If they are looking for peace and safety, there are countries in the middle east that are at peace.
In the sense that they're not actively shooting at each other that particular moment? Maybe. Beyond that, things get debatable very quickly.
KTG17 wrote: Some of that may be, on the other hand, it could very well be that some feel we have enough issues here on our own and don't want to take on more problems.
People who oppose immigration don't necessarily have a clear view of what actually causes their problems. If you think it sucks that jobs don't exist anymore then both you and the immigrant could make common cause against the economic system instead of fighting each other. Etc.
KTG17 wrote: And again, I am from Miami, I have see Miami change. You can't make me feel otherwise about that. That's not racist, its simply reality.
If you're upset that there are now people in Miami who don't speak English as their first language, well, I am going to leave you to that. If you're upset that there are people in Miami who don't speak English because they've never learned how then that's a matter of them being failed by the education system. and by the state at large for it not doing enough to facilitate integration. Or that the state has failed you for not teaching you one of its common languages, for that matter.
800,000 went to Germany for asylum, 100,000 were given residency permits in Saudi Arabia (more than likely because they already had relatives there). Who knows where those numbers are today.
Yeah, Germany is going to have some problems.
Even still, just imagine, all the different places these people are going, when if just these different countries could get together and solve the problem of Assad. "War is not good' 'cost to great' 'we are not into nation building' too many competing sides'. But rather than deal with the cause, we just treat the symptoms.
And the financial costs for these refugees? I can only imagine.
I guess what I am hearing is that its better to just take in those who want to come, and let Assad gas the rest. Is that what I am hearing?
800,000 went to Germany for asylum, 100,000 were given residency permits in Saudi Arabia (more than likely because they already had relatives there). Who knows where those numbers are today.
Yeah, Germany is going to have some problems.
Even still, just imagine, all the different places these people are going, when if just these different countries could get together and solve the problem of Assad. "War is not good' 'cost to great' 'we are not into nation building' too many competing sides'. But rather than deal with the cause, we just treat the symptoms.
And the financial costs for these refugees? I can only imagine.
I guess what I am hearing is that its better to just take in those who want to come, and let Assad gas the rest. Is that what I am hearing?
Those are just the SA official statistics. We don't know how many Syrians are there without residency permits. Just look at the UNCHR link. Were talking about at least 5.5 million Syrians in the direct neighbours of Syria.
You do realize Germany already had a larger influx of Turkish immigrants in the past? They don't have to be trouble as long as the government helps them properly. I crunched the numbers in another thread I can look up about Germany, but from those nimbers its clear that Syrians barely cause more trouble than 'ethnic' Germans.
I don't know what you think you're hearing. But all I'm hearing is #thoughts and prayers. We should help those Syrian refugees and those that want to come to the West should be proportionally allocated so we can share the burden of helping those people.
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, Paul Ryan is leaving. What's the current number of prominent, established Republicans who have decided to retire?
Do we know why he's leaving? I was kind of bummed by this, I quite liked him (and Rubio, who's staying put as far as I know!). Both talk party line, but have shown a willingness to be practical / pragmatic and get things done at times.
Also just a reminder folks, this thread is for US politics specifically - some of the discussion has gotten a little overly broad / might be better served in a dedicated thread.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't know what you think you're hearing. But all I'm hearing is #thoughts and prayers. We should help those Syrian refugees and those that want to come to the West should be proportionally allocated so we can share the burden of helping those people.
Well you were saying Trump is wrong to bomb Assad because he wasn't accepting refugees. That's what started all this.
But you aren't going to convince me and I wont you, so back to domestic US politics.
Ryan has said he wants to spend more time with his family, but I think it's pretty obvious a dude who ran for VP and hoped to one day be President, who then settled for Speaker of the House.... he can't be too stoked about his imminent downgrade to Minority Leader - with all the recriminations that are sure to accompany said downgrading. Why not get off the ship as soon as you see the leak?
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, Paul Ryan is leaving. What's the current number of prominent, established Republicans who have decided to retire?
Do we know why he's leaving? I was kind of bummed by this, I quite liked him (and Rubio, who's staying put as far as I know!). Both talk party line, but have shown a willingness to be practical / pragmatic and get things done at times.
Because he's facing a very hostile election and he's been facilitating a lot of what this administration has been doing.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Seems funny to me that when the trickle-down cuts were tried after the 29 crash, and in fact deepened the Great Depression, that politicians on both sides of the aisle recognized the abject failure which is why we went what. . . just a bit under 60 years without major trickle-down policy in place, and most of congress on board with the idea that some level of regulation in the economy was absolutely necessary.
My understanding is the tax cuts were put in place before the crash, and are something that some people claim is a cause of the crash. Which might be true, I've never studied the period in serious detail.
Sort of. . . the crash happened because of stock market shenanigans (IIRC, it was farm/grain prices bottomed out due to oversupply or some such). The president having a response demanded of him, signed some trickle-down legislation that was touted as something that would help/solve the problems (it was being highly suggested to him by JP Morgan's replacements and his ilk, much the same as today) but instead deepened the problem as well as drew even more industries into the depressed market.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't know what you think you're hearing. But all I'm hearing is #thoughts and prayers. We should help those Syrian refugees and those that want to come to the West should be proportionally allocated so we can share the burden of helping those people.
Well you were saying Trump is wrong to bomb Assad because he wasn't accepting refugees. That's what started all this.
But you aren't going to convince me and I wont you, so back to domestic US politics.
That is generally how racism works. "They don't speak my language!" "I don't like their culture!" "You won't change my mind, let's just move on!" Nah bud, you racist. Deal with it.
On the upside, Paul Ryan retiring is at least good news. Hopefully he stays retired and isn't looking for a Cinderella run for the White House.
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, Paul Ryan is leaving. What's the current number of prominent, established Republicans who have decided to retire?
Do we know why he's leaving? I was kind of bummed by this, I quite liked him (and Rubio, who's staying put as far as I know!). Both talk party line, but have shown a willingness to be practical / pragmatic and get things done at times.
Because he's facing a very hostile election and he's been facilitating a lot of what this administration has been doing.
I think theres also something to be said for state level politics in his home state of Wisconsin. . . Gov. Walker is spending a lot of time trying to spin *something* positive out of his governorship. . like F5 tornado levels of spin.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't know what you think you're hearing. But all I'm hearing is #thoughts and prayers. We should help those Syrian refugees and those that want to come to the West should be proportionally allocated so we can share the burden of helping those people.
Well you were saying Trump is wrong to bomb Assad because he wasn't accepting refugees. That's what started all this.
But you aren't going to convince me and I wont you, so back to domestic US politics.
No I'm saying bombing Assad because you care about international law when it comes to chemical weapons is hypocritical if you ignore international law on refugees. I'm not saying its wrong to conduct strikes, although I believe it will do little in the long run.
I think Paul Ryan is irrevocably tainted as well, and good riddance. Another grifter who, as Frazzled might say, was all hat and no cattle. The myth of him as a serious policy guy I think was pretty definitively shattered in the last 18 months.
Rising interest rates were also a problem. There was something else too but its slipped from memory.
Lets not forget that the Great Depression was as bad as it was because the powers that be at the time figured it was better to let the market correct itself than the government get involved too quickly.
These days the Fed babysits the economy and we would have pretty quick action by the Fed. And they can't always be right either. And recessions are a naturally occurring event too. Can't keep going up and up.
That is generally how racism works. "They don't speak my language!" "I don't like their culture!" "You won't change my mind, let's just move on!" Nah bud, you racist. Deal with it.
My family is multi-racial, so to call me that is pretty offensive. You don't know a whole lot about me. So to state something like that when you don't know all the facts makes you an idiot. Deal with it.
800,000 went to Germany for asylum, 100,000 were given residency permits in Saudi Arabia (more than likely because they already had relatives there). Who knows where those numbers are today.
Yeah, Germany is going to have some problems.
Even still, just imagine, all the different places these people are going, when if just these different countries could get together and solve the problem of Assad. "War is not good' 'cost to great' 'we are not into nation building' too many competing sides'. But rather than deal with the cause, we just treat the symptoms.
And the financial costs for these refugees? I can only imagine.
I guess what I am hearing is that its better to just take in those who want to come, and let Assad gas the rest. Is that what I am hearing?
I think the bigger idea is that blowing up stuff as a knee jerk reaction to a suspected (but informationally sparse) incident and taunting the Russians and risking a bigger shitshow largely just for its own sake with no larger plan and no clear goal simply because Assad horrifically killed his own people one way instead of horrifically killing them a more conventional way is probably not serving anyone's interests except those of power politics.
As for refugees, theyre a hell of a lot cheaper than a conflict with Russia or another Iraq or Afghanistan war, and if handled properly can be returned later or be integrated as productive members of society.
800,000 went to Germany for asylum, 100,000 were given residency permits in Saudi Arabia (more than likely because they already had relatives there). Who knows where those numbers are today.
Yeah, Germany is going to have some problems.
Even still, just imagine, all the different places these people are going, when if just these different countries could get together and solve the problem of Assad. "War is not good' 'cost to great' 'we are not into nation building' too many competing sides'. But rather than deal with the cause, we just treat the symptoms.
And the financial costs for these refugees? I can only imagine.
I guess what I am hearing is that its better to just take in those who want to come, and let Assad gas the rest. Is that what I am hearing?
I think the bigger idea is that blowing up stuff as a knee jerk reaction to a suspected (but informationally sparse) incident and taunting the Russians and risking a bigger shitshow largely just for its own sake with no larger plan and no clear goal simply because Assad horrifically killed his own people one way instead of horrifically killing them a more conventional way is probably not serving anyone's interests except those of power politics.
As for refugees, theyre a hell of a lot cheaper than a conflict with Russia or another Iraq or Afghanistan war, and if handled properly can be returned later or be integrated as productive members of society.
I think the one thing everybody can agree on is that to solve the cause to the problem in Syria there needs to be a sustained nation building effort, but that such an effort would never happen because there is no support for another 10 year project amongst the general population.
KTG17 wrote: Some of that may be, on the other hand, it could very well be that some feel we have enough issues here on our own and don't want to take on more problems.
People who oppose immigration don't necessarily have a clear view of what actually causes their problems. If you think it sucks that jobs don't exist anymore then both you and the immigrant could make common cause against the economic system instead of fighting each other. Etc.
KTG17 wrote: And again, I am from Miami, I have see Miami change. You can't make me feel otherwise about that. That's not racist, its simply reality.
If you're upset that there are now people in Miami who don't speak English as their first language, well, I am going to leave you to that. If you're upset that there are people in Miami who don't speak English because they've never learned how then that's a matter of them being failed by the education system. and by the state at large for it not doing enough to facilitate integration. Or that the state has failed you for not teaching you one of its common languages, for that matter.
I can't believe you really think what you wrote ? Before I was born my parents wanted to go to Canada. They couldn't, it is not important why. But one of the conditions was to speak English. You see, if one day I came to live in the beautiful USA, I would speak English. I learnt it. When you come somewhere, you adapt. If you pretend to care for a country, you can, at least, try to speak its language. The State did not failed to teach them. They failed their new country. The integration should not be easy at all, it should be very difficult, in order to keep only loving and motivated people. Language is the BASE of the culture, and culture is what make us a united country. In French, we have a saying for the french people who kept their culture of origin: "français de papiers" (paper french / french only on the (identity) papers, meaning they aren't true French, even if, officialy, they are).
I won't derail the thread anymore, promised.
Last time, president Obama didn't send the missiles, do you remember ? I don't remember why, was it because of the Congress ? Does president Trump need an "authorization" from the Congress, from anyone ?
I have the feeling he doesn't want this situation, but he seems pushed in it by, I don't know who, its advisors ?
Any discussion about refugees will result in a fight about racism and xenophobia, and people will piss each other off and fight until the thread gets locked. Then we can’t talk about US politics again, because people got heated about a single issue.
So maybe everybody agree to disagree, and either ignore the subject or make a refugee thread.
d-usa wrote: Any discussion about refugees will result in a fight about racism and xenophobia, and people will piss each other off and fight until the thread gets locked. Then we can’t talk about US politics again, because people got heated about a single issue.
So maybe everybody agree to disagree, and either ignore the subject or make a refugee thread.
godardc wrote: Last time, president Obama didn't send the missiles, do you remember ? I don't remember why, was it because of the Congress ? Does president Trump need an "authorization" from the Congress, from anyone ?
I have the feeling he doesn't want this situation, but he seems pushed in it by, I don't know who, its advisors ?
The simple answer? Obama, just like the rest of the nation and the West at the time just wasn't ready to commit to Syria so quickly after Afghanistan and Iraq. That perhaps was a bloody mistake.
Lobbing missiles though, that's just for show, no real results.
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, Paul Ryan is leaving. What's the current number of prominent, established Republicans who have decided to retire?
Do we know why he's leaving? I was kind of bummed by this, I quite liked him (and Rubio, who's staying put as far as I know!). Both talk party line, but have shown a willingness to be practical / pragmatic and get things done at times.
Also just a reminder folks, this thread is for US politics specifically - some of the discussion has gotten a little overly broad / might be better served in a dedicated thread.
I think Ryan has been dealing with a lot of problems similar to the problems that caused Boehner to step down from Majority Leader and the situations is exacerbated by the Trump administration. Factor in running for re-election in Wisconsin (a state Trump won) in the current political climate there as a poster boy for a Trump admin that probably really doesn't reflect Ryan's personal positions. I certainly don't envy whoever replaces him as the Majority/Minority Leader after the midterms. There's a lot of dysfunction in DC and there isn't a clear path to resolving it.
Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
I think Democrats are far less fractured than Republicans. . . The issue will be whether the DNC listens to the grassroots base or not (not holding breath here). The way I see it, Democrats have 2 main factions: neoliberals and the oftentimes called "Justice democrats". The latter group being Democrats running without PAC money, pushing for a return to the day of legislating for the average "Joe the Plummer" type as opposed to legislating for the corporations.
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
This is all pretty spot on, we'll see what happens. If the D's can coalesce around a coherent leadership, theyll be poised to win big, but have trouble finding that, as is tradition, and if anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, its them. The GOP on the other hand have trouble showing they can actually govern and rule even holding all branches of government and have a leader who appears to be busy making them all look like the stereotypes their opposition is pushing and undercutting their stances in playing to the worst excesses of their base.
One fine day we may have an alternative to these groups, but alas, today is not that day.
Quick check in: rather than calling another poster "a racist" (or something similar) - which may violate Rule Number One - try explaining why you think the points that poster is making are prejudicial against someone/some group because of their race. IME, calling someone a racist (or similar) is not a meaningful response in an ongoing conversation but rather a sign of frustration (and sometimes laziness) on behalf of the person making the accusation, which is part of what makes doing so rude in the first place. In general, keep criticism to the points rather than the people making the points. And keep in mind that just because someone calls you X doesn't mean you will be off the hook for calling them Y in response. Thanks!
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
Since Trump I've been doing my best to avoid referring to conservatives as Republicans and vice versa. Because those have become mutually exclusive and I see it as insulting to conservative viewpoints to do so.
godardc wrote: I can't believe you really think what you wrote ? Before I was born my parents wanted to go to Canada. They couldn't, it is not important why. But one of the conditions was to speak English. You see, if one day I came to live in the beautiful USA, I would speak English. I learnt it. When you come somewhere, you adapt. If you pretend to care for a country, you can, at least, try to speak its language. The State did not failed to teach them. They failed their new country. The integration should not be easy at all, it should be very difficult, in order to keep only loving and motivated people. Language is the BASE of the culture, and culture is what make us a united country. In French, we have a saying for the french people who kept their culture of origin: "français de papiers" (paper french / french only on the (identity) papers, meaning they aren't true French, even if, officialy, they are).
Far from everyone can just pick up a brand new language on their own, least of all if they're dealing with "everything else" of coming to a new country and never mind if they've had to flee there. The state offering comprehensive courses in the new language is a necessity for a functioning system of integration. Purposefully making integration difficult is cruel because you'll tear families apart based on how quickly they adopt a new language, according to you preferably without any outside help.
Language alone does not determine culture and culture does not make for a united country because class differences are inescapable.
Manchu wrote: Quick check in: rather than calling another poster "a racist" (or something similar) - which may violate Rule Number One - try explaining why you think the points that poster is making are prejudicial against someone/some group because of their race.
That is generally how racism works. "They don't speak my language!" "I don't like their culture!" "You won't change my mind, let's just move on!" Nah bud, you racist. Deal with it.
Ah, you are just so right. What was I thinking. I apologize. He isn't racist. The way he speaks of immigrants, their culture, use of their native language, and his unwillingness to engage in open discussion about the topic are racist. He himself is not. Just his actions.
Glad we cleared this up. I would hate to hurt feelings over the matter.
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
This is all pretty spot on, we'll see what happens. If the D's can coalesce around a coherent leadership, theyll be poised to win big, but have trouble finding that, as is tradition, and if anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, its them. The GOP on the other hand have trouble showing they can actually govern and rule even holding all branches of government and have a leader who appears to be busy making them all look like the stereotypes their opposition is pushing and undercutting their stances in playing to the worst excesses of their base.
One fine day we may have an alternative to these groups, but alas, today is not that day.
I think we're definitely in an era of rapid change with both parties' identities, especially the GOP. That's why I think all the obituaries for the Dems and GOP are premature. This isn't the GOP of the '90s and 00s, and definitely isn't the GOP of the '70s and '80s. So it's hard to argue that their brand has gotten stale.
Political parties are still just groups of people, and any shifts we see with those people's feelings and opinions will affect bottom-up change in the party. The 2016 election is recent and obvious proof that political parties can't tell their members how to vote in a top-down fashion.
Far from everyone can just pick up a brand new language on their own, least of all if they're dealing with "everything else" of coming to a new country and never mind if they've had to flee there. The state offering comprehensive courses in the new language is a necessity for a functioning system of integration. Purposefully making integration difficult is cruel because you'll tear families apart based on how quickly they adopt a new language, according to you preferably without any outside help.
Language alone does not determine culture and culture does not make for a united country because class differences are inescapable.
I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, you're not wrong, but communication facilitates the exchange of ideas. It's how elements of one culture are exchanged with another. It's probably the one single most basic requirement for that to happen now that the Internet has obviated the need for proximity.
In a world where polarization seems inevitable, lacking common language causes people to not integrate. There can be other reasons why that doesn't happen, and anytime anyone tells you there's a single reason for anything happening, they're probably wrong, but it's probably the biggest blocker for integration. That's a problem. I'm actually on board with comprehensive language courses. I would go one step further and make them mandatory. At this point, it seems like that's a much more practical solution than just "kick all the migrants out."
Thats a step back from my previous views. I still think that the rate and distribution of immigrants should be carefully handled in such a way that it encourages integration, though that also gets uncomfortably close to Platonism.
I do still very strongly disagree with the H1-B program, but that's a different topic altogether.
Manchu wrote: Quick check in: rather than calling another poster "a racist" (or something similar) - which may violate Rule Number One - try explaining why you think the points that poster is making are prejudicial against someone/some group because of their race.
That is generally how racism works. "They don't speak my language!" "I don't like their culture!" "You won't change my mind, let's just move on!" Nah bud, you racist. Deal with it.
Ah, you are just so right. What was I thinking. I apologize. He isn't racist. The way he speaks of immigrants, their culture, use of their native language, and his unwillingness to engage in open discussion about the topic are racist. He himself is not. Just his actions.
Glad we cleared this up. I would hate to hurt feelings over the matter.
If you have questions about moderation feel free to PM me. In the meantime, please consider taking my advice: it's going to make the difference between being able to continue posting in this sub-forum or not.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't understand this bizarre fantasy that the republicans are going to want to impeach President Trump. And even if they wanted to, for what crime?
Ouze wrote: Ryan has said he wants to spend more time with his family, but I think it's pretty obvious a dude who ran for VP and hoped to one day be President, who then settled for Speaker of the House.... he can't be too stoked about his imminent downgrade to Minority Leader - with all the recriminations that are sure to accompany said downgrading. Why not get off the ship as soon as you see the leak?
He never wanted it in the first place... so this isn't surprising.
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, Paul Ryan is leaving. What's the current number of prominent, established Republicans who have decided to retire?
Do we know why he's leaving? I was kind of bummed by this, I quite liked him (and Rubio, who's staying put as far as I know!). Both talk party line, but have shown a willingness to be practical / pragmatic and get things done at times.
Because he's facing a very hostile election and he's been facilitating a lot of what this administration has been doing.
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
I think Democrats are far less fractured than Republicans. . . The issue will be whether the DNC listens to the grassroots base or not (not holding breath here). The way I see it, Democrats have 2 main factions: neoliberals and the oftentimes called "Justice democrats". The latter group being Democrats running without PAC money, pushing for a return to the day of legislating for the average "Joe the Plummer" type as opposed to legislating for the corporations.
I dunno... I think both parties are pretty fractured.
Don't forget the internecine war between the Bernie-wing and HRC-wing... the Bernie fan-clubs are not likely to forget and forgive.
Where as the GOP has that NeverTrumpers v. Trumpalos dynamic...
I do still very strongly disagree with the H1-B program, but that's a different topic altogether.
What is this program (I could search it by myself, but I want to hear about it by a true American and get a more interesting answer) ?
It's worth searching. It's a program in which employers can bring foreign work over on a separate visa system for specialized work. It's pretty popular out here in California, but comes with a hefty (you have to pay the worker at least 100k a year in order to qualify) price tag and the number of slots are limited.
It was original used to import professors and doctors. Doctors in California aren't employees any more (they are now independent contractors by law), but they've been replaced by PHD level software architects.
It's also now frequently, and probably accurately, used as a way to depress wages in IT by importing cheaper foreign workers - that $90k/yr salary was $60k/yr up until a year ago.
Gonna jump in on H1B, it's a means of importing talent from foreign countries for specialized work, and it's very popular in the tech sector. There have been criticisms that it's a means of lowering wages in IT, prompting that minimum bar, but at the same time, the issue is also that there's a bit of a shortage in IT for workers in the US, so companies like to import talent.
H1B contributes quite a bit to the economy by poaching other countries talent, though some feel that it's a means to get cheap labor. H1B visas are very limited and tightly controlled now, ever since the '08 crisis, so it's really difficult to justify one nowadays, especially given the min salary requirements.
A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
I don't think making someone who really is American as any other kid in the country a second class citizen for life is really a reasonable compromise.
I dunno... I think both parties are pretty fractured.
Don't forget the internecine war between the Bernie-wing and HRC-wing... the Bernie fan-clubs are not likely to forget and forgive.
Where as the GOP has that NeverTrumpers v. Trumpalos dynamic...
I don't know that the fractures for both parties are as extreme as it's made out to be.
I think that there is more of a "hate established policies and/or the status quo" group that ended up splitting between Trump and Bernie, but that the fundamental core of both parties remains more-or-less intact.
I think that if there wouldn't have been such a damn clown car of a GOP primary, anyone of the establishment candidates might have beat Trump rather than pull the "not Trump" vote in 10 different directions. But the GOP primaries are such a clusterfeth and really function more as a job-interview opportunity for the folks running, that they ended up shooting the party in the foot. Heck, even everyone involved in the Trump campaign admits it was just a publicity stunt that backfired horribly . People still pull for Trump of course, and there is talk of the Trump vs anti-Trump wings of the party, but Trump backed candidates are also loosing. Trump just exacerbated the existing problem with the GOP primary process, extreme guys win primaries and then you do the Etch-A-Sketch thing and try to moderate (unless you are Trump).
The Democrat Split isn't as extreme, the actual voting wasn't as divisive, and (just like the final presidential vote) is was heavily influenced by an anti-Hillary movement than, IMO, an anti-Democratic Party policy movement.
Both Bernie, and more-so Trump, were boosted by having a "vote against them" candidate on the ticket. But now Trump (and by his associated role as speaker and leader of the GOP the Party at large) is the "vote against them" factor of the mid-term election. This is partly due to the normal mid-term effect, and exacerbated by him being Trump.
We'll see if the Democrats can get themselves together, or if their recent indications of success will fizzle out.
I do still very strongly disagree with the H1-B program, but that's a different topic altogether.
What is this program (I could search it by myself, but I want to hear about it by a true American and get a more interesting answer) ?
It's effectively a work visa program. Supposedly the purpose is to allow companies to bring in degree holding foreign workers who possess skills Americans don't have for jobs requiring those skills. It's a reasonable enough thing on paper and I'm sure there are some cases in which that it actually does perform that function.
In reality, the program runs rampant, particularly in the tech industry. There was an investigation about Disney actively using H1-B workers as a means of threatening employees. I think there were several other companies accused of doing this too. Things like Microsoft laying off a few thousand people while simultaneously crying about how the H1-B program needs expanded because there's not enough Americans in the tech industry happen, which is galling. In some industries, they wind up getting paid more, but in the tech industry, they're usually paid from much less to slightly less, depending on location and I'm sure a million other things. The way it's being used artificially lowers wages by reducing demand for employees. It also creates workers that have more dependence on their corporate benefactor, and while changing jobs is possible, it's difficult and requires additional effort on both the worker and the new employer.
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
Weird, the position I hear is that adult should be treated like adult immigrants, and that dreamers should be treated like any other resident of whatever state they are living in.
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
So what does that make them? Do they get the opportunity to become a citizen? Are they in infinite limbo as a second class citizen? If they came with their parents and are still underage, do the parents stay or go? If the parents stay, what happens when the kid is of age? Ship the parents off as soon as the kid hits 18? Ship them all off?
Dreadwinter wrote: Ah, you are just so right. What was I thinking. I apologize. He isn't racist. The way he speaks of immigrants, their culture, use of their native language, and his unwillingness to engage in open discussion about the topic are racist. He himself is not. Just his actions.
When did I do any of that? I think I have been pretty responsive on any point or question made to me.
I don't a problem with immigrants. I never said a thing about immigrants. Re-read what I wrote. I am okay with immigrants coming from everywhere. What I have an issue with is sending over a bunch of refugees. Injecting a mass group of people into a local area without jobs, healthcare, housing, etc, all waiting and ready, which can buckle the economy of the area, and impact the culture and even things like home values, crime, and businesses. That's real. The vast majority of American's opposed to the resettlement of large groups of people in their area has more to do with the impact that it has to an area than the refugees themselves. And sure, differences in culture, language, all plays a part.
I referenced Miami, because it's changes began to take place overnight when 125,000 Cubans came over in the Mariel boatlift (google it). These were refugees fleeing communism. Miami did not have the means to take all of these people in, and for a long time they lived in tent cities. Guess what also happened as many couldn't find jobs? Crime went up. And it went from Little Havana to basically all of Miami-Dade country as the people who were living there prior left. When you see pictures of Miami of South Beach and Coconut Grove, its all gorgeous, out of sight expensive, and limited to a sliver of the coast. Parts of Miami-Dade look like a third world country. And because of the large group of spanish-speaking people there, Haitians, Venezuelans, and others have continued to immigrant there, completely changing the city. And I am not saying that it is all bad either, but it changed. Many have starting to move up the state as housing is really expensive in Miami (do a quick Zillow and you will see what I mean), so people are re-locating even as north as Coral Springs, where the Parkland Shooting took place. Given Global Warming and the rising tide in Miami, eventually the nicer parts of Miami will be underwater, forcing even more migrations. I spent a lot of time there, and the last time I was down, I said I would probably never go back. Its just changed and I do not have enough in common with it anymore. It doesn't have to do with the color of anyone's skin. That would be racist. But you can still find issue with cultural attitudes, language barriers, and diversity. And racism goes both ways. Don't think that just because I am white, that I haven't been on the receiving end of it there.
But that's not even the point. The point is the change. Not everyone wants it. A lot of people are happy with the way things are, and prefer they stay that way. Most people can handle small doses of diversity fine. A lot of people feel lost in a lot of it. The reality is, I prefer to be around people like me, who share similar values, speak the same language, religious beliefs, and all that. A lot of people do. That is not being superior or acting if one group or another is lesser than I am. I just prefer not to have to assimilate in an area I am already living in. Especially if I built a career there, bought my home there, and began raising a family.
And btw, Gentilization which is all the rage now, is the opposite of this really, and no one calls the people complaining about it racist, which amuses me. This is where developers and whites buy up older run-down properties in neighborhoods of other races, and replace them with new condos, Starbucks, and so on, and these groups protest because to takes away from the culture of the 'old neighborhood' (even though these neighborhoods usually belonged to another group before them). Its not protesting against white people necessarily, its the loss or change in the surrounding culture. The irony.
Its important that you understand that if you are going to discuss US Politics, because that fear of change is what helped put Trump in the White House. I don't think its fair to call all Trump supporters racists. People just don't want fast change. And for the record I didn't even vote for Trump. But most of my family did, and they are not racists.
Edit: and let me add this so everyone can understand where I come from. At the time of the elections, I was dating a girl from Iran who is here getting her phd. I knew what Trump's immigration polices would be, and how this would effect her parents visiting. In addition, she cannot return to Iran (which is a whole other story itself). I let her choose who I would vote for so she could be a part of the process. She was well informed and asked I vote for Hillary (even though I disliked her), so I did.
. . .
As far as Ryan is concerned, he's prob one of the last 'in the middle of the road' guys left to lead. And honestly, if Trump does get impeached, he probably would prefer to be out of politics when it happens. But his big fantasy was tax reform, which he did, and now wont have to be around if it turns out to be a bad plan to implement.
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
I don't think making someone who really is American as any other kid in the country a second class citizen for life is really a reasonable compromise.
Did I say for life? They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
I don't think making someone who really is American as any other kid in the country a second class citizen for life is really a reasonable compromise.
Did I say for life? They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
So you seriously have not heard anyone anywhere advocate a middle-ground position? You have only heard "ship everyone back, even children without parents" or "make everyone a citizen, even drug dealers and rapists who came over at age 30"? There has been no politician that you have heard off that has advocated some sort of middle ground? No news outlet that reported on a middle ground? No friend in person, or on Facebook, that has suggested a middle ground?
You must have stumbled on a very original idea there, maybe you should publish it!
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
So what does that make them? Do they get the opportunity to become a citizen? Are they in infinite limbo as a second class citizen? If they came with their parents and are still underage, do the parents stay or go? If the parents stay, what happens when the kid is of age? Ship the parents off as soon as the kid hits 18? Ship them all off?
Oh, the whole "breaking up families" argument. Even if the child was born here, and thus a citizen, no one is breaking up the family. The children can go with the parents, or choose to stay. The parents knew the risks. That's on them. Being rewarded for illegal actions isn't something I'm down with. Now, if someone came here because of refugee status or some extreme circumstances I'd be more forgiving. That being said there are "refugees" from an El Salvadorian earthquake more than a decade ago that need to have that temporary refugee status revoked.
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
I don't think making someone who really is American as any other kid in the country a second class citizen for life is really a reasonable compromise.
Did I say for life? They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
So you seriously have not heard anyone anywhere advocate a middle-ground position? You have only heard "ship everyone back, even children without parents" or "make everyone a citizen, even drug dealers and rapists who came over at age 30"? There has been no politician that you have heard off that has advocated some sort of middle ground? No news outlet that reported on a middle ground? No friend in person, or on Facebook, that has suggested a middle ground?
You must have stumbled on a very original idea there, maybe you should publish it!
Maybe "no middle ground" was a bit of an exaggeration, but to an extent, yes. Almost every talking head on the pro-immigrant side states there needs to be a clear pathway to citizenship. Why?
Fun Fact: Unregistered Immigrants are required to register for the draft. I didn't know that. Service is a valid path to citizenship according to the Dream Act.
Maybe "no middle ground" was a bit of an exaggeration, but to an extent, yes. Almost every talking head on the pro-immigrant side states there needs to be a clear pathway to citizenship. Why?
Because there should be a middle ground?
To quote some random person on the internet:
cuda1179 wrote: They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Fun Fact: Unregistered Immigrants are required to register for the draft. I didn't know that. Service is a valid path to citizenship according to the Dream Act.
That is MALE Unregister Immigrants. Women (regardless of immigration status) still get a free pass. Kind of makes you wonder, since there is such a low rate for unregistered Immigrant males applying for the draft, could it be used as a back door to speed deportations? (Using Trump Admin logic here) Failing for register is a Federal offence. If you are in violation of that, you could loose your Dreamer status and be deported.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: [Because there should be a middle ground?
To quote some random person on the internet:
cuda1179 wrote: They can become citizens, I just don't think they should just be awarded it.
]
I meant the current, legal way to become a citizen. Possibly with a redaction of requirement to leave the country first.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Fun Fact: Unregistered Immigrants are required to register for the draft. I didn't know that. Service is a valid path to citizenship according to the Dream Act.
That is MALE Unregister Immigrants. Women (regardless of immigration status) still get a free pass
To be fair, women citizens also get a free pass as well.
Failing for register is a Federal offence. If you are in violation of that, you could loose your Dreamer status and be deported.
It's already used to disqualify you from a variety of federal programs, as well as federal employment I think, so I don't think there should be a problem with it also disqualifying you from Dreamer status or other future regulations.
Well, yes still a pathway. Some of the other "pathways" I've heard proposed on the news are MUCH less involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as selective service goes, how would they choose you if you had no Social Security number? Even for a citizen there is no legal requirement to ever have a Social Security number. You don't need one to pay taxes (that's what ITIN's are for), you don't need one for education, not for medical care, and according to legal precedence you don't even need one to gain employment.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, yes still a pathway. Some of the other "pathways" I've heard proposed on the news are MUCH less involved.
So you HAVE heard of other options besides "come over as an adult, pillage and murder, and become a citizen" and "kick out every baby" .
There is a difference between "I don't like the compromises being proposed" and "I have not heard of any kind of compromise whatsoever". If we want to have an honest discussion, even on the off-topic section of a forum about toy soldiers, we should start with being honest about what is actually being talked about.
Its not exactly US related, but it ties in to the wider Facebook story. So today it came out medical insurance companies and even certain hospitals in the Netherlands actually broadcast the pages you visit to FB through the FB tracking pixel. So good luck if you ever tried to find if your insurer covers an STD or a mental illness treatment in the Netherlands, because now FB knows you have it too! They probably have the capability in the US too, but I haven't hear about it being the case (yet).
As far as selective service goes, how would they choose you if you had no Social Security number? Even for a citizen there is no legal requirement to ever have a Social Security number. You don't need one to pay taxes (that's what ITIN's are for), you don't need one for education, not for medical care, and according to legal precedence you don't even need one to gain employment.
If you can use your TIN for other things, I would think they should be able to come up with a way to use it for selective service registration. The TIN would still be attached to your person, just like the SSN, or so I would think? I don't know if the legislation for the selective service specifically requires a social security number right now, so I can't say.
But if I do remember the actual selective service requirements right, I don't think it should matter since they could just assign you some internal Selective Service ID because they can already track you down for notification since we are all required to update our Selective Service registration every time we move until we are 26. Which, I'm sure, is something we all complied with (or are still complying with for you younger folks)
On another topic, has anyone else heard that the US and Australia are both offering asylum status to Caucasian farmers from South Africa due to the flagrant human rights violations by the South African Government? Looks like GW isn't the only entity with a hard-swinging pendulum.
I am one hair away from deleting facebook. I rarely use it. The only reason it exists is so my gf could prove to others I existed. I stopped updating it ages ago. The am over the whole narcissism movement and seeing everyone's vacation and kids photos, or being forwarded dumb quotes.
There was a time showing pictures was boring and annoying.
But deleting facebook off my phone was one of the best things I ever did.
And just coming back from a family funeral, I was surprised that my younger cousins didn't use Facebook. Everyone uses Snap. So like all software and websites, Facebook will eventually come and go.
But the hording of information by facebook, internet companies, etc etc really bothers me. Its already too easy to write a book on someone in the US just by doing background checks, viewing Linkedin profiles, checking home values, when they are on vacations. etc etc.
My Grandmother, bless her heart, always told me my private things private. If she could only see what people are doing these days.
deltaKshatriya wrote: Gonna jump in on H1B, it's a means of importing talent from foreign countries for specialized work, and it's very popular in the tech sector. There have been criticisms that it's a means of lowering wages in IT, prompting that minimum bar, but at the same time, the issue is also that there's a bit of a shortage in IT for workers in the US, so companies like to import talent.
H1B contributes quite a bit to the economy by poaching other countries talent, though some feel that it's a means to get cheap labor. H1B visas are very limited and tightly controlled now, ever since the '08 crisis, so it's really difficult to justify one nowadays, especially given the min salary requirements.
I could never figure out the 'lowering wages' bit. All our low and medium wage workers here are traditional green card holders. You could ban H-1B and your 50k a year IT job will still have exactly the same amount of competition you did before. Worse you could say is that foreign VPs might be more likely to hire other foreign VPs/encourage outsourcing - even that's a stretch.
I haven't touched it since they opened it up to everyone. Nothing that your Mom and Grandmother can get into will ever be cool.
That being said, even when nothing changes, I can at least say that it was real nice to watch Zuckerberg squirm a little on TV. At one point I think I saw him visibly resist rolling his eyes.
That's not really an issue with Facebook though, and more just people wanting to feel important and scream their opinions everywhere. It's just the internet version of putting bumper stickers on your car.
But then, I use Facebook for the reasons you are over with: sharing vacation and kids pictures with family and close friends. I'm also not friends with every single person I know. If I wouldn't care to look at your vacation or family pictures in person, there is no reason for me to be your Facebook friend.
I also post almost nothing that resembles an opinion about anything. People on Facebook don't need to know how I feel about Trump, the economy, immigrants, religion, whatever. My opinion is my own, now here is a picture of a family milestone. I have my share of crazy uncles posting stupid political bs that is obviously fake before even taking 5 seconds to Google the claims, who then follow it up posting crap about fake news and people being gullible and falling for every fake story on Facebook. I just have them on mute, and that solves that problem.
I did the "download your Facebook data" thing, and man I am boring. I am connected to almost no company, except a handful I interacted with many years ago before I became more conscious about how I use Facebook.
cuda1179 wrote: A group of friends and I have been having the "what to do with Dreamers" discussion for a while now. One person is staunchly a "ship 'em all back" kind of guy, the other is "Make them all citizens now, regardless of any crimes they committed."
While these two friends are polar opposites on the spectrum, why is it that when this is debated on the news there is rarely a middle ground mentioned?
Why does no one ever say "If you are an adult illegal immigrant, you are prime for deportation, but if you were brought here as a child you have a chance to stay. No, that doesn't mean you are a citizen, no you can't pay in-state tuition, no you aren't eligible for welfare, you must stay out of trouble, no you can't sponsor another immigrant." Why is there never any reasonable compromise on this issue?
Because "the news" isn't news, it is entertainment. And reasonable middle ground isn't very entertaining.
Also, this is one of those issues that neither party wants to "solve". It would be dumb to say we are just going to give out citizenship to illegals without having control of the borders, but if we could prevent most attempts to sneak in it would be dumb to round up and send back all the people who have been here for years working and not committing crimes. It's kind of a manufactured controversy because it gets people riled up and drives them to the polls to vote for their side.
I use Facebook pretty much exclusively to maintain an active chat group with long distance friends, organize events (because like it or not everyone is on FB and inviting and organizing there is easiest) and interact with organizations that dont really have a physical presence (such as my local HEMA crowd and fencing school).
For those things, it works just fine. I rather like FB for those things.
Outside of that, total pointless garbage. Actually, the worst part is that, since everyone is on there these days (and not just your dormmates that all needed .edu addresses to register), and that it's now looked at as an almost entirely public place with everyone you know and everyone who knows you all connected, you cant even post garbage anymore, because someone will get mad about it
KTG17 wrote: I am one hair away from deleting facebook. I rarely use it. The only reason it exists is so my gf could prove to others I existed. I stopped updating it ages ago. The am over the whole narcissism movement and seeing everyone's vacation and kids photos, or being forwarded dumb quotes.
There was a time showing pictures was boring and annoying.
But deleting facebook off my phone was one of the best things I ever did.
And just coming back from a family funeral, I was surprised that my younger cousins didn't use Facebook. Everyone uses Snap. So like all software and websites, Facebook will eventually come and go.
But the hording of information by facebook, internet companies, etc etc really bothers me. Its already too easy to write a book on someone in the US just by doing background checks, viewing Linkedin profiles, checking home values, when they are on vacations. etc etc.
My Grandmother, bless her heart, always told me my private things private. If she could only see what people are doing these days.
Pretty scary.
Fun fact, some android phones don't even allow you to delete FB
But yeah, once 'older' people started using FB the younger people moved on, away from the prying eyes of relatives. Problem is, half those companies likely do almost exactly the same things and the other half is owned by FB.
The funniest part about FB is still people loudly proclaiming to go on vacation on it and then finding out there home had been robbed. Yeah, you basically rolled out the red carpet for that one.
The funniest part about FB is still people loudly proclaiming to go on vacation on it and then finding out there home had been robbed. Yeah, you basically rolled out the red carpet for that one.
This actually happened to someone I know. I was even FB friends with them at the time.
If you are going to post vaca pics, do it when you get back. I made my gf do it.
Because "the news" isn't news, it is entertainment. And reasonable middle ground isn't very entertaining.
Well, even accounting for editorial bias, we also need to account for the fact that even news channels are divided between "reporting news" and "news commentary and opinion programming". And "reporting" usually doesn't account for the majority of their programming.
Also, this is one of those issues that neither party wants to "solve". It would be dumb to say we are just going to give out citizenship to illegals without having control of the borders, but if we could prevent most attempts to sneak in it would be dumb to round up and send back all the people who have been here for years working and not committing crimes. It's kind of a manufactured controversy because it gets people riled up and drives them to the polls to vote for their side.
We can acknowledge that border crossings have been going way down for quite a long time now though. If we want to have an honest discussion about fixing illegal immigration, that should be at least a start. It's super easy to simply buy a round trip ticket to the US and never leave. That's how we showed up .
That was before I applied for my US passport, and before our Republican congressman Frank Lucas intervened on my mothers behalf to help her get a green card after exceeding her tourist visa and becoming an undocumented alien. That was all pre-2000 though, so it was a gentler and more compassionate GOP.
I'm 36, but I feel like an old man when it comes to social media. I have a Facebook account, but rarely update it. I have 5 pictures on it in the last 12 years. My only friends are close family, a couple friends, and people that I graduated high school with (only because it allows me to know when the next reunion is).
I've never bothered with twitter, Instagram, snapchat, or anything else. Nor have I ever had any of these things, even facebook, available on my phone.
The funniest part about FB is still people loudly proclaiming to go on vacation on it and then finding out there home had been robbed. Yeah, you basically rolled out the red carpet for that one.
This actually happened to someone I know. I was even FB friends with them at the time.
If you are going to post vaca pics, do it when you get back. I made my gf do it.
I keep warning people about this as well. My wife's cousin has an active countdown (44 days) until her extended vacation. I'm almost tempted to rob her myself just to teach her a lesson.
cuda1179 wrote: I've never bothered with twitter, Instagram, snapchat, or anything else. Nor have I ever had any of these things, even facebook, available on my phone.
I've got a lot of respect for you for this. Keep it up.
Something has to be said of talking to important people directly. Seems to becoming a lost art these days.
cuda1179 wrote: I've never bothered with twitter, Instagram, snapchat, or anything else. Nor have I ever had any of these things, even facebook, available on my phone.
I've got a lot of respect for you for this. Keep it up.
Something has to be said of talking to important people directly. Seems to becoming a lost art these days.
On the other hand, there are also times when issues (especially with businesses) are resolved more easily via social media because it is more visible.
In December, I was stuck at a DC airport because our plane had a pilot delay and then a weather delay when the airport shut down for a couple hours. People were on the phone forever, waiting on hold to talk to the airline and not really getting anywhere. I send a tweet to the airline that was basically "hey @airline, our pilot was late and we missed our departure, now the airport shut down and I'll miss my connection. Can you help me out?". I had a reply confirming that they changed my connecting flight before other people ever got off hold.
Social media is a tool. Sometimes people using it are tools. But if you know which one of the two should actually be the tool, it isn't so bad
It's all about how you use it. Email is fine, but it should be clear and concise, like a letter. There are to many emails at work that are written like a post-it note and not like professional correspondence. No, not every email needs to be a 3 paragraph letter. But it should have actual sentences, with capitalization and punctuation and stuff...
Agreed. I guess I am just looking at it from what seems to be the need for everyone to star in their own show, concerned about how many likes and replies they get.
There are no doubt good uses, but the filler, tracking, and so on, I have been fine dumping it.
Monetizing this stuff, and people trying to be influencers and stuff, are the cancer of social media.
Now don’t forget to SMASH that like button, hit subscribe, and comment on this post to get the latest updates from your boy d-usa!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unrelated: I’ve gotten 12 spoofed calls on my phone today. If Trump would have a plan on how to stop that gak and throw those donkey-caves in jail, I would personally campaign for him.
In regards to dreamers and illegal immigration overall I feel like it is being approached in the wrong way. Obviously people want to come to the US, and realistically a significant number of them will get here regardless of what we do. The question really isn't 'how do we stop illegal immigration' but rather 'why aren't these people using LEGAL immigration?' Obviously there are a lot of reasons for that, and IMO those are what need to be addressed.
As a side note, NAFTA did more to reduce immigration from Mexico than any US border policy, ever. Because by improving Mexico's economy it made more people prefer to stay there. If we took the money we spend on building border walls and spent it on taking out cartels instead we would get much more bang for our buck in terms of illegal immigration and get to crack down on the drug trade on our side to boot.
deltaKshatriya wrote: Gonna jump in on H1B, it's a means of importing talent from foreign countries for specialized work, and it's very popular in the tech sector. There have been criticisms that it's a means of lowering wages in IT, prompting that minimum bar, but at the same time, the issue is also that there's a bit of a shortage in IT for workers in the US, so companies like to import talent.
H1B contributes quite a bit to the economy by poaching other countries talent, though some feel that it's a means to get cheap labor. H1B visas are very limited and tightly controlled now, ever since the '08 crisis, so it's really difficult to justify one nowadays, especially given the min salary requirements.
I could never figure out the 'lowering wages' bit. All our low and medium wage workers here are traditional green card holders. You could ban H-1B and your 50k a year IT job will still have exactly the same amount of competition you did before. Worse you could say is that foreign VPs might be more likely to hire other foreign VPs/encourage outsourcing - even that's a stretch.
I don't disagree with you: this whole lowering wages thing is partly a myth. Problem is that perceptions will always remain that way just due to psychology. Fact is that finding qualified workers is tough in the US for a variety of reasons. Here's an interesting article on it: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/23/why-we-have-a-shortage-of-tech-workers-in-the-u-s.html
Just Tony wrote: So am I to assume that everyone would be completely opposed to privatizing all teaching jobs? Because we're fresh out of realistic options at this point. State governments don't want to pay teachers a fair wage, from what I see, and if we're going to pay for our children's education anyway, might as well skip that unnecessary government step.
Sure. How do you guarantee EVERY child can still go to school afterwards, even kids whose parents barely make enough money to buy food and can't possibly afford tens of thousands of dollars for tuition at a for-profit school?
You do realize that children in low income communities both urban and rural are already languishing in underperforming public schools failing to achieve an adequate education with no hope for a better outcome because their parents are too poor to send them to a better school, right? It’s not like the current system of a centuries old outmoded process designed to churn out minimally qualified factory labor for the industrial revolution without interfering with planting/harvesting farming schedules is ensuring that every student is meeting or exceeding federal and state mandated grade level standards and test scores. We shouldn’t be so heavily invested in the stays quo when it’s been leaving the poor kids behind and stuck in the same vicious cycle for decades.
Of course I do, I attended exactly that sort of underperforming public school back in the eighties. Not only do I understand exactly how bad the problem is, I understand how long it's been continuing.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a viable solution. Eliminating public schools just means that any kid not lucky enough to be born to a wealthy enough family gets NO education, instead of even the minimal one they're getting now. If there's not much use for minimally-educated workers, there's NO USE AT ALL for someone who can't even read or add. If you think the system we have now is bad for vicious cycles, how bad would it be for a whole class of people who have no job opportunities at all?
cuda1179 wrote: I've never bothered with twitter, Instagram, snapchat, or anything else. Nor have I ever had any of these things, even facebook, available on my phone.
I've got a lot of respect for you for this. Keep it up.
Something has to be said of talking to important people directly. Seems to becoming a lost art these days.
Some of my employees REALLY don't get this at all. Part of my work policy is that if you need a sick day, you need to call into THE STORE, talk to a MANAGER, and do it in a time appropriate manner. If you know you are sick at 8am, and wait until 4:45pm to call in sick for your 5pm shift, this is a problem. You also can't call random employee X, as that isn't letting a manager know. Texting also doesn't work as you don't know if the manager had their phone on them or even if they checked their phone.
The worst I've had it was when someone just couldn't understand why they were in trouble for posting on my facebook wall that they were "sick". They posted that message at 4:40pm, scheduled to work at 5. And by "sick" they meant their legs were too sore from a combination spin class and weight lift they did earlier that afternoon.
Just Tony wrote: but if there were less government run schools to fund, then maybe the schools left could have a higher caliber staff and curriculum.
Could. . . but wouldn't. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to see what DeVos and her ilk have done with privatized education.
At that point, you vote with your wallet. Like every other privatized service on the planet.
I realize I'm trying to pitch capitalist solutions to pro-socialist persons here, but since we AREN'T the EU, we need to work in the confines of the US economic system, and stick with what works.
Two things.
1) The EU system is, in essence, the same system that America used for much of it's history, most notably during America's strongest economic period (the 1940s to the 1970s) so it's not exactly incompatible with the U.S. economic system.
2) The EU (and former American) system is quite literally beating the pants off the modern American system for less (sometimes FAR less) money per child.
Ouze wrote: If Trump gets impeached I can't see any way possible Pence remains a viable candidate. I think he's irrevocably tainted by association.
Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...
Well, he lost, so....
Doesn't really answer my question...
I'm generally curious... He lost Florida by 537 votes.
Had Clinton never been impeached, I wonder if we would have a Gore Presidency...
Very likely. Despite the Florida votes, consider the effect in other states. Had Clinton not been a factor, Gore may have won enough of the others to make it a moot point. While I have a general dislike for Democrats and an absolute loathing of liberals/progressives, I voted for Gore. I would have voted for Biden or Webb had they been put forward, even over my own candidate (Johnson)
Ouze wrote: If Trump gets impeached I can't see any way possible Pence remains a viable candidate. I think he's irrevocably tainted by association.
Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...
Well, he lost, so....
Doesn't really answer my question...
I'm generally curious... He lost Florida by 537 votes.
Had Clinton never been impeached, I wonder if we would have a Gore Presidency...
Very likely. Despite the Florida votes, consider the effect in other states. Had Clinton not been a factor, Gore may have won enough of the others to make it a moot point. While I have a general dislike for Democrats and an absolute loathing of liberals/progressives, I voted for Gore. I would have voted for Biden or Webb had they been put forward, even over my own candidate (Johnson)
I don't know. Gore has gotten both preachy, and hypocritical over the years. Scolding Americans for driving large cars, yet taking a weekend pleasure cruise on a private yacht that puts out more pollution in that weekend that a year of family driving. Then there is his seudo charity and questionable documentaries.
deltaKshatriya wrote: Gonna jump in on H1B, it's a means of importing talent from foreign countries for specialized work, and it's very popular in the tech sector. There have been criticisms that it's a means of lowering wages in IT, prompting that minimum bar, but at the same time, the issue is also that there's a bit of a shortage in IT for workers in the US, so companies like to import talent.
There is no shortage of IT-qualified workers in America. There is, however, a shortage of American people willing to work for under $100K in San Francisco (it's estimated the MINIMUM annual income to afford a house in SF is $175,000) after going in debt tens of thousands of dollars to get IT qualified in the first place. In short, tech companies don't want to pay a living wage for San Francisco, but don't want to leave the area to attract American talent either.
Ouze wrote: If Trump gets impeached I can't see any way possible Pence remains a viable candidate. I think he's irrevocably tainted by association.
Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...
Well, he lost, so....
Doesn't really answer my question...
I'm generally curious... He lost Florida by 537 votes.
Had Clinton never been impeached, I wonder if we would have a Gore Presidency...
Very likely. Despite the Florida votes, consider the effect in other states. Had Clinton not been a factor, Gore may have won enough of the others to make it a moot point. While I have a general dislike for Democrats and an absolute loathing of liberals/progressives, I voted for Gore. I would have voted for Biden or Webb had they been put forward, even over my own candidate (Johnson)
I don't know. Gore has gotten both preachy, and hypocritical over the years. Scolding Americans for driving large cars, yet taking a weekend pleasure cruise on a private yacht that puts out more pollution in that weekend that a year of family driving. Then there is his seudo charity and questionable documentaries.
Most of his "crazy" happened well after the election. I will give him credit for conceding with grace instead of generally being a douche about it.
After months of denying he was considering leaving politics, Paul Ryan leaves politics. It was a final lie to complete a political career that was just a long string of lies.
If that sounds harsh, that's probably because you don't know Paul Ryan very well. Ryan first came to national attention during the Bush administration's push to privatise social security. Ryan put up his own bill that went far to the right of Bush's plan, privatising everything and turning the private accounts in to long term tax minimization options for high income earners. The CBO said it would increase deficits $2.5tn in its first decade, and increase the deficit in every single year thereafter for the full 75 years the policy was studied. Even in the age of Bush's free spending this was miles past the limits of acceptable spending. In addition to this, Ryan supported both of Bush's deficit financed tax cuts, his deficit financed Medicare expansion, and his deficit financed war.
After Republicans got smashed in 2006 and 2008, Paul Ryan decided to claim he'd always been a deficit hawk who's goal was always to bring the budget under control. He started releasing his own zero deficit budgets. These budgets established for Ryan credibility as a serious policy wonk focused on deficit control. And why not, after he had a smart sounding voice and used powerpoint, he must be very serious. Problem was the budgets were an obvious con. They consisted of massive tax cuts for the rich, and a bunch of magical asterixes that showed big revenue from unmentioned loophole closures and big savings from unmentioned expenditure cuts. Ryan's plan was to cut taxes, then make everything balance through some stuff he'll figure out later on.
After Ryan's unsuccessful run on Romney's ticket in 2012, Ryan realised he needed to pivot again, he decided that he was serious about talking about poverty. So he started talking about how he cared about the issue. He didn't actually talk about anything to resolve the problem, in fact he continued to support health and social security polices that were certain to make the problem worse.
Come 2016 and Ryan was now Speaker of the House, and very seriously talked about tax reform. That isn't just tax cuts, that means going through thousands of tax exemptions and identifying loopholes and carve outs for special interests and writing an in depth policy that will fund a broad tax cut by removing those special rules. It's serious work, a way of producing a tax cut without impacting the deficit, and Paul Ryan certainly talked about it a lot. Then in 2017 when Republicans got to add the presidency to their congressional control, Paul Ryan got to work. Except, of course, talk of tax reform went immediately out the window, Ryan removed the non-partisan tax reformers from the process entirely, he brought his own staff and his biggest lobbyists in to closed sessions, and produced a tax bill with a $1.5 trillion deficit impact, that was full of new loopholes for special interest, particularly real estate developers and hedge fund managers.
Within a month of passing a bill that will add $1.5 trillion more to the deficit, Ryan returned to pretending to being concerned about the deficit. He announced the deficit had to be addressed, and the only way to do it would be cutting social security and medicare. After a few months of that nonsense going absolutely nowhere, with Democrats leading in polls by more than they did when they produced the 2006 blue wave, it leaked that Ryan was leaving politics. He denied this, and then claimed he was leaving because he achieved everything he set out to do, and is leaving politics to spend more time with his family.
To cap off his career perfectly, Ryan finished by telling yet more lies.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In response to your other point, and it's something I've wanted to say for a while, but is this Trump/Russia circus still rumbling on?
Dude, it's barely started.
I'll be surprised if it adds up to anything more than a hill of beans. Short of murder or burning the declaration of independence, the only way Trump is leaving 1600 is if he loses the next election.
It's already amounted to more than a hill of beans. Trump's major national security advisor, his campaign chairman and his personal lawyer have all been indicted or linked to serious federal crimes, in addition to a bunch of other players, for a total of around 20 people .
I think you're simplifying the various pressures of how this stuff plays out. It isn't just 'will he get indicted or not'. If Trump is shown guilty of serious crimes, then individual congressmen will come under pressure, it may not flip them to a point where they will put forward indictment motions, but it is likely to put them in a position where they will communicate to the president that's where they're going and request he step down before that happens. At which point Trump will be getting constant feedback of weakening support, while being constantly asked about his part in crimes, and unable to move forward on any part of his agenda. It made Nixon leave. It might not make Trump leave. It might not even get to that, as Trump might prevent Mueller's findings coming to light, or Mueller may not have anything damning on Trump. But to claim that nothing can come of this is not a very sensible take.
A lot of people seem to be fantasizing about Watergate
The crimes that have already secured guilty pleas in Trump/Russia are already a lot more serious than the Watergate break-in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even back then it was a real headscratcher, nothing he stands for really makes him stand out from the crowd, he has zero experience in government and is terrible in public which is not so handy for a potential politician. His only claim to fame is FB, which would have given him a pretty incredible tool to campaign with though, given that he could hold full control of whatever campaign adds would be allowed. But even being the guy behind FB, how many people could realistically pick out his face from a crowd?
Trump won, which caused a lot of people to think that we were moving in to a new age of celebrity politics. When you add in Zuckerberg having the massive ego you'd expect of a guy who created more wealth than almost anyone on the planet by his early 30s, its natural he thought he'd be a shot at the presidency.
But I agree on how silly the idea was. As you say, while everyone knows his name, his face is barely known, his speeches barely resonate on the public. A guy like Steve Jobs had a real cultural impact, that could transition in to a presidential even. Even Trump was a known figure and something of a cultural force before his presidential run. Zuckerberg on a personal level wasn't. But after Trump's win, people suddenly thought a lot of crazy stuff was possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't understand this bizarre fantasy that the republicans are going to want to impeach President Trump. And even if they wanted to, for what crime?
This thing where people will ask what crime Trump is publicly known to be guilty of, while the Mueller investigation is still operating in complete secrecy needs to stop. It's a silly line of argument. At some point the Mueller investigation will end. It is possible, I guess, that Trump will come out with a clean bill of health. It's also possible that Mueller will spend several hours reading out charges ranging from money laundering and bank fraud to conspiracy to defraud the United States. It's not known at this point.
As such, it is entirely sensible to talk about what various people might do in the event that Trump or even just his close associates are indicted of serious crimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: Ok well, new to ordering air strikes and dealing with the consequences of that, that part, yes.
Sure, but just before this you said most people worked their way to the presidency through being city councilmen, state senators and congressmen. None of that gives you any experience in ordering air strikes and dealing with the consequences. Even people who've come up through the military have a totally different experience, as they might order operations, but they are based on strategic direction given by the president. Anyone who comes in to the presidency will find the experience of making life and death decisions with international consequences to be a new and very confronting experience.
Other presidents have also struggled with that responsibility, you wouldn't be human if you didn't. There's a reason the presidency ages men so badly. The point is none have dealt with it in such an erratic and frequently bizarre way as Trump. This isn't because Trump is new. It is because it is who Trump is. The man loves to talk, and in the moment he'll say anything that sounds good. When faced with the consequences of his actions he frequently changes course. Trump's catchphrase was 'you're fired', he leveraged it to claim he was going to clean out Washington. But in real life barely anyone has been fired from Trump Org, even those who really screwed up were shifted around. Trump loves to talk, and he will wound off on a subject long before he's actually thought about it. So when it comes to act, Trump will see the consequences of his action and will be forced to face those for the first time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Ryan has said he wants to spend more time with his family, but I think it's pretty obvious a dude who ran for VP and hoped to one day be President, who then settled for Speaker of the House.... he can't be too stoked about his imminent downgrade to Minority Leader - with all the recriminations that are sure to accompany said downgrading. Why not get off the ship as soon as you see the leak?
And how is he going to go back to his old grifts anyway? Return to minority and start producing his imaginary budgets again, with the promise that next time when he's in power he'll actually try to do the budget balancing and tax reform he promised?
The con was finished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Sort of. . . the crash happened because of stock market shenanigans (IIRC, it was farm/grain prices bottomed out due to oversupply or some such). The president having a response demanded of him, signed some trickle-down legislation that was touted as something that would help/solve the problems (it was being highly suggested to him by JP Morgan's replacements and his ilk, much the same as today) but instead deepened the problem as well as drew even more industries into the depressed market.
Ah, okay. Thanks. This is an area I need to read more about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
Parties in opposition always look leaderless. Democrats are bubbling along as an okayish party, same as they always are, with a range of policies that are broadly popular. Democrats will return to power, and they'll do it as pretty much the same party they are now. Perhaps the only change will be stronger positions on health and income equality.
Its certainly true that Republicans are a mess. And the problems go way beyond Trump, who certainly didn't help matters. Thing is the policy ideas of the Republican party are extraordinarily unpopular, and while that didn't hurt them in the last decade when they had no power to enact policy, now they control congress and the presidency it's brought people's attention to what the Republicans actually want to do with the party.
Republicans will be a stronger, recovered party at some point in the future as well. But the next viable version of the Republican party will be very different to what they are today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think that there is more of a "hate established policies and/or the status quo" group that ended up splitting between Trump and Bernie, but that the fundamental core of both parties remains more-or-less intact.
There's also the issue that the Sanders wing has largely fizzled out. Sanders created Our Revolution to fund a range of candidates like himself and drag the Democrats to the left. They gave money and a large amount of social media support to a range of candidates from city council level up to federal, and their impact so far has been exactly nothing. They've helped some city councilors, but in elections of any scale they've been stomped so bad they've had to change their strategy to just backing the same candidate as the Obama/Clinton wing, just to pretend they're having some impact.
Part of the reason is a lot Democrats have taken up Sanders positions on issues like healthcare, letting the wind out of Sanders protest position. But the other reason is that 2016 was just a very weird time for a lot of reasons, and some people gained a political energy they're never going to get at any other time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: As far as Ryan is concerned, he's prob one of the last 'in the middle of the road' guys left to lead. And honestly, if Trump does get impeached, he probably would prefer to be out of politics when it happens. But his big fantasy was tax reform, which he did, and now wont have to be around if it turns out to be a bad plan to implement.
Paul Ryan was never middle of the road. He's one of the key architects in taking the Republicans from Bush 'compassionate conservatism' to hardline 'starve the beasters'.
And that wasn't tax reform. Tax reform requires actual, you know, reform. Changing stuff to close loopholes, which you can use to finance a tax cut or maybe even use to reduce the deficit. Instead, the Republican bill was just a deficit financed tax cut that actually add new loopholes.
Ouze wrote: If Trump gets impeached I can't see any way possible Pence remains a viable candidate. I think he's irrevocably tainted by association.
Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...
Well, he lost, so....
Doesn't really answer my question...
I'm generally curious... He lost Florida by 537 votes.
Had Clinton never been impeached, I wonder if we would have a Gore Presidency...
Very likely. Despite the Florida votes, consider the effect in other states. Had Clinton not been a factor, Gore may have won enough of the others to make it a moot point. While I have a general dislike for Democrats and an absolute loathing of liberals/progressives, I voted for Gore. I would have voted for Biden or Webb had they been put forward, even over my own candidate (Johnson)
Back when Gore and Bush were running I was still basically an independent. I went by what the person stated their plans were, and if it jived with what my life was doing at the time. I was always environmentally conscious, and was also one of those natural conservation types. Well, I swallowed the Global Warming (TM) thi... Sorry, climate change thing back then as well. What swung me to vote for Bush was their plans to address the tax overcollection. Was anyone besides me a working taxpayer back then? Anyway, through some... event the IRS had collected more tax revenue than it was supposed to. This was brought up in the Presidential debates as far as what the candidates intended to do about it. Gore's solution was to spend it, since the government had already collected it, using it to fund programs that may be a bit tight, possibly The key was that he wanted to spend the "surplus" for lack of a better term. Bush's solution to that was to pay it back, as he viewed it as dishonest to keep it. Well, post election and Bush winning, even though I voted for him because of the idea that integrity seemed to matter to him, I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.
Onto another subject that was quietly breezed past. I have personally worked with immigrants who joined the military as a path to citizenship. I have nothing but respect for them. My comment that I want to make, however, deals with Selective Service. Since women are now integrated into combat arms, I feel they should ALSO have to sign up for the draft. Equality. I also think the US could do with mandatory military service, much like several European countries do. Drum out the ones that need drummed out, mind you. But everyone else should serve at least two years in the Reserves or Guard, with the option to spend that time active. I'd also love it if there were resources to attain a degree in that time. Public sector college professors/instructors. I'd be down. It'd also work wonders with our current discipline/authority respect issues in this country.
sebster wrote: And how is he going to go back to his old grifts anyway? Return to minority and start producing his imaginary budgets again, with the promise that next time when he's in power he'll actually try to do the budget balancing and tax reform he promised?
The con was finished.
Well, the important part is the guy that wanted to substantially raise the retirement age is himself retiring at 48 with a full pension and lifetime benefits and healthcare.
whembly wrote: The MO state congressional committee just released their report on Grietin allegation, and whoa momma that's some hella testimony.
If true, he's a sexual predator that need to be thrown in jail.
You know how we had a recent discussion, because you posted some news driven by press statements by Greitin's lawyers and said it was a big deal that showed massive prosecutorial over-reach? I reacted with more than a little contempt, and explained that the victim volunteering one small part of her story might not be reliable doesn't throw in to doubt her statements about the actual crimes she's accused him of.
And now we've had a proper release of the testimony, and a state congressional review of 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats stating she was a credible witness?
I mean, at some point you're going to have to stop getting led by the nose on this stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Back when Gore and Bush were running I was still basically an independent. I went by what the person stated their plans were, and if it jived with what my life was doing at the time. I was always environmentally conscious, and was also one of those natural conservation types. Well, I swallowed the Global Warming (TM) thi... Sorry, climate change thing back then as well. What swung me to vote for Bush was their plans to address the tax overcollection. Was anyone besides me a working taxpayer back then? Anyway, through some... event the IRS had collected more tax revenue than it was supposed to. This was brought up in the Presidential debates as far as what the candidates intended to do about it. Gore's solution was to spend it, since the government had already collected it, using it to fund programs that may be a bit tight, possibly The key was that he wanted to spend the "surplus" for lack of a better term. Bush's solution to that was to pay it back, as he viewed it as dishonest to keep it. Well, post election and Bush winning, even though I voted for him because of the idea that integrity seemed to matter to him, I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.
Tax over-collection? I think you've gotten a bit confused. Tax over-collection is when a rule is misapplied or something similar resulting in tax agents collecting more money than they should. There is no debate about what to do with this money, it must be returned to the individual people who paid it because government would be in possession of money it had no legal to take.
The actual debate was over the federal surplus, for the first time in a long time the US was collecting more than it needed. Gore's position was to continue to pay down the existing debt, expand some government programs, but most of all Gore said the current surpluses shouldn't be taken as free money, because the economy will dip again, and of course there was the impending baby boomer retirements that would add new pressures on the budget. Bush's position was that government should cut taxes, and stop collecting more than it needed. Thing is, after Bush won the election he followed through and cut taxes, twice. But Bush also massively ramped up spending, presiding over the largest expansion in federal spending since Johnson. But he no longer had those tax revenues to pay for it, it was all deficit.
So yeah, Bush cut you a check. He did it with borrowed money, and then on top of that he borrowed more money to massively expand the government. But you got your check, I guess.
The other thing you touch on - climate change, yeah well. It's interesting you used to respect the scientific consensus but now you've dropped that, at the same time you happened to fall in to Republican politics on so many other issues. That's quite telling, I think, and probably quite a common story among a lot of people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, the important part is the guy that wanted to substantially raise the retirement age is himself retiring at 48 with a full pension and lifetime benefits and healthcare.
His one regret was that he couldn't take healthcare away from more people.
Climate change did not replace global warming, it is caused by global warming. Climate change is the name for the change in the climate caused by the average increase of temperatures across the board. And while we're on the topic; no, global warming did not replace the theory that the next ice age is coming either. It should start in one to two thousand years.
Why does this belong in US politics? Because the rest of the first world understands this while a minority in the US disagree for purely political reasons. If a person was told one piece of medical advice by a doctor and a politician said it wasn't true one would take the doctor's opinion. He's spent his life studying the topic and further, politicians have a reputation for less-than-honesty. But when the same thing happens in climatology republicans suddenly decide that the politician is a more reliable source.
At this point denying reality isn't a trend among republicans but a basic requirement.
Just Tony wrote: What swung me to vote for Bush was their plans to address the tax overcollection. Was anyone besides me a working taxpayer back then? Anyway, through some... event the IRS had collected more tax revenue than it was supposed to. This was brought up in the Presidential debates as far as what the candidates intended to do about it. Gore's solution was to spend it, since the government had already collected it, using it to fund programs that may be a bit tight, possibly The key was that he wanted to spend the "surplus" for lack of a better term. Bush's solution to that was to pay it back, as he viewed it as dishonest to keep it. Well, post election and Bush winning, even though I voted for him because of the idea that integrity seemed to matter to him, I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.
Sebster already covered most of this, but I want to highlight the sheer absurdity of this statement. In 2000 the US was in debt, and not by a trivial amount. Tax revenue exceeded spending that particular year, but the US was in the equivalent position to someone who got a nice raise at work and had money left at the end of each month but still had credit card bills and student loan debt and such. And here we have someone arguing that the federal government is obligated to pay back any tax revenue that exceeds that year's spending, creating a situation where the US can never pay off its debts. But it gets even worse, that the government is obligated to do so in the form of long-term commitments to those "refund" checks even though the surplus is almost certainly temporary, making that debt that they refuse to pay off even larger. And this is such an important issue that Just Tony switched parties because the democrats wouldn't adopt this insane financial plan.
This is why US politics is broken, a large part of the population puts commitment to ideological principles ahead of pragmatism and insists on policy decisions that do not work.
Onto another subject that was quietly breezed past. I have personally worked with immigrants who joined the military as a path to citizenship. I have nothing but respect for them. My comment that I want to make, however, deals with Selective Service. Since women are now integrated into combat arms, I feel they should ALSO have to sign up for the draft.
I suppose the fairness point is true in principle, but it's not an argument worth caring about. The draft does not exist anymore, it doesn't matter who is signed up for it because nobody will ever be drafted again. The only reform that is worth talking about is abolishing the whole thing and not wasting money on operating the signup system for the sole purpose of pretending that the draft still exists.
I also think the US could do with mandatory military service, much like several European countries do. Drum out the ones that need drummed out, mind you. But everyone else should serve at least two years in the Reserves or Guard, with the option to spend that time active. I'd also love it if there were resources to attain a degree in that time. Public sector college professors/instructors. I'd be down.
This would be utterly pointless. The US already has way more soldiers than it needs, the last thing the military wants is a bunch of conscripts who don't want to be there and have no purpose besides serving their mandatory years.
It'd also work wonders with our current discipline/authority respect issues in this country.
Just Tony wrote: I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.
.
Just Tony wrote: I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.
.
Removed - BrookM
THIS is the reason we get threads locked right here. I have no time to address things proper, so I will get back to logical tear downs once I'm off work.
I remember when Jesse ventura also won election in Minnesota on cutting checks. Once that was done, everyone and their uncle did everythign they could to undercut the guy, and then lo-and -behold the chief undercutter became the next Governor.
That is a lesson for what is about to happen on the National stage.
I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.
Yes. The thread does an excellent job of mirroring US politics in that regard.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.
Nobody who reads this post will think Albino Squirrel is talking about them.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.
Nobody who reads this post will think Albino Squirrel is talking about them.
Maybe I'm showing my age... but I don't understand that reference...
whembly wrote: Maybe I'm showing my age... but I don't understand that reference...
Is that a meme?
It's the name of the person quoted in that post...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albino Squirrel wrote: I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.
This is being rather unfair to the people who do have reasonable things to say and discuss politics constructively. There is nothing preventing us from having a constructive politics discussion, as long as the small minority of partisan trolls arguing in bad faith are not allowed to continue to participate.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.
Nobody who reads this post will think Albino Squirrel is talking about them.
You are right, of course. It's nearly impossible to self-diagnose such a thing.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.
Nobody who reads this post will think Albino Squirrel is talking about them.
Does everybody remember the Obama red lines on Syria, and the song and dance the GOP made when Obama didn't enforce his red lines?
Well, I think Trump just had his red line moment. We might attack, we might not attack, it might be soon, very soon, or very very very soon...
At the time, I was pretty scathing of Obama for not backing up an ultimatum. For the record, I am against military action in Syria
BUT
If a US President says they will conduct Military Operation X, they damn well better do it, because otherwise, it undercuts the POTUS's authority, damages US prestige, and frankly, it makes them look like a sack of gak.
It's amateur hour at the White House.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albino Squirrel wrote: I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.
That's why you need neutral observers like me to comment on US history and politics.
It may surprise dakka members, but when I did history at university a few years back, I did a few US history modules: 17th century America, and the cultural/social impact of the Vietnam war. Quite a jump, but that's how the timetable was back then.
In short, I am technically qualified to comment on the USA
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If a US President says they will conduct Military Operation X, they damn well better do it, because otherwise, it undercuts the POTUS's authority, damages US prestige, and frankly, it makes them look like a sack of gak.
It's amateur hour at the White House.
I am perfectly happy with Trump being nothing but a hot air balloon on the issue of invading Syria because I like things that at least don't directly escalate the risk of nuclear war.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If a US President says they will conduct Military Operation X, they damn well better do it, because otherwise, it undercuts the POTUS's authority, damages US prestige, and frankly, it makes them look like a sack of gak.
It's amateur hour at the White House.
I am perfectly happy with Trump being nothing but a hot air balloon on the issue of invading Syria because I like things that at least don't directly escalate the risk of nuclear war.
I don't want war either, but nobody cares what I say. They do, however, listen to the President of the United States. Whoever he may be...
You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.
A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.
And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.
KTG17 wrote: Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.
I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.
I think Democrats are far less fractured than Republicans. . . The issue will be whether the DNC listens to the grassroots base or not (not holding breath here). The way I see it, Democrats have 2 main factions: neoliberals and the oftentimes called "Justice democrats". The latter group being Democrats running without PAC money, pushing for a return to the day of legislating for the average "Joe the Plummer" type as opposed to legislating for the corporations.
I dunno... I think both parties are pretty fractured.
Don't forget the internecine war between the Bernie-wing and HRC-wing... the Bernie fan-clubs are not likely to forget and forgive.
Where as the GOP has that NeverTrumpers v. Trumpalos dynamic...
What you point out, the "Bernie bros v. HRC crowd" is basically a single big fracture. . . More voters are on the side of the bernie bros insofar as they want to move away from neoliberal, corporate aiding policy and more to policy that works for the people. I think even some established, mainline Dems are starting to see the writing on the wall there, and changing their tune in public appearances. Ultimately we'll see if the change is genuine or if they'll go back to their old ways when the $$ is waved in front of them.
On the other side, with Republicans, there's the Tea Party, Freedom Caucus, dozens of even more religiously based political groups, the neoliberal corporatist republicans, etc. etc. While there is some overlap between a few factions with individuals, there isn't anything that I'm seeing of a direction forming. It's still a hundred icebergs floating away from the glacier at this point. The Trumpettes v. NeverTrumps don't really do so aligned on policy, the way the Bernie/HRC thing does. There's plenty of Tea Party people out there who fall on both sides of the Trump/not-trump thing.
Climate change did not replace global warming, it is caused by global warming. Climate change is the name for the change in the climate caused by the average increase of temperatures across the board. And while we're on the topic; no, global warming did not replace the theory that the next ice age is coming either. It should start in one to two thousand years.
Why does this belong in US politics? Because the rest of the first world understands this while a minority in the US disagree for purely political reasons. If a person was told one piece of medical advice by a doctor and a politician said it wasn't true one would take the doctor's opinion. He's spent his life studying the topic and further, politicians have a reputation for less-than-honesty. But when the same thing happens in climatology republicans suddenly decide that the politician is a more reliable source.
At this point denying reality isn't a trend among republicans but a basic requirement.
I was told by one of the scientists at my university that one of the big reasons for the shift from the term global warming to climate change is because people with no real knowledge of climate processes kept pointing out that some areas were seeing record cold weather at various points in the winter. According to the specific area she studies (she is an atmospheric geologist. . . if that makes no sense to you. . . . basically she studies the arctic and antarctic ice (the geology part) and atmospheric changes). Essentially, the polar ice cap controls the jet stream. As Terra warms up, ice cap melts (now, there is normal melt/freeze processes up there, however what these professionals are noting is that many years in a row there was considerably greater percentages of ice melted each year until 2 years ago, finally, we hit 100% melt for the first time in recorded history) which alters where the cold/hot line is in the jet stream. This process apparently also has a major effect on just how cold things get on the cold side.
Also, your example of medicine isn't the best. . . there's plenty of people who abandon modern medicine for their religious texts, sometimes to the death of their own children.
I think politically, having people who don't have a basic understanding of things they are expected to make policy on is just a bad idea. Hell, we saw this the other day with Zuckerberg and hist testimony. . . The "best" thing to come out of that were the memes that have been springing up. Many of the questions were simply cringe worthy as they clearly showed a lack of basic understanding of the issue at hand.
I actually pick the doctor example there for that reason; the people who abandon the qualified opinion eat the consequences, which is part of the point I was making.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.
A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.
And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.
Perhaps, but major world leaders were absolutely daft enough to start a massive war over some dude in a goofy hat getting shot by some nobody. There also isn't a great track record of people saying that it'll be a piece of cake in regards to the US starting wars.
So I am leaning pretty dang hard on the "whatever means not starting nuclear war is preferable to starting nuclear war" side of things.
Apparently both Chlorine and Sarin gas were used, which was validated via blood tests.
I don't doubt for a minute that chemical weapons are getting used in Syria, but the fundamental question still remains: what's in it for the USA?
Long ago, the great statesmen, the Bismarcks, the Palmerston's the FDRs of this world, would make rational decisions on foreign policy based on logic. For sure, these people made mistakes, but there was usually a rhyme or reason for their actions.
Why did the British Empire support a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1917? Because they want a friendly nation next to the vital Suez Canal link.
Why did Britain invade and occupy Syria in 1941? To stop Vichy France from allowing the Germans the use of Syria as an airbase to attack the Suez Canal and Egypt.
Why does Britain guarantee Polish security in 1939? Because it was British policy for 200 years not to let the balance of power be upset in Europe. Very bad for business otherwise.
And so on and so on...
The lessons are there in history. As I said earlier, the USA used to have smart and rational and grown up politicians who would make good decisions.
So let's be smart here again:
1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.
Those are the only questions that need to be asked.
There is no need, and no gain, from the USA getting involved in a bitter civil war. If Assad wins, it's a known quantity, the devil you know.
If he loses, it's God knows who's taking over.
I don't mean too sound heartless, but in a civil war where hundreds of thousands of people have died from bullets and shells, and now people are getting worked up about a few chemical attacks?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.
A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.
And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.
Perhaps, but major world leaders were absolutely daft enough to start a massive war over some dude in a goofy hat getting shot by some nobody. There also isn't a great track record of people saying that it'll be a piece of cake in regards to the US starting wars.
So I am leaning pretty dang hard on the "whatever means not starting nuclear war is preferable to starting nuclear war" side of things.
The unique circumstances that created WW1 will never be repeated. This Syria debacle is not in the same league. Not by the longest of long shots.
Apparently both Chlorine and Sarin gas were used, which was validated via blood tests.
I don't doubt for a minute that chemical weapons are getting used in Syria, but the fundamental question still remains: what's in it for the USA?
Long ago, the great statesmen, the Bismarcks, the Palmerston's the FDRs of this world, would make rational decisions on foreign policy based on logic. For sure, these people made mistakes, but there was usually a rhyme or reason for their actions.
Why did the British Empire support a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1917? Because they want a friendly nation next to the vital Suez Canal link.
Why did Britain invade and occupy Syria in 1941? To stop Vichy France from allowing the Germans the use of Syria as an airbase to attack the Suez Canal and Egypt.
Why does Britain guarantee Polish security in 1939? Because it was British policy for 200 years not to let the balance of power be upset in Europe. Very bad for business otherwise.
And so on and so on...
The lessons are there in history. As I said earlier, the USA used to have smart and rational and grown up politicians who would make good decisions.
So let's be smart here again:
1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.
Those are the only questions that need to be asked.
There is no need, and no gain, from the USA getting involved in a bitter civil war. If Assad wins, it's a known quantity, the devil you know.
If he loses, it's God knows who's taking over.
I don't mean too sound heartless, but in a civil war where hundreds of thousands of people have died from bullets and shells, and now people are getting worked up about a few chemical attacks?
It's a strange logic at work here...
I mean to me, just a lay person here who reads the news, it seems like a publicity stunt version of the "The US as world police" (Which, I want to call the Truman Doctrine, but that doesn't sound right). I mean we're not really... doing anything. We're going to throw bombs at them (Last time we did what, blow up a few Migs?) and that's about it?
It's getting good press, because we're "Standing up for Humanity" but... I mean as you said, we don't really have any reason to do it, and this is the plan from people who heavily criticized (And I would say Rightly criticized) the last administration for Drone Strikes.
I'm willing to recognize I might be missing some nuance here, if someone has some point I'm missing.
As someone who has active duty military in my immediate family... This is never something I -Like- to see in the news either.
Realistically Trump has to do something because Trump ordered strikes before. Trump drew a line in the sand when it happened and decided to strike. Whatever the reason behind the previous strike was doesn't matter now, Trump set the precedent to retaliate at the signs of an obvious chemical weapons attack. Now there has been an even worse attack. Not responding to it as hegemon and primary normative driver behind the international system is only going to further erode the international position of the US. It would also reflect badly on Trump himself.
While Trump might not have thought about the wider international consequences to the US position in the world, not doing something will only make those states opposed to the US system bolder and will see US prestige slide amongst its allies. Its important to remember how much the US has profited and still profits from its position as global (normative) leader.
Yes, it will likely be useless in the long run. But being seen to do something by the world is still better than nothing.
Edit: Trump has really messed up on the strikes though by being so public about them. Syria has had time to disperse its forces to minimize damage by now.
What we've got here is a situation in which the existing world order, largely based on western pluralistic liberal democracy with the rule of law (for all its faults, headed by the USA supported by allies such as the UK and Japan, still better than the alternatives) is being eroded by the provocative behaviour of countries like Syria and Russia flouting various international treaties which prohibit the use of chemical weapons.
This is a case where the "west" must in some way stand up, draw a line in the sand, and let the perps know that they have gone too far. A severe military beat-down would be a good way to do this, but for various reasons it's going to be very difficult to pull off.
One of those reasons is Trump's flip-flopping on the issue, which has made the usual Russian intransigence even harder to read than normal because the Russians are reacting to a USA that's become intransigent and hard to read.
That being said, the "west" can actually make a lot of progress by rattling its sabres loudly, moving subs into launch range and so on, but ultimately allowing itself to be persuaded into some kind of diplomatic process (for example by the Swedes) which will preserve the peace and simultaneously inform the Syrians that they came this close to a damn good kicking.
If that is what happens we can draw a breath of relief. However we all will have to keep in mind that the next time Assad decides to gas a bunch of children, we really will have to kick the gak out of him whatever the Russians try to do about it.
Kilkrazy wrote: What we've got here is a situation in which the existing world order, largely based on western pluralistic liberal democracy with the rule of law (for all its faults, headed by the USA supported by allies such as the UK and Japan, still better than the alternatives) is being eroded by the provocative behaviour of countries like Syria and Russia flouting various international treaties which prohibit the use of chemical weapons.
This is a case where the "west" must in some way stand up, draw a line in the sand, and let the perps know that they have gone too far. A severe military beat-down would be a good way to do this, but for various reasons it's going to be very difficult to pull off.
One of those reasons is Trump's flip-flopping on the issue, which has made the usual Russian intransigence even harder to read than normal because the Russians are reacting to a USA that's become intransigent and hard to read.
That being said, the "west" can actually make a lot of progress by rattling its sabres loudly, moving subs into launch range and so on, but ultimately allowing itself to be persuaded into some kind of diplomatic process (for example by the Swedes) which will preserve the peace and simultaneously inform the Syrians that they came this close to a damn good kicking.
If that is what happens we can draw a breath of relief. However we all will have to keep in mind that the next time Assad decides to gas a bunch of children, we really will have to kick the gak out of him whatever the Russians try to do about it.
Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
No. Chemical Weapons must not be allowed to be used and normalised in warfare.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Apparently both Chlorine and Sarin gas were used, which was validated via blood tests.
...
The lessons are there in history. As I said earlier, the USA used to have smart and rational and grown up politicians who would make good decisions.
So let's be smart here again:
1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.
Those are the only questions that need to be asked.
There is no need, and no gain, from the USA getting involved in a bitter civil war. If Assad wins, it's a known quantity, the devil you know.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.
A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.
And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.
Perhaps, but major world leaders were absolutely daft enough to start a massive war over some dude in a goofy hat getting shot by some nobody. There also isn't a great track record of people saying that it'll be a piece of cake in regards to the US starting wars.
So I am leaning pretty dang hard on the "whatever means not starting nuclear war is preferable to starting nuclear war" side of things.
The unique circumstances that created WW1 will never be repeated. This Syria debacle is not in the same league. Not by the longest of long shots.
It is my understanding that it is the policy of the US, and many of it's allies, to discourage the use of chemical weapons by anyone, in order to prevent their use from becoming normalized. I'm not sure why that's so important. I assume the idea is that if you let other countries you don't care about use chemical weapons and don't do anything, then they will eventually be used on our troops. If we keep them somewhat taboo and require them to be developed in secret, then they are less likely to be used against us, and if they are everyone will consider it unacceptable and justify severe retaliation. So, that's the policy. It's not so much that we want Assad to lose.
Sadly, the civil war there probably actually benefits a lot of other countries. So I'm not sure Russia or the US really want it to end all that badly.
Kilkrazy wrote: What we've got here is a situation in which the existing world order, largely based on western pluralistic liberal democracy with the rule of law (for all its faults, headed by the USA supported by allies such as the UK and Japan, still better than the alternatives) is being eroded by the provocative behaviour of countries like Syria and Russia flouting various international treaties which prohibit the use of chemical weapons.
This is a case where the "west" must in some way stand up, draw a line in the sand, and let the perps know that they have gone too far. A severe military beat-down would be a good way to do this, but for various reasons it's going to be very difficult to pull off.
One of those reasons is Trump's flip-flopping on the issue, which has made the usual Russian intransigence even harder to read than normal because the Russians are reacting to a USA that's become intransigent and hard to read.
That being said, the "west" can actually make a lot of progress by rattling its sabres loudly, moving subs into launch range and so on, but ultimately allowing itself to be persuaded into some kind of diplomatic process (for example by the Swedes) which will preserve the peace and simultaneously inform the Syrians that they came this close to a damn good kicking.
If that is what happens we can draw a breath of relief. However we all will have to keep in mind that the next time Assad decides to gas a bunch of children, we really will have to kick the gak out of him whatever the Russians try to do about it.
Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
The US could defeat any conventional forces that get deployed to Syria by Russia or anyone else. The only way we would "lose" is if Putin decides that keeping Assad in power is worth escalating to a nuclear exchange in which case everybody loses. However, the US isn't got to invade Syria because there is no faction for us to ally with and put into power that would create an acceptable outcome to our involvement. Toppling Assad creates a power vacuum and none of the factions that could fill that vacuum would create a secular govt that protects individual/human rights without intense and longstanding support from the US and/or EU and neither wants another long term occupation of a ME nation. Escalating the Syrian civil war into a global nuclear war requires that both the US/EU and Russia care enough about Syria to go nuclear over it. I can't speak for Russia but there's nothing in Syria that is important enough to the US/EU to push politicians to authorize a nuclear strike on anyone over it. We'd have to put forces on the ground in Syria and proceed to beat up Russian forces so severely that it drives Putin to want to strike first with a nuclear exchange. I don't think there's enough pressure on the US/EU to invade and start a conventional war in the first place.
A lot of it could boil down to controlling gas pipelines. Russia sees control over gas supplies as a means to browbeat their neighbours, it’s also a vital part of their economy. If there’s an alternative pipeline running through Syria, they want to exert control over it. Russia wants Assad onside, not any other government especially one assisted there by western powers. Russia isn’t going to fight over somewhere like Syria for nothing. This is why they’ll dig their heels in.
A Town Called Malus wrote: No. Chemical Weapons must not be allowed to be used and normalised in warfare.
...
-"Risking nuclear war would be dumb."
-"No."
Prestor Jon wrote: The US could defeat any conventional forces that get deployed to Syria by Russia or anyone else.
Yes, just like Iraq was a nice and clean little operation done with in two months because the Iraqi army couldn't possibly stand up to US forces. Going from a proxy war to a direct war with a global nuclear power is not going to be a controllable situation.
The unique circumstances that created WW1 will never be repeated. This Syria debacle is not in the same league. Not by the longest of long shots.
The unique circumstances of rival powers brewing up a clash but being able to keep the lid on for multiple incidents until, suddenly, one of them was the one that brought it all to a boil.
Howard A Treesong wrote: A lot of it could boil down to controlling gas pipelines. Russia sees control over gas supplies as a means to browbeat their neighbours, it’s also a vital part of their economy. If there’s an alternative pipeline running through Syria, they want to exert control over it. Russia wants Assad onside, not any other government especially one assisted there by western powers. Russia isn’t going to fight over somewhere like Syria for nothing. This is why they’ll dig their heels in.
As good a reason as I've heard for why they want a friend running Syria. Still, I wonder if Russia wants the conflict to continue there. If they really wanted it to be over surely they could do more. But fighting terrorist groups in Syria is surely better than fighting those same terrorists at home, so keeping Syria a battlefield where their enemies can fight each other seems like it would be a benefit.
Apparently both Chlorine and Sarin gas were used, which was validated via blood tests.
...
The lessons are there in history. As I said earlier, the USA used to have smart and rational and grown up politicians who would make good decisions.
So let's be smart here again:
1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.
Those are the only questions that need to be asked.
There is no need, and no gain, from the USA getting involved in a bitter civil war. If Assad wins, it's a known quantity, the devil you know.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.
A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.
And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.
Perhaps, but major world leaders were absolutely daft enough to start a massive war over some dude in a goofy hat getting shot by some nobody. There also isn't a great track record of people saying that it'll be a piece of cake in regards to the US starting wars.
So I am leaning pretty dang hard on the "whatever means not starting nuclear war is preferable to starting nuclear war" side of things.
The unique circumstances that created WW1 will never be repeated. This Syria debacle is not in the same league. Not by the longest of long shots.
It is my understanding that it is the policy of the US, and many of it's allies, to discourage the use of chemical weapons by anyone, in order to prevent their use from becoming normalized. I'm not sure why that's so important. I assume the idea is that if you let other countries you don't care about use chemical weapons and don't do anything, then they will eventually be used on our troops. If we keep them somewhat taboo and require them to be developed in secret, then they are less likely to be used against us, and if they are everyone will consider it unacceptable and justify severe retaliation. So, that's the policy. It's not so much that we want Assad to lose.
ultimately, chemical weapons are banned because they increase the cost of war without any real benefits.
Theyre not really super effective weapons once people expect them, they rely almost entirely on surprise in practical terms. Once thay surprise is gone, their value is basically in just forcing the enemy to slow down and zip up. Theyre awkward to deploy and dangerous to handle and transport with a not insignificant risk of hurting your own side. They tend to make people uncomfortable and terrified, people can deal with someone being perforated a dozen times by bullets and bleeding to death in agony for hours with shattered bones and ruptured organs, but react very strongly to what otherwise appears to be an environmental factor (like breathing) suddenly turning deadly.
Basically in the end they just make everything worse without actually providing a meaningful advantage on the battlefield and have a very high cost to use and deploy, so its pretty easy to get people to agree not to use them.
If they were a decisive battlefield weapon, their use would be commonplace and unquestioned. Ultimately what most found after WW1 was that gas was more trouble than it was really worth once an opponent adapted, which they were all able to do in short order.
Now, that's not an unworthy goal, reducing unnecessary suffering is applaudable, but I personally dont see it as being worth going to war over if barrel bombs, bulldozing people alive, mass executions, etc was not.
Rosebuddy wrote: Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
The only sane thing? No, there are many sane options to take. What isn't sane is the expectation that Russia would actually go to war with the US over Assad.
Also there are more rebel groups left than just those two radical groups. Not to mention it isn't about going to bat for them, but for the thousands of innocent civilians being slaughtered by Assad.
Prestor Jon wrote: The US could defeat any conventional forces that get deployed to Syria by Russia or anyone else.
Yes, just like Iraq was a nice and clean little operation done with in two months because the Iraqi army couldn't possibly stand up to US forces. Going from a proxy war to a direct war with a global nuclear power is not going to be a controllable situation.
Howard A Treesong wrote: A lot of it could boil down to controlling gas pipelines. Russia sees control over gas supplies as a means to browbeat their neighbours, it’s also a vital part of their economy. If there’s an alternative pipeline running through Syria, they want to exert control over it. Russia wants Assad onside, not any other government especially one assisted there by western powers. Russia isn’t going to fight over somewhere like Syria for nothing. This is why they’ll dig their heels in.
As good a reason as I've heard for why they want a friend running Syria. Still, I wonder if Russia wants the conflict to continue there. If they really wanted it to be over surely they could do more. But fighting terrorist groups in Syria is surely better than fighting those same terrorists at home, so keeping Syria a battlefield where their enemies can fight each other seems like it would be a benefit.
In a nutshell, its much cheaper to just let Syria do the heavy lifting. Even the limited Russian assistance is already pretty costly, about 1 billion dollars a year. While that doesn't sound like much, Putin is also heavily tied up in Crimea and economic problems at home. Not to mention quite a few Russian lives have been lost, around an estimated 300 for their small commitment. Its hard to see what Russia has to gain from committing more to a war of which the outcome is already known.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Why is this a good thing? I do not understand.
Because a public “feth you” to Warren is more important than governing and regulating.
It’s what you get when you are more interested in the entertainment of politics than the governing of politics.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Why is this a good thing? I do not understand.
Because a public “feth you” to Warren is more important than governing and regulating.
It’s what you get when you are more interested in the entertainment of politics than the governing of politics.
That's not what this is...
This is a rhetorical hoisting of Congress by its own petard to drive home a point.
When Mulvaney served in the House...he tried to warn everyone that the CFPB (Warren's pride & joy) was too independent of Congress. Now that he’s running the show... he's demonstrating just how poorly designed this department is.... he specifically told this congressional panel that he can just sit in front of them all day and ignore their questions, and there’s nothing they can do about it, because the CFPB for all practical purpose is damn near unaccountable.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: What you point out, the "Bernie bros v. HRC crowd" is basically a single big fracture. . . More voters are on the side of the bernie bros insofar as they want to move away from neoliberal, corporate aiding policy and more to policy that works for the people. I think even some established, mainline Dems are starting to see the writing on the wall there, and changing their tune in public appearances. Ultimately we'll see if the change is genuine or if they'll go back to their old ways when the $$ is waved in front of them.
I'm guessing you haven't noticed what Sander's Our Revolution has achieved. To be fair its easy to miss, because it has achieved a damn thing. It was started to get more left leaning candidates elected, and outside of a handful of council city members here and there, the candidates supported by Our Revolution have gone down in flames. It's reached the point where just to claim some runs on the board Our Revolution is reduced to backing the Obama/Clinton candidate and claiming victory when they win.
Part of the reason is Democrats shifting left on some key issues after 2016, particularly healthcare, and it's also apparent the Sanders demographic was never as large as some people in 2016 assumed it to - a protest vote in a two horse primary is not the same thing as a political base. But there's one much bigger reason Our Revolution performed like a slowly deflating balloon - with Trump in the Whitehouse most voters just don't care about factional nonsense, they just want Democrats to have enough power to contain Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Long ago, the great statesmen, the Bismarcks, the Palmerston's the FDRs of this world, would make rational decisions on foreign policy based on logic. For sure, these people made mistakes, but there was usually a rhyme or reason for their actions.
You have a terrible habit of glamourising the past. Those 'great statesmen' started constant wars because they were trapped in endless empire building games.
So let's be smart here again:
1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.
Those are the only questions that need to be asked.
Unlike those stupid empire building games of the past, post WW2 we've moved to a framework built around sovereign borders, self-determination and human rights protection. This isn't an easy blend, because these three elements often contradict one another. But it is in the interest of any nation that wants stability and order to maintain these three elements as best they can.
Protecting those key issues are questions that always need to be asked.
whembly wrote: The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
"What if a turd in human shape is appointed director and decides to completely reject the basic concept of protecting consumers against predatory financial practices, and disguises this approach by taking an inane, literalist approach to the basic process of elected representatives asking a director if he is serving the electorate?"
"That will never work, voters would see it as a transparent ruse."
"What if a large portion of voters were so caught in stupid partisan games they were actually induced to cheer for the human shaped turd while he did this, just because they thought it scored points against the other side?"
Yeah, its Warren who is to blame for not seeing this coming.
We've been over this before. Your position is silly. Having the bomb doesn't mean you never dare risk any confrontation on any kid of level.
"Me President, Russia is occupying Alaska, should we scramble a response?"
"No, they have the bomb, we must never confront them in any way, about anything, ever."
"But conventional forces can still be used, escalation to nuclear weapons would be as lethal for Russia as it would for us, so neither side would want to escalate."
Uh... the writers of CFPB law were told on day oneof this problem.
Yes, I believe Warren and those who drafted the CFPB department are the blame, as this department is also probably unconstitutional.
Remember the next time you're in power, that you have an opportunity to pass new laws/regulation/create new departments... to think if you'd be okay with the opposition party in control of such laws/regulation/new departments. If your answer is no, then maybe pump the brakes a bit....eh?
That would be a more compelling warning if we weren't talking about a case of one party acting in bad faith with the deliberate intent of destroying an organization they don't like. Of course flaws are going to appear when you appoint someone with a goal of shutting down the organization they are running.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), told a Senate panel on Thursday that he's not legally bound to answer lawmakers' questions, only to appear before them, in comments meant to stress his agency's independence.
"While I have to be here by statute, I don't think I have to answer your questions," Mulvaney told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "If you take a look at the actual statute that requires me to be here, it says that I 'shall appear' before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate. And I'm here and I'm happy to do it."
"I want to make it clear, I'm going to answer every question that I can today. I'm not using this as an excuse not to answer your questions."
Mulvaney, who concurrently serves as the White House budget director, made a similar remark on Wednesday during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, when he said that "it would be my statutory right to just sit here and twiddle my thumbs while you all ask questions."
Mulvaney, who has long been critical of the CFPB, was trying to make a point about the independent status of the agency, which he has, at times, cast as rogue and in need of more aggressive congressional oversight.
He took over as the bureau's acting director in November, after its first chief, Richard Cordray, stepped down. Cordray is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio.
Earlier this month, Mulvaney asked lawmakers to dramatically weaken his agency's power, calling for changes that include Congress taking control of the CFPB's budget and giving the president the ability to fire its director.
“The Bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” wrote Mulvaney, who as a congressman had opposed the CFPB’s existence.
Acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Mick Mulvaney has told Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that he doesn't plan on responding to her questions about the agency, and said it’s her fault that he is not required to answer.
Mulvaney, a conservative who was an outspoken critic of the bureau during his time as a congressman, told Warren in a letter sent Wednesday that the structure of the agency, which she helped design, shields him from accountability.
“I encourage you to consider the possibility that the frustration you are experiencing now, and that which I had a few years back, are both inevitable consequences of the fact that the Dodd-Frank... Act insulates the Bureau from virtually any accountability to the American people through their elected representatives,” Mulvaney wrote.
He told Warren that he wouldn’t be answering any of the 105 unanswered questions she submitted to him about his management of the CFPB and handling of cases against payday lenders and others. Instead, he said he would discuss them during congressional testimony, when Warren will likely have five or 10 minutes to question him in the Banking Committee.
Mulvaney apologetically claimed in his latest letter that one set of questions from Warren more or less got lost in the mail.
Mulvaney and Warren have traded several rounds of hostile or taunting correspondence over his attempts to steer the CFPB in a conservative direction. The situation is reversed from when President Obama’s appointee, Richard Cordray, ran the bureau and implemented several major new rules while suing a range of companies for consumer financial practices.
This week, Mulvaney also called on Congress to reform the agency and curb many of its powers.
Conservatives have long argued that the bureau is unconstitutional because, as set up by the Dodd-Frank law, it is run by a sole director who can’t be removed by the president except for cause, and it gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
The hubris here is that the creators of this department didn't think things thru as the opposition party gets the keys when in powah.
Why is this a good thing? I do not understand.
Because a public “feth you” to Warren is more important than governing and regulating.
It’s what you get when you are more interested in the entertainment of politics than the governing of politics.
Yes, exactly this. People like to say "this is why you got Trump", but I think stuff like this is pretty much it: a ton of people out there who will cut off their nose to spite their face if it means stigginit.
Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?
whembly wrote: Remember the next time you're in power, that you have an opportunity to pass new laws/regulation/create new departments... to think if you'd be okay with the opposition party in control of such laws/regulation/new departments. If your answer is no, then maybe pump the brakes a bit....eh?
No, there's no possible way to write a law that would compel some future party to act in good faith if they don't want to.
Mulvaney's idiotic nonsense is like appointing Joint Chiefs who are opposed to the idea of a military, who then turn around and say 'Well no-one wrote down that we couldn't just smash all the tank and planes in to each other until there was no more army. So it isn't our fault there's no more army left.'
And the thing about this stupid stunt is that its so transparent. Mulvaney, like far too many of his team red friends, is opposed to the idea of regulating the banking sector, for reasons both ideological and dollar based. But saying 'I'm okay with banks screwing over consumers' doesn't fly too well. So Mulvaney is placed as director and then sets about using absolutely none of the CFPB's powers to actually protect consumers. And you just trot along behind, like kids following the Pied Piper out of town.
Well, of course he is. Sure, he obstructed justice, and committed perjury, and leaked classified info, but it will make the liberals mad. Nothing is more important than pandering to people who say gak like "schaedenboner".
Stepping back and cooling off is the only sane thing to do. The US would not survive a war with Russia. Either because its economy and political systems would collapse during WW3 or because of escalation into nuclear war. Risking all of this to go to bat for fething Jaysh al-Islam and al-Nusra would be the dumbest possible thing to do.
Russia, whle being a much smaller economy than the united states imports three times the goods from they export to us. I'd say that's more of an issue with them. Also they won't risk annihilation because of Assad. Putin is far too smart for that. At most we'd get another proxy war.
I read an interesting comment. The American left hates that they have no political power. The American right hates that they have no cultural power. Both sides are fixated on the fights they're losing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, of course he is. Sure, he obstructed justice, and committed perjury, and leaked classified info, but it will make the liberals mad. Nothing is more important than pandering to people who say gak like "schaedenboner".
Exciting the base might be part of the motive, but it's probably more just a happy side benefit. I think the bigger motivation is Trump communicating to certain people that he will pardon them for perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Which is something Trump wants a specific group of people to know. For reasons.
I'm skeptical about a more forceful intervention in Syria as well. People are talking about how trivial it would be to give Assad a spanking with military force and I'm just sitting here looking back at the last 17 years and wondering what's in everyones' water. Nukes aren't even what I'm worried about. ~500 people were effected by the gas attack; is the US prepared to avenge them with a conventional assault that will leave a dozen times that many dead as collateral damage? Are people ready for America to get stuck in with yet another """""nation building"""""" conflict for another decade due to the power vacuum created by ousting Assad? Does anyone think that less innocent people will die horribly in a proxy war with Russia?
Dunno. Libya was an utter disaster and we have an even dumber President at the helm now. There sure is alot of confidence in here about America's foreign policy abilities all the sudden.
BlaxicanX wrote: Dunno. Libya was an utter disaster and we have an even dumber President at the helm now. There sure is alot of confidence in here about America's foreign policy abilities all the sudden.
I read this argument all the time and it just blows my mind. The idea that Libya is bad and oh my god what if the US creates another one like that in Syria. It seems a lot of people have absolutely no idea of the scale of the two wars. Libya up to now has produced about 10,000 dead. That's a tragedy of course, but the dead in in Syria is about 400,000 to 500,000, 40 times greater than Libya.
If someone did something to turn Syria in to 'another Libya' they'd win the fething Nobel.
sebster wrote: Exciting the base might be part of the motive, but it's probably more just a happy side benefit. I think the bigger motivation is Trump communicating to certain people that he will pardon them for perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Which is something Trump wants a specific group of people to know. For reasons.
Yeah, that's probably right. That, and getting ahead of what has now become the routine Friday night news dump.
I'm seeing some rumblings in the news that Trump, due to our trade war with China that's not a trade war depending on who you ask, is reconsidering the TPP. What's up with that?
Tannhauser42 wrote: I'm seeing some rumblings in the news that Trump, due to our trade war with China that's not a trade war depending on who you ask, is reconsidering the TPP. What's up with that?
His stand-point on issues seems to heavily depend on whatever's been said recently on Fox...
Have you forgotten the parade of uncontrollable consequences such as over a million dead and a power vacuum that first brought into existence al-Qaida in Iraq and then allowed it to grow to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant?
sebster wrote: We've been over this before. Your position is silly. Having the bomb doesn't mean you never dare risk any confrontation on any kid of level.
"Me President, Russia is occupying Alaska, should we scramble a response?"
"No, they have the bomb, we must never confront them in any way, about anything, ever."
"But conventional forces can still be used, escalation to nuclear weapons would be as lethal for Russia as it would for us, so neither side would want to escalate."
"No! Rosebuddy said we can't do it!"
A nuclear power directly attacking another nuclear power is the worst scenario to use to argue against not wanting a nuclear power to directly attack another nuclear power.
Why would Russia invade Alaska, anyway? That's particularly farfetched. I mean, for feth's sake, at least come up with something that isn't so obviously within inches of nuclear war as Russia invading the United States. Not even proxy war, two ships blowing eachother up in the middle of the ocean somewhere or a couple of units in a third country murdering each other. The only thing that is higher on the ladder of nuclear war than Russia invading the US is actual nuclear war.
Regardless of whether or not you think the US doing anything is a good idea, I am not sure how anyone can sit by and think allowing the use of chemical weapons unchecked is a good idea, regardless of who is doing it. The most important part of this, is if you do not stop it, and you send a message that these actions will go unpunished, then they will continue. And not by just Assad, but others as well. Russia has used nerve agents and radioactive poisoning in other countries, have used poison gas against its own people, as well as supported others in doing the same. Its unreal that this is even being debated.
There will be no nuclear war. Its ridiculous to even go down this road. Even if the US wipes the Mediterranean and the Middle East clean of the Russians, there will not be a nuclear war. Action in the Baltics and bering Straight? Sure. Open ocean? Sure. But to think we're going to see nukes flying over Syria is pure fantasy.
If Russia's military collapsed during an actual invasion and there was nothing left to resort to? Yes. If another country launched nukes at them? Sure. But Putin isn't going to end his existence because he loses his fleet and units in Syria.
Give me a break people. He hasn't worked this hard for this long to throw it all away over Assad.
BTW, seems like the US and Russia has been talking about this. Lots of activity at the Russian bases. A lot of important Syrian assets being moved to Russian bases, so as long as this is taking, I am not sure what worthwhile targets will be available to the US by the time they have everything in place. But Trump will send his message. There is no way he wants to be compared to Obama for not doing anything. He's done it once already, and he will do it again. Just doubt at this point if it will destroy anything meaningful.
And if the US only bombs Syrian targets, I think Russia will take whatever action it can to stop the missiles themselves, but they will be surrounded by too much US firepower to go up against the US in the region to do anything to retaliate. And its not just the Truman battle group. The US has bases all around the region. And 8 other carrier groups worldwide.
Well, of course he is. Sure, he obstructed justice, and committed perjury, and leaked classified info, but it will make the liberals mad. Nothing is more important than pandering to people who say gak like "schaedenboner".
I think you have this wrong...
Libby has his law license back... and in 2010 (or thereabouts) he had his voting rights restored. I don't think functionally a pardon helps Libby much at all.
I think this is a batman signal to all the Trumpalos that Trump has the pardon power in his pocket...than trying to encourage any schadenboner... *hint* *hint* Cohen...you paying attention?
If Trump truly wanted to make liberal "heads go splodey" and excite the base he'd better off pardoning anyone convicted related to abortion.
Ouze wrote: Well, of course he is. Sure, he obstructed justice, and committed perjury, and leaked classified info, but it will make the liberals mad. Nothing is more important than pandering to people who say gak like "schaedenboner".
Exciting the base might be part of the motive, but it's probably more just a happy side benefit. I think the bigger motivation is Trump communicating to certain people that he will pardon them for perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Which is something Trump wants a specific group of people to know. For reasons.
Exactly. Totally my read on this....as this is waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of left field.
sebster wrote: I read an interesting comment. The American left hates that they have no political power. The American right hates that they have no cultural power. Both sides are fixated on the fights they're losing.
You nailed it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: I'm seeing some rumblings in the news that Trump, due to our trade war with China that's not a trade war depending on who you ask, is reconsidering the TPP. What's up with that?
China is filling in the vacuum and Trump & friends are going "oh gak".
Headline I saw is 'Trump wants better deal than Obama'.
He really is utterly obsessed with Obama, isn't he?
Yep.
They still evoke Obama in the news from time to time, like he's somehow still in power, and not just sitting at home in his boxers watching Daytime TV.
It's kind of surreal.
Hillary Clinton too, the only people keeping her relevant at this point are republicans that have a hate-on for her.
My parents remembers when Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union as member states...
I've got a few thoughts:
1) I think this is really neat from a historical perspective...
2) Probably does make sense in the long term so that the government would be more responsive to the will of the people...
3) Adding 4 more Senators to Congress! o.O (54 would be the count) But the House members will probably remain unchanged...
4) Now it's time to be cynical... I think over time, this'll increase the Democrat's power base as I don't think the GOP will be able to hold onto the new North and South CA states.
5) We really need to admit Puerto Rico & USVI as a state.
However, if we going splitsville... I'd split CA into two states:
Spoiler:
I think this idea was shot down the last few times...
sebster wrote: I read an interesting comment. The American left hates that they have no political power. The American right hates that they have no cultural power. Both sides are fixated on the fights they're losing.
You nailed it.
See I have to object to this. What we're seeing is a cyclical political cycle of the party in power shouldering the blame for everything in the country, and thus getting hammered in the midterm following the election of the president. It's amplified, because Republicans hold just about everything politically. Thing is, this is the same situation we were in in 2010, back when the republicans seized the house from the democrats following Obama's election.
This also happened in 2002 following Bush's election.
The "Political Power" thing here, is swinging in a rather predictable way. (Edit: this next part is 100% my opinion on the matter) It's just harder to galvanize the political base of the party in the executive branch. I personally would call it a matter of frustration, as someone who was a democrat in 2010, you answer for your party on a personal level in interactions. That kind of saps any resolve you have. Yeah, the more extreme wings will turn out to vote (As always) but you loose a Lot of the 40% of the voting populace, that call themselves independent voters.
Further, the Republican Party lacking Cultural power thing is rather unfair? There is for sure a Republican culture as they have diversified their base to be disenfranchised blue collar workers in blue belt areas, in addition to the evangelical and pro-business wings of their party. There is a "Culture" there for them. It's a mix of populism, nationalism, and religiosity that appeals greatly to many people. Agree with it or not, it is undeniably a thing. The party lacks support from younger generations, but it's frankly questionable as to whether or not it's needed (Yet, being a qualifier here).
4) Now it's time to be cynical... I think over time, this'll increase the Democrat's power base as I don't think the GOP will be able to hold onto the new North and South CA states.
5) We really need to admit Puerto Rico & USVI as a state.
On these 2 points specifically. . . .
#4, I think that would greatly depend on how the state would be divided. Like, if it were cut in thirds so that there's north, middle, and south, the middle and southern states would be hard core blue, due to larger cities like Oakland, SD, San Fran, and LA, leaving the far North to be essentially west coast versions of Kentucky or W. Virginia.
#5. On this we agree. . . Especially given the absolutely terrible treatment these places got after last hurricane season, I've read numerous reports that PR still, almost a year later, has parts that do not have electrical power. That is quite frankly unacceptable, especially given their citizenship status.
Further, the Republican Party lacking Cultural power thing is rather unfair? There is for sure a Republican culture as they have diversified their base to be disenfranchised blue collar workers in blue belt areas, in addition to the evangelical and pro-business wings of their party. There is a "Culture" there for them. It's a mix of populism, nationalism, and religiosity that appeals greatly to many people. Agree with it or not, it is undeniably a thing. The party lacks support from younger generations, but it's frankly questionable as to whether or not it's needed (Yet, being a qualifier here).
It's not that there isn't a culture, it's that there's a segment of the populace that believes that their belief systems are under assault. And furthermore, there are preachers and mouth pieces out there reinforcing that view, by preaching that these "assaults" as made up as they are, are actually working and that the Religious Right's "Culture" is fighting a losing battle. . . . It's a viewpoint that really gained steam starting in the 1980s with a few highlight moments and incidents of political theater.
Its interesting, and I actually support this for the most part. I would prefer some different lines of separation though, personally, I would include San Francisco in the Central CA section. . But going by the lines, it appears that the Southern CA would NOT include LA. LA would be in the Central CA section. So that state would pretty much be a guaranteed new Red State.
But just with the lines as they are, the Southern CA would be a red state, Central CA would be a blue state, and Northern CA would likely be a swing state.
And yeah, while we are at it Puerto Rico needs to become a state already.
I'm skeptical, and the previous posts demonstrate why: any split is inevitably going to be a fight over how to draw the lines for partisan advantage at the national level rather than what is best for the state.
Further, the Republican Party lacking Cultural power thing is rather unfair? There is for sure a Republican culture as they have diversified their base to be disenfranchised blue collar workers in blue belt areas, in addition to the evangelical and pro-business wings of their party. There is a "Culture" there for them. It's a mix of populism, nationalism, and religiosity that appeals greatly to many people. Agree with it or not, it is undeniably a thing. The party lacks support from younger generations, but it's frankly questionable as to whether or not it's needed (Yet, being a qualifier here).
It's not that there isn't a culture, it's that there's a segment of the populace that believes that their belief systems are under assault. And furthermore, there are preachers and mouth pieces out there reinforcing that view, by preaching that these "assaults" as made up as they are, are actually working and that the Religious Right's "Culture" is fighting a losing battle. . . . It's a viewpoint that really gained steam starting in the 1980s with a few highlight moments and incidents of political theater.
I would say we're Firmly in another period of political theater though, so this could be shoveling a bit of coal into the boiler.
And I don't disagree with you for the most part. There is a heavy undercurrent of "Belief under siege" here. That doesn't discount it from existing though, and whether it's justified or not... Does that Matter at the end of the day?
sebster wrote: Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?
I've seen it reported that Trump's lawyers require another lawyer to be present during meetings, due to Trump's inability to remember details and keep his lies straight. If I was a longtime associate of Trump, I'd keep a record of everything said at all times too.
San Diego is big enough to make it a Blue State as well.
I don't remember this being mentioned anywhere but a Trump judicial candidate went on record during confirmation hearings that she thought Brown vs Board of Education was wrongly decided.
That someone who would say that would be nominated just blows me away.
Peregrine wrote: I'm skeptical, and the previous posts demonstrate why: any split is inevitably going to be a fight over how to draw the lines for partisan advantage at the national level rather than what is best for the state.
Well its going to be a fight between Liberals, who will want no split whatsoever, and Conservatives who will want the split to happen. The Liberals have enjoyed the extra seats and votes that the conservative minority gives the state by boosting the population, while still being small enough to have no effect on the state and national politics.
And actually splitting it along the conservative and liberal party lines would be best for all the voters in question. You don't have the disenfranchisement of conservative voters in CA, who while a minority are a considerable minority. The conservative population of CA is larger than the total population of several states.
Not to mention splitting the urban areas off on their own would be better in terms of legislation and taxation. You'd not have the urban areas dominating the rural areas so thoroughly in terms of overall legislation and where tax money gets spent.
sebster wrote: Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?
I've seen it reported that Trump's lawyers require another lawyer to be present during meetings, due to Trump's inability to remember details and keep his lies straight. If I was a longtime associate of Trump, I'd keep a record of everything said at all times too.
I've heard of lawyers doing that. I think it comes down to what you do for a living, who your clients are, how litigious things get, and what sector you work in. Presidents taping conversations is pretty common too, hence the Nixon Tapes.
sebster wrote: Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?
I've seen it reported that Trump's lawyers require another lawyer to be present during meetings, due to Trump's inability to remember details and keep his lies straight. If I was a longtime associate of Trump, I'd keep a record of everything said at all times too.
I've heard of lawyers doing that. I think it comes down to what you do for a living, who your clients are, how litigious things get, and what sector you work in. Presidents taping conversations is pretty common too, hence the Nixon Tapes.
Yeah, since posting that, I went digging for the source. It's from a 1993 interview with his bankruptcy lawyer Patrick McGhan. So not exactly current events.
@sebster. No, I don't glamorize the past or yearn for the days of the gunboat and General Gordon defending Khartoum.
Warfare is the most serious thing any nation can engage in. As Sun Tzu said, it is a matter of safety or ruin for a nation.
Is it too much to ask that Western leaders engage in some analysis and rational thinking before they start blasting off missiles?
We have the most powerful nation on God's earth conducting international diplomacy and possible military action by twitter and PR men
Wednesday. Trump to Assad: you're gonna pay baby! yee ha! Launch the missiles. My genitalia is bigger than yours!
Thursday. Trump to Assad: It's happening sometime soon. Don't ask me when, but it's happening. LOSER!
Friday. Trump to Mattis: find me proof. Something. Anything. And did my hotel catch fire the other day?
Feth me with a fishfork!!!!
That is utterly, utterly, utterly, embarrassing. Shambolic. I am ashamed of myself for believing for a minute back in 2016 that Trump might have done something different on US foreign policy.
I was wrong... and feel free to call me out on that.
The man is an utter buffoon. This is how empires die.
The nation that gave the world John Adams, Madison, Twain, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, hell even Nixon, bad as he was, conducted foreign policy better than this...
The Western world is being ran into the ground by idiots, buffoons, and people who should be exiled to an igloo in Alaska for evermore...
As bad as imperialists were in the 19th century Sebster, they at least had some semblance of what they were doing and what they wanted...
sebster wrote: Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?
I've seen it reported that Trump's lawyers require another lawyer to be present during meetings, due to Trump's inability to remember details and keep his lies straight. If I was a longtime associate of Trump, I'd keep a record of everything said at all times too.
I've heard of lawyers doing that. I think it comes down to what you do for a living, who your clients are, how litigious things get, and what sector you work in. Presidents taping conversations is pretty common too, hence the Nixon Tapes.
Yeah, since posting that, I went digging for the source. It's from a 1993 interview with his bankruptcy lawyer Patrick McGhan. So not exactly current events.
But if the FBI got ahold of Cohen's tapes. Man.
It's too nebulous of a thing for me to say yay or nay there. I think the Cohen raid is signficant for the impact it can potentially have on the Mueller investigation, in terms of who will still be working for the DOJ by the time this has blown over. Whether it produced good information is another question entirely. I just, there's way too much potential here for me to objectively say whether or not I think this is a good or a bad thing
For the USA to back Russia into a corner with threats of military action, and then start scrambling around days later for evidence of Assad using chemical weapons...
God help us all...
Incompetent? It's a dictionary definition of the word.
That is utterly, utterly, utterly, embarrassing. Shambolic. I am ashamed of myself for believing for a minute back in 2016 that Trump might have done something different on US foreign policy.
I was wrong... and feel free to call me out on that.
The man is an utter buffoon. This is how empires die.
But you aren't wrong, he is certainly doing something different...
Any way, as pointed out previously, even with all of the madness and tearing down of departments, our founding fathers threw in enough levers into the system to make sure that our government could survive a crazy guy or two. We will be fine, and unless we start enacting the Purge or the Hunger Games, our government may have even learned a valuable lesson or two along the way.
Grey Templar wrote: Well its going to be a fight between Liberals, who will want no split whatsoever, and Conservatives who will want the split to happen. The Liberals have enjoyed the extra seats and votes that the conservative minority gives the state by boosting the population, while still being small enough to have no effect on the state and national politics.
That's probably backwards, depending on the split. CA has a ton of representatives and electoral votes because of its population, but is massively under-represented in the senate. Splitting the state does little or nothing to its representatives, as they're already drawn from local districts. It may be a conservative win with the electoral votes, as it probably at least makes some of them potentially available instead of an automatic 100% D allocation, but it's still a broken system and hopefully by the time any split could be resolved the whole electoral college system will be gone. But offsetting that even in the most ideal pro-conservative scenario is the potential senate gain. Unless the gerrymandering is pretty bad CA goes from having two liberal senators to having 4-6 liberal senators, a decisive swing when the senate is close to 50/50.
And actually splitting it along the conservative and liberal party lines would be best for all the voters in question. You don't have the disenfranchisement of conservative voters in CA, who while a minority are a considerable minority. The conservative population of CA is larger than the total population of several states.
That explains why it's better for the conservatives, but why is it better for liberals? And why would a liberal/conservative split based on ideologies in 2018 be the correct way of setting state borders that will last for generations, into the far future where beliefs and ideological divisions could be entirely different?
Not to mention splitting the urban areas off on their own would be better in terms of legislation and taxation. You'd not have the urban areas dominating the rural areas so thoroughly in terms of overall legislation and where tax money gets spent.
The problem with this is that you end up with another Wyoming-type situation where you have vast regions geographically with low population, significant over-representation at the national level, and difficulty establishing any kind of productive tax base.
That is utterly, utterly, utterly, embarrassing. Shambolic. I am ashamed of myself for believing for a minute back in 2016 that Trump might have done something different on US foreign policy.
I was wrong... and feel free to call me out on that.
The man is an utter buffoon. This is how empires die.
But you aren't wrong, he is certainly doing something different...
Any way, as pointed out previously, even with all of the madness and tearing down of departments, our founding fathers threw in enough levers into the system to make sure that our government could survive a crazy guy or two. We will be fine, and unless we start enacting the Purge or the Hunger Games, our government may have even learned a valuable lesson or two along the way.
Well, I hope you're right. What worries me is that this is Russia we're talking about. A nation with enough nukes to wipe out the world 10 times over...
I don't doubt for a minute that in a conventional action, the USA would beat Russia. But Russia would hit back, and the USA would lose something. And then Iran or Israel or Turkey get drawn in, and the region goes up in smoke, and all because somebody didn't think before they tweeted.
We're forgetting that Russia is not Iraq, Syria, Libya, or North Korea.
Roll over for them? Never. Poke the bear with a stick when there is no pressing need? Weapon grade stupidity.
And fair is fair, so what would I do, seeing as I'm happy to tell everybody where they're going wrong.
Gather evidence, conduct diplomacy to build allies and get other nations on board to pressure Russia and Syria.
Ask the obvious question of what's really in it for me and my allies, and only as a last resort, with a clear and coherent plan, is military action ever used.
Old school.
The Syria conflict will only end with a negotiated peace and not twitter diplomacy.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For the USA to back Russia into a corner with threats of military action, and then start scrambling around days later for evidence of Assad using chemical weapons...
God help us all...
Incompetent? It's a dictionary definition of the word.
Incompetence is the mission of this administration. From Trump on down, to Kudlow to Huckabee-Sanders to Pruitt and and Pai and Perry and Mnuchin and Carson and DeVos and dozens of others, competency has been shown to be an active disqualifier from jobs in this administration.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For the USA to back Russia into a corner with threats of military action, and then start scrambling around days later for evidence of Assad using chemical weapons...
God help us all...
Incompetent? It's a dictionary definition of the word.
Incompetence is the mission of this administration. From Trump on down, to Kudlow to Huckabee-Sanders to Pruitt and and Pai and Perry and Mnuchin and Carson and DeVos and dozens of others, competency has been shown to be an active disqualifier from jobs in this administration.
It"s like handing the reins of power to the worst examples of the plutocracy is a bad idea in a liberal democracy? Who knew?
Have you forgotten the parade of uncontrollable consequences such as over a million dead and a power vacuum that first brought into existence al-Qaida in Iraq and then allowed it to grow to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant?
Oh I haven't, but that wasn't what you said, let me help you out:
Rosebuddy wrote: Yes, just like Iraq was a nice and clean little operation done with in two months because the Iraqi army couldn't possibly stand up to US forces.
Emphasis mine, that sound you're hearing is me dragging back the goalposts to their original place. The Iraqi army didn't stand up to US forces.
Also the IS thing is just factually wrong. IS in Iraq was beaten. The power vacuum in Syria is what let it recover and counter attack into Iraq. So really its more the fault of Assad starting a civil war as that represent the moment in which IS fortunes turned around.
And now for the latest trick...Trump looks like he's going to fire Rosenstein and just pardoned Scooter Libby on the same day he goes on a twitter tirade about leaks...
Supposedly there will be a WH briefing between 2pm and 4pm EST on Rosenstein and possibly Sessions as well.
sebster wrote: Libya up to now has produced about 10,000 dead. That's a tragedy of course, but the dead in in Syria is about 400,000 to 500,000, 40 times greater than Libya.
"This argument blows my mind!"
"Libya was a tragedy."
Well obviously it doesn't blow your mind too much because you just said that I'm right, lol. Libya was a tragedy and yet the conflict wasn't nearly as complicated as Syria, and we (the US) had better leadership with more restraint at the time. By every factor imaginable we had more tools for success in Libya then Syria and yet it still ended up being a shitshow. Anyone who thinks we should do it again with this administration leading the charge is out of touch with reality. I would love to see anyone who disagrees lay out what they think would be a viable military solution to "the Assad problem", a solution meaning something that isn't going to leave Syria as an even bigger hell hole then it already is.
Not to mention splitting the urban areas off on their own would be better in terms of legislation and taxation. You'd not have the urban areas dominating the rural areas so thoroughly in terms of overall legislation and where tax money gets spent.
The problem with this is that you end up with another Wyoming-type situation where you have vast regions geographically with low population, significant over-representation at the national level, and difficulty establishing any kind of productive tax base.
This is precisely what I was thinking of when I mentioned Kentucky/W. Virginia in my other post. . . What I mean is that you'd have these large conservative areas that, with what population they do have, is heavily dependent on subsidized programs (aka, welfare). The stats don't lie. Heavily red states use far more tax money at the national level for welfare programs than blue states due. At the same time as these red states are using so much of the welfare money, they are also making wild claims about "laziness" and whatnot, and actively working to cut programs which actually help them. I'm sure we've all heard of the idiots who lament losing their ACA coverage, while 5 minutes earlier bashing "Obamacare" entirely not realizing that the thing they were hating on 5 minutes ago, is the very program they are losing.
On this topic, I did pull up a google maps image of the state of California, and, IMHO, LA is much more southern than it would be a central city. If anything, you could make an argument that Sacremento could/would be the capital of the theoretical northern state, with The Bay being the beginning of the dividing line. This would make SF the largest central city, with LA/SD being the large metro area of the southern state. Also, as I was there over 10 years ago, and I functionally could not tell the difference between where we were in Anaheim/LA, and when we were in San Diego, I think it would be too awkward for lawmakers to try and make a state line through that entire metro area.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: That is utterly, utterly, utterly, embarrassing. Shambolic. I am ashamed of myself for believing for a minute back in 2016 that Trump might have done something different on US foreign policy.
I was wrong... and feel free to call me out on that.
The man is an utter buffoon. This is how empires die.
Well to be fair you were kind of right, it certainly is something different.
The US grip is too strong at the moment to have its informal empire die due to Trump. Actions of Russia and China are partially helping to strengthen parts of the foundation while Trump chips away others. Its too big to go under by the actions of one man, but unless he is followed by a very active president on the foreign policy front it may certainly do irreversible damage.
sebster wrote: Libya up to now has produced about 10,000 dead. That's a tragedy of course, but the dead in in Syria is about 400,000 to 500,000, 40 times greater than Libya.
"This argument blows my mind!"
"Libya was a tragedy."
Well obviously it doesn't blow your mind too much because you just said that I'm right, lol. Libya was a tragedy and yet the conflict wasn't nearly as complicated as Syria, and we (the US) had better leadership with more restraint at the time. By every factor imaginable we had more tools for success in Libya then Syria and yet it still ended up being a shitshow. Anyone who thinks we should do it again with this administration leading the charge is out of touch with reality. I would love to see anyone who disagrees lay out what they think would be a viable military solution to "the Assad problem", a solution meaning something that isn't going to leave Syria as an even bigger hell hole then it already is.
Actually the level of complexity behind both Syria and Libya were about the same. Both had clear objectives in the beginning, depose of Assad/Qaddafi. If the West had intervened in Syria in 2011 too it would not have been much more complicated than Libya.
What failed in Libya is any effort to follow through on what would happen after Qaddafi was deposed off,the problem in Syria was no action at all.
And now for the latest trick...Trump looks like he's going to fire Rosenstein and just pardoned Scooter Libby on the same day he goes on a twitter tirade about leaks...
Supposedly there will be a WH briefing between 2pm and 4pm EST on Rosenstein and possibly Sessions as well.
Everyone I follow has said that there is no chance he'll sack Rosenstein and Sessions over this.
...If he did, I mean...
Look, I personally have adopted this view of the current adminstration where... My preferred brand is in no way, at all in power? So... I'm sitting here watching everything go insane. If Trump Fires Both Rosenstein and Sessions, that's huge. Like, rouse me from my lethargic chuckling huge, because... I mean just, damn.
And now for the latest trick...Trump looks like he's going to fire Rosenstein and just pardoned Scooter Libby on the same day he goes on a twitter tirade about leaks...
Supposedly there will be a WH briefing between 2pm and 4pm EST on Rosenstein and possibly Sessions as well.
Meanwhile meanwhile, Trump has ordered a review of the USPS. Something good could actually come from this if it forces Congress to admit that making the USPS prefund their entire retirement system was an untenable idea.
And now for the latest trick...Trump looks like he's going to fire Rosenstein and just pardoned Scooter Libby on the same day he goes on a twitter tirade about leaks...
Supposedly there will be a WH briefing between 2pm and 4pm EST on Rosenstein and possibly Sessions as well.
Everyone I follow has said that there is no chance he'll sack Rosenstein and Sessions over this.
...If he did, I mean...
Look, I personally have adopted this view of the current adminstration where... My preferred brand is in no way, at all in power? So... I'm sitting here watching everything go insane. If Trump Fires Both Rosenstein and Sessions, that's huge. Like, rouse me from my lethargic chuckling huge, because... I mean just, damn.
Just wanted to say about thehill... they're turning into a bombastic Breibart/TPM brand of politics.
Rosenstien is probably safe.
Sessions? I have no clue. The only reason to sack him is for Trump to put someone else in the AG seat to take control over the special council... ie, sacking Sessions, then placing Pruitt there.
And now for the latest trick...Trump looks like he's going to fire Rosenstein and just pardoned Scooter Libby on the same day he goes on a twitter tirade about leaks...
Supposedly there will be a WH briefing between 2pm and 4pm EST on Rosenstein and possibly Sessions as well.
Everyone I follow has said that there is no chance he'll sack Rosenstein and Sessions over this.
...If he did, I mean...
Look, I personally have adopted this view of the current adminstration where... My preferred brand is in no way, at all in power? So... I'm sitting here watching everything go insane. If Trump Fires Both Rosenstein and Sessions, that's huge. Like, rouse me from my lethargic chuckling huge, because... I mean just, damn.
Just wanted to say about thehill... they're turning into a bombastic Breibart/TPM brand of politics.
Rosenstien is probably safe.
Sessions? I have no clue. The only reason to sack him is for Trump to put someone else in the AG seat to take control over the special council... ie, sacking Sessions, then placing Pruitt there.
If you see that... prepare for fireworks man.
I don't think the Hill is that bad, I read them quite a bit, and as someone left of center I have never seen something they've written as overtly skewed unless it's an opinion article. Some of their opinion contributors are nuts, but they are very open that those are opinion pieces and not the regular news.
Oh God though, if he put Pruitt in Session's place, after all the weirdness surrounding Pruitt building his soundproof booth, thinking hippies were out to kill him, and firing people who disagreed with his opinions... People would have a collective stroke.
Meanwhile meanwhile, Trump has ordered a review of the USPS. Something good could actually come from this if it forces Congress to admit that making the USPS prefund their entire retirement system was an untenable idea.
Actually, I find this really interesting. I know we get a lot of crap from people who shriek "Impeach!" at every chance they get when it's a President they don't like. But I'm currently reading Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide, and one of Sunstein's impeachable offenses seems to somewhat match what Trump's doing here.
The example is that a President uses the IRS to investigate a political opponent because he is a political opponent. This is not a high crime, but a constitutional misdemeanor, as a president can't use his authority to single out political opponents for law enforcement activity.
Trump's order to review the USPS could be argued to be an attack on Amazon, which Trump has publicly accused of abusing the USPS. Amazon is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, and both have been publicly disparaged by Trump.
So, would this not count as a President abusing his authority to single out a political opponent, and so creating an impeachable offense?
Meanwhile meanwhile, Trump has ordered a review of the USPS. Something good could actually come from this if it forces Congress to admit that making the USPS prefund their entire retirement system was an untenable idea.
Actually, I find this really interesting. I know we get a lot of crap from people who shriek "Impeach!" at every chance they get when it's a President they don't like. But I'm currently reading Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide, and one of Sunstein's impeachable offenses seems to somewhat match what Trump's doing here.
The example is that a President uses the IRS to investigate a political opponent because he is a political opponent. This is not a high crime, but a constitutional misdemeanor, as a president can't use his authority to single out political opponents for law enforcement activity.
Trump's order to review the USPS could be argued to be an attack on Amazon, which Trump has publicly accused of abusing the USPS. Amazon is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, and both have been publicly disparaged by Trump.
So, would this not count as a President abusing his authority to single out a political opponent, and so creating an impeachable offense?
Technically, Congress can impeach/remove the President for wearing the wrong tie. (tho, they'd sure pay a political price)
Although...Iinking this to Amazon seems a bit of a stretch.
Although...Iinking this to Amazon seems a bit of a stretch.
Not a stretch, not one bit. Trump has one helluva hateboner for Jeff Bezos because of the Washington Post. Trump has tweeted multiple times about this, one of them even shown in that article i linked.
Although...Iinking this to Amazon seems a bit of a stretch.
Lol, I'm not sure if this is a serious post or not. He's repeatedly called out Amazon and Bezos in particular and made up a bunch of garbage about how USPS is dealing with Amazon. So of course ordering USPS to "investigate" this is totally unrelated right?
You mean like this IRS investigating political opponents?
Yeah, how dare anyone think anti-tax nuts might be evading taxes?
whembly wrote: You mean like this IRS investigating political opponents?
Can you find me an exectuve order signed by President Obama that ordered the IRS to do that? Or any other proof of the President using his authority to do so?
Also, your article itself states that the only reason why the cases were closed was because it was the Trump administration throwing in the towel and forcing an apology, not that those right-wing organizations actually managed to prove that the IRS was unfairly targeting them.
Technically, Congress can impeach/remove the President for wearing the wrong tie. (tho, they'd sure pay a political price) Although...Iinking this to Amazon seems a bit of a stretch.
But that's not a high crime, nor a constitutional misdemeanor.
And you're saying it's not a stretch to think that Trump's executive order to investigate the USPS comes just over a week after he attacked Amazon for supposedly taking advantage of it - especially since, up to this point, the Trump Administration had done/said in regard to the USPS?
whembly wrote: You mean like this IRS investigating political opponents?
Can you find me an exectuve order signed by President Obama that ordered the IRS to do that? Or any other proof of the President using his authority to do so?
Also, your article itself states that the only reason why the cases were closed was because it was the Trump administration throwing in the towel and forcing an apology, not that those right-wing organizations actually managed to prove that the IRS was unfairly targeting them.
Bet we'd have a *nod* and *wink* communique on Lerner's harddrive... oh wait, it crashed.
Technically, Congress can impeach/remove the President for wearing the wrong tie. (tho, they'd sure pay a political price) Although...Iinking this to Amazon seems a bit of a stretch.
But that's not a high crime, nor a constitutional misdemeanor.
Congress determines what is and what is not.... a High Crime or misdemeanor.
It's not a criminal process... rather its a political process. For good reason as it's Congress' own co-equal branch of nuclear powah over the President.
And you're saying it's not a stretch to think that Trump's executive order to investigate the USPS comes just over a week after he attacked Amazon for supposedly taking advantage of it - especially since, up to this point, the Trump Administration had done/said in regard to the USPS?
He's been attacking Bezo (Amazon and Washington Post owner) day one...
USPS need serious reforms... and not sure if that entity really can survive in it's current state.
So Whem, I've been waiting since the news came out a day ago but I want to know if you will be just as angry about Pruitt and his multiple secret email address as you were about Hillary and her emails. Ya know since you did say you would be if something like this came about during a Republican administration/government official.
Two Democratic senators said EPA Administrator Pruitt has been using three different “secret” epa.gov email accounts in addition to his official address and have asked the agency’s inspector general to look into the matter.
The allegation evokes memories of former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s use of a second email address to correspond with people outside the agency. Jackson, who served under former President Barack Obama, used the alias “Richard Windsor” — apparently a name borrowed from a family dog.
Jackson’s email habits drew fiery condemnation on Capitol Hill, with House Republicans grilling her about the alias in a 2013 Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing nearly a year after she’d left the EPA and entered private business working for Apple Inc. Republicans accused Jackson of using the account to bypass Freedom of Information Act requirements and shield her emails from the public.
It turns out Donald Trump’s EPA administrator may be up to the same thing, according to an April 10 letter from senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
“With the use of multiple secret email accounts or addresses, we are concerned that the Office of the Administrator may be withholding information from the public in violation of valid FOIA requests,” the lawmakers wrote to EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins Jr. “Our offices have received information indicating that the Administrator uses three different secret epa.gov email addresses in addition to his official email address: Pruitt.Scott@epa.gov.”
Ustrello wrote: So Whem, I've been waiting since the news came out a day ago but I want to know if you will be just as angry about Pruitt and his multiple secret email address as you were about Hillary and her emails. Ya know since you did say you would be if something like this came about during a Republican administration/government official.
Two Democratic senators said EPA Administrator Pruitt has been using three different “secret” epa.gov email accounts in addition to his official address and have asked the agency’s inspector general to look into the matter.
The allegation evokes memories of former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s use of a second email address to correspond with people outside the agency. Jackson, who served under former President Barack Obama, used the alias “Richard Windsor” — apparently a name borrowed from a family dog.
Jackson’s email habits drew fiery condemnation on Capitol Hill, with House Republicans grilling her about the alias in a 2013 Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing nearly a year after she’d left the EPA and entered private business working for Apple Inc. Republicans accused Jackson of using the account to bypass Freedom of Information Act requirements and shield her emails from the public.
It turns out Donald Trump’s EPA administrator may be up to the same thing, according to an April 10 letter from senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
“With the use of multiple secret email accounts or addresses, we are concerned that the Office of the Administrator may be withholding information from the public in violation of valid FOIA requests,” the lawmakers wrote to EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins Jr. “Our offices have received information indicating that the Administrator uses three different secret epa.gov email addresses in addition to his official email address: Pruitt.Scott@epa.gov.”
My parents remembers when Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union as member states...
I've got a few thoughts:
1) I think this is really neat from a historical perspective...
2) Probably does make sense in the long term so that the government would be more responsive to the will of the people...
3) Adding 4 more Senators to Congress! o.O (54 would be the count) But the House members will probably remain unchanged...
4) Now it's time to be cynical... I think over time, this'll increase the Democrat's power base as I don't think the GOP will be able to hold onto the new North and South CA states.
5) We really need to admit Puerto Rico & USVI as a state.
However, if we going splitsville... I'd split CA into two states:
Spoiler:
I think this idea was shot down the last few times...
Not the first time a California split has been on the ballot. The democrats will never allow it as it would damage a power bloc formed from San Francisco/LA. They'd risk losing one half or the other, especially LA, where their lead is narrower than in San Fran.
whembly wrote: USPS need serious reforms... and not sure if that entity really can survive in it's current state.
The problems with the USPS are politically-motivated externalties, not a fundamental problem with the USPS.
You sure?
...seem to remember reading that USPS operating costs + non-operation costs like Pensions and the like perpetually puts them in the red every year.
**I'll update this when I find the sauce...**
No, you're def right about them being in the red every year, as IIRC, the last thing I remember about it was they had a 10 years of straight losses as of Nov. 2016.
TL;DR: he was caught numerous times for lying about leaking inappropriate information to the media to the FBI and internal investigators. Essentially McCabe, Comey and J. Baker are throwing each other under the bus.
Ouze wrote: Man, it really is never the crime, always the coverup.
and will be, if anything, what sinks Trump I imagine. Theyll never find a "i liek you xoxoxo -Putin" note, it'll be Trump's tantrums that will get him sunk.
My parents remembers when Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union as member states...
I've got a few thoughts:
1) I think this is really neat from a historical perspective...
2) Probably does make sense in the long term so that the government would be more responsive to the will of the people...
3) Adding 4 more Senators to Congress! o.O (54 would be the count) But the House members will probably remain unchanged...
4) Now it's time to be cynical... I think over time, this'll increase the Democrat's power base as I don't think the GOP will be able to hold onto the new North and South CA states.
5) We really need to admit Puerto Rico & USVI as a state.
However, if we going splitsville... I'd split CA into two states:
Spoiler:
I think this idea was shot down the last few times...
Not the first time a California split has been on the ballot. The democrats will never allow it as it would damage a power bloc formed from San Francisco/LA. They'd risk losing one half or the other, especially LA, where their lead is narrower than in San Fran.
Actually it sounds like this proposal would be two blue states with NorCal being swing. So I think the electoral aspect is a wash for Dems and they'd be more interested in the actual benefits/downsides to the state(s).
Does President Trump actually have much to worry about whatever he did regarding Russia, Stormy Daniels or anything else?
Doesn't his position as President allow him to issue himself a pardon for anything (federal) he ever did? It's not something a normal politician would ever contemplate as they'd be killing any chance of future party support (and quite possibly burying their party for the foreseeable future too)
but since he seems to basically just care about himself (and whoever agrees with him at the time) he wouldn't care that much, and it might even think it was the perfect way to sign off on his presidency?
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Does President Trump actually have much to worry about whatever he did regarding Russia, Stormy Daniels or anything else?
Doesn't his position as President allow him to issue himself a pardon for anything (federal) he ever did? It's not something a normal politician would ever contemplate as they'd be killing any chance of future party support (and quite possibly burying their party for the foreseeable future too)
but since he seems to basically just care about himself (and whoever agrees with him at the time) he wouldn't care that much, and it might even think it was the perfect way to sign off on his presidency?
He can only pardon himself for things before the presidency... not during.
But still, Congress can impeach/remove him from office.
Ouze wrote: Man, it really is never the crime, always the coverup.
Wait... it's a crime to cover up an abortion in NY?
it's an idiom. There are innumerous cases of people getting bagged not for the original offense, but for a clumsy coverup. Nixon is a good example of this, as is Bill Clinton, and the most topical one:
Vaktathi wrote: and will be, if anything, what sinks Trump I imagine. Theyll never find a "i liek you xoxoxo -Putin" note, it'll be Trump's tantrums that will get him sunk.
Because he probably didn't really commit any serious crimes or collusion, but he almost certainly obstructed justice for those who did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Does President Trump actually have much to worry about whatever he did regarding Russia, Stormy Daniels or anything else?
I think it's impossible to say without knowing what Mueller has.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Does President Trump actually have much to worry about whatever he did regarding Russia, Stormy Daniels or anything else?
Doesn't his position as President allow him to issue himself a pardon for anything (federal) he ever did? It's not something a normal politician would ever contemplate as they'd be killing any chance of future party support (and quite possibly burying their party for the foreseeable future too)
but since he seems to basically just care about himself (and whoever agrees with him at the time) he wouldn't care that much, and it might even think it was the perfect way to sign off on his presidency?
Assuming the power to pardon does go that far and he does actually use it, he is far from home free. Because that means there was confirmed guilt and there is a ton of simmering anger against Trump as it stands without proof of guilt. The amount of protests and riots that would ensue would bring the nation to a standstill. His businesses would also likely be ruined, literally. He would leave the Presidency as the most hated man on the planet, and remember this is a man who derives income from renting out his name, and his assets would be in shambles. Pardoning himself would only be a more brutal way of destroying him than the punishment for the crime.
90% of the refugees are being taken care of in the region itself. God forbid those that try to cross into Europe try to dream of a life beyond one spend in a refugee camp amiright?
The worst I've had it was when someone just couldn't understand why they were in trouble for posting on my facebook wall that they were "sick". They posted that message at 4:40pm, scheduled to work at 5. And by "sick" they meant their legs were too sore from a combination spin class and weight lift they did earlier that afternoon. 
