Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
WrentheFaceless wrote: We all know full well the ACA wont be repealled in its entirety, that would force the GOP to actually think of a replacement. They just want to complain, not actually do work
You do know that the GOP has offered alternative plans (note plural) since 2010... right?
Not really
Yes. Really.
This was Rep. Tom Price's plan that started shortly after the passage of the ACA. It has evolved a bit since then... this is the most recent I can find. Guess what? He's the guy who's going to head the HHS.
He has introduced a plan since the passage ACA in every Congress, per NYT.
Additionally, the House and Senate ACTUALLY PASSED a repeal plan earlier this year. So the repeal is happening.
So, yes, there are plans. Your House Speaker has been pushing this plan for years. Obviously, the obstructionist in Harry Reid & President Obama foiled it... but, it's a "plan".
Next session, it's going to happen... you just might not like what it looks like.
Those republican group think ideas aren't plans, they are talking points with no real ideas behind them besides the usual defund x because muh rights
Darth_Lopez wrote: I can't explain the American first ammendment in any other way than "If you want to express an Idea, without violence, then the government may not abridge said ability to express an idea even if it is so intolerable it makes other people physically uncomfortable"
You don't have to explain it, I understand it. Again, other countries have values of free speech, they're just not the same as the US. And don't assume that means 'less than the US', it means different. Note the example I gave above, some protesters entered the public viewing gallery of the federal parliament and made so much noise that our actual chamber of government had to close question time. They then glued themselves to the railings to make it harder for police to remove them from the building. None were charged, it was respected as an act of free speech.
Just because we don't have the same values as you, it doesn't mean we don't understand your values. We just don't prioritise the same things in the same ways.
I follow that but i mean this is what makes it especially hard here to ban things like swastikas or burning crosses or a variety of other generally hateful things that many other nations do prohibit. Also in the example you give they would've been charged with something here even if that's technically illegal some of them would've been found guilty of some crime. We're an odd nation when it comes to free speech. It's not that I think because you don't "prioritize" so to speak that you don't understand it. Just so much that American FoS is not well understood in its scope and as to why it receives official legal protection when so many other Western nations do not give it such stern protection. For most of us we look at it as the cornerstone of our nation. That and the 2nd Ammendment. The Right to say, do(nonviolently), dress, express, believe, assemble(nonviolently) however you want and with firearms (Non violently) shall not be abridged by any government as far as most of the country is concerned.
Now fun fact. The US Flag Code (that outlines respectful suggestions on how to fly a flag) Not only frowns on the burning of the flag and the inversion of the flag (unless you are actually in distress) But also calls for the prohibition of wearing the flag. But the Right here don't care about applying respect equally. Which is why they wear Flag bandanas, Flag Jackets, Flag Hats, Flag etc... etc... etc... etc... etc... It's just another fun bit of hypocrisy here in our social dynamic. And we have a huge culture of Nationalism as is evident by the recent election.
Even funner fact, the US Flag Code is enough of a hassle that Disney only bothers with one genuine flag that they have to treat with respect, all the other flags hung on various buildings around the parks only look like US flags from a distance, they actually have one less star and so don't fall under the Flag Code. This means Disney doesn't have to spend the resources to raise and lower the flags as required under the Flag Code.
And no one can tell the difference especially those gun toting rednecks that call themselves conservatives.
America knows Gen. James Mattis as a character, Mad Dog Mattis, the font of funny quotes and Chuck Norris-caliber memes. Those of us who served with him know that he is a caring, erudite, warfighting general. We also know that there is a reason he uses the call-sign Chaos: he is a lifelong student of his profession, a devotee of maneuver warfare and Sun Tzu, the sort of guy who wants to win without fighting—to cause chaos among those he would oppose.
To Marines, he is the finest of our tribal elders. The rest of the world, very soon, will know how truly gifted he is. Our friends and allies will be happy he is our new secretary of war; our enemies will soon wish he weren’t.
I worked for Mattis three times: when he was a colonel, a major general, and a lieutenant general. I very much want to work for him again. Here is why.
One: July 1994 I checked into Third Battalion, Seventh Marines in Twentynine Palms, California in 1994. It was 125 degrees in July in the high desert; everyone was in the field. This was a hard place, for hard men training for the hardest of jobs.
Then-Colonel Mattis, the Seventh Marines regimental commander, called for me to come see him. I was not only just a brand-new captain, but an aviator in an infantry regiment. I was a minor light in the Seventh Marines firmament: I was not in any measure a key player.
I arrived early, as a captain does when reporting to a colonel, and waited in his anteroom. There, I convinced myself what this would be: a quick handshake, a stern few sentences on what I was to do while there, and then a slap on the back with a “Go get ‘em, Tiger!” as he turned to the next task at hand. This was a busy guy. Five minutes, tops.
Colonel Mattis called for me. He stood to greet me, and offered to get coffee for me. He put a hand on my shoulder; gave me, over my protestations, his own seat behind his desk; and pulled up a chair to the side. He actually took his phone off the hook—something I had thought was just a figure of speech—closed his office door, and spent more than an hour knee-to-knee with me.
Mattis laid out his warfighting philosophy, vision, goals, and expectations. He told me how he saw us fighting and where, and how he was getting us ready to do just that. He laid out history, culture, religion, and politics, and he saw very clearly not only where we would fight, but how Seventh Marines, a desert battalion, fit into that fight.
Many years later, when Seventh Marines got into that fight, he was proven precisely right. It would not be the last time.
Two: February 2003 Major Gen. Mattis was commanding general of First Marine Division, in charge of the riflemen who were going to bear the brunt of President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war. He was small, wiry, and feisty, energy cooking off of him, the sort of guy who walks into a room of Alpha males and is instantly the leader. Mattis was a lifelong bachelor married to the Marine Corps, with a reputation as an ass-kicking, ferocious leader, an officer who took gak from no man and would do anything for his Marines.
Mattis had led First Battalion, Seventh Marines as part of Task Force Ripper during Desert Storm, and had cemented his reputation as a man on the way up. This reputation, well-earned even then, was solidified when he took Task Force 58, pulled together from two Marine Expeditionary Unit afloat, 400 miles over Pakistan and into Afghanistan late in 2001 to retaliate on behalf of us all against al-Qaeda’s attacks on September 11. He was a blunt, smart warfighter, just the sort of man our bulldog savior, Gen. Al Gray, had started pulling up the ladder behind him when he was commandant in the late 1980s.
I felt very confident with these two major generals—Mattis of the infantry and Amos of the air wing—in charge. And I felt even more confident as I looked around the room.
The metal folding chairs held hundreds of men. Pilots were in tan flight suits, pistols hanging on their chests in shoulder holsters. Infantry officers sat farther back; these were battalion fire support coordinators, seasoned majors who commanded a rifle battalion’s weapons company (heavy guns, 81 mm mortars, rockets, and TOW missiles) and were therefore the key men in a battalion’s fire support planning.
These guys were firsts among equals, and were almost always the best and often most senior of the young officers in a battalion. Most had with him his battalion air officer, an aviator serving with a rifle battalion (as I had with 3/7 under Col. Mattis) responsible for coordinating air strikes with the infantry’s scheme of maneuver and the indirect fire of both mortars and artillery.
The senior aviators, squadron and group commanders, sat near the front, with their counterpart battalion and regimental infantry commanders. Lieutenant colonels and colonels sat in front, captains and majors filling in the rear: hair atop heads grew noticeably more sparse the further forward you looked. Heads shined, and jaws firmly set. Showtime.
The discussions began with an intel brief. The first bad guys we were going to come across, and those we were therefore most concerned about, were the Iraqi 51st Mechanized Division. They were not the Republican Guard, but had a reputation as having some tough fighters who could shoot straight. The word was that officers were taking all civilian clothes from their men and having them burned, to prevent the conscripts from stripping off their uniforms and fleeing the war, trying to blend back into the civilian population.
On our side, they were expecting Seventh Marines to be ready to go on 10 March, Fifth Marines ready to go on 20 March, and First Marines ready to go in a month: 1 March. A-day and G-Day would go simultaneously. My ears perked up at this. No pre-invasion bombing? I was expecting the air war to start up any day, to soften the bad guys up for at least month as we did the first time we kicked this Iraqi Army’s ass in 1991.
No air war? Wow. The briefer didn’t come out and say “You grunts are screwed,” but rather used intelspeak: “We anticipate at this time that there will be no formalized shaping of the battlefield.” Rules of engagement would be fairly relaxed: kill people if they need killin’. Maps were flashed up, showing the initial Battlespace Coordination Line (BCL): we were given permission to kill anything beyond that line. This was going to be a huge, high-stakes shooting gallery.
Logistics was going to be an issue. It was a long way to Baghdad from there, and there were a hell of a lot of guys massing on the border. When Mattis took the boys into Afghanistan, it took 0.5 short tons (a “short ton” is 2,000 pounds even, versus a “ton,” which is closer to 2,200 pounds) per Marine deployed. They were expecting that it would be five times that effort—2.5 short tons per Marine—to get a guy to Baghdad. I remembered that Gen. Krulak, our commandant in the late 1990s, had made his reputation as a logistics wizard in Desert Storm.
Good officers study military history, great officers study logistics. Mattis was a great officer. His “Log Light” configuration for the division was meant to get people north fast, and not try to shoot our way through every little town on the way. As only he could do, he described it thus: “If you can’t eat it, shoot it, or wear it, don’t bring it.”
Mattis stood. As always, he spoke without notes, having long ago memorized everything.
“Gentlemen, this is going to be the most air-centric division in the history of warfare. Don’t you worry about the lack of shaping; if we need to kill something, it is going to get killed. I would storm the gates of Hell if Third Marine Air Wing was overhead.”
He looked toward the back of the cavernous room, and spoke loud, clear, and confident, hands on his hips.
“There is one way to have a short but exciting conversation with me,” he continued, “and that is to move too slow. Gentlemen, this is not a marathon, this is a sprint. In about a month, I am going to go forward of our Marines up to the border between Iraq and Kuwait. And when I get there, one of two things is going to happen. Either the commander of the Fifty-First Mechanized Division is going to surrender his army in the field to me, or he and all his guys are going to die.”
Nothing much else needed to be said after that.
Three: March 2003 Early in the afternoon, every British and American officer loaded up and headed across the desert to the marvelously named Camp Matilda, one of the Marine Corps base camps farther north towards Iraq. This was my first foray out into the open desert, and it was a National Geographic special come to life.
Camels ambled along next to the road or stood and stared stupidly at the cars whizzing by mere feet away. I assumed they would be herded by men in flowing robes on camels, like in “Lawrence of Arabia.” The men indeed wore robes and flowing headdresses, but herded their beasts in pickup trucks. Wealthier Kuwaitis zoomed by in red-checked caftans driving the ubiquitous Mercedes sedan.
First Marine Division was holding their first ROC Drill, the rehearsal of concept of what we were about to do. I had never seen a walk-through like this before. Marines had spent days building an enormous reproduction of southern Iraq in a bowl formed by a huge, semicircular sand dune. Each road, each river, each canal, each oil field was built to scale and even in proper color (water was blue dye poured into a sand ditch, and so on.)
Each Marine unit wore football jerseys in different colors, and with proper numbers. First Battalion, Fifth Marines, known as one-fifth, wore blue jerseys with “15” on the back, and other units were similarly identified. Principal staff from those units stood on the “border” drawn in the sand. About 300 officers stood and sat on the dune above. It was the perfect way to visualize what was about to happen.
General Mattis stood up and took a handheld microphone. Without referencing a single piece of paper, he discussed what each unit would do and in what sequence, and outlined his end state for each phase of the early war. He spoke for nearly 30 minutes, and his complete mastery of every nuance of the battle forthcoming was truly impressive.
A narrator then took over and picked up the narrative, the rest of the first week of the early war in sequence. As he described each movement, the officers from that unit walked to the proper place on their terrain model, and by the end of an hour the colored jerseys were spread over nearly a football field’s worth of sand. What a show.
At the end of the drill, questions were answered and then Mattis dismissed everyone. No messing around with this guy. Mike Murdoch, one of the British company commanders, leaned over to me, his eyes wide. “Mate, are all your generals that good?”
I looked at him.
“No. He is the best we have.”
As everyone rose to leave, Mattis fired one last directive over the microphone: “You’ve got about 30 days.”
Wow... that is some arousing textual fellatio. I'm not saying Mattis wouldn't make a good SecDef, just commenting on the nature of the writing.
Also, I thought it was interesting they said Sec of War, rather than Defense, and there's no such thing as "Alpha" male or similar.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
In US is there any penalties for saying something? Say suggesting somebody to kill another person, threatening to kill somebody or for hate speech?
In Finland at least all 3 can lead to penalty of some sort so guess from strict point of view Finland doesn't have full freedom of speech.
Direct threats are punishable, as is libel or slander. Hate speech is not, it is protected speech (for good or ill).
Except it's really really really really legally difficult to get such things punished. We take threats against the public far more seriously than threats against an individual and in most cases threats against an individual unless it leads to actual violence will probably be resolved with a restraining order. Libel and Slander are very difficult to prove as well and often require that there is intent to harm the public image of an individual and seems to be almost entirely ignored when it comes to politics.
Basically Unless you're doing it to a celebrity or making a mass threat you will not get punished for what you do, unless it results in violence/public danger/harm or that person has alot of money and a huge public image they feel has been marred. If you threaten a person and they end up dead though, you are suspect numero uno.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/02 19:22:08
It's interesting that Republicans are trying to block the recounts now, claiming it will cost millions of dollars when, IIRC, it's the greens and dems money that's being spent on the recounts.
Is there a possibility of finding something, or is it just them panicking at the possibility of it?
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
It's interesting that Republicans are trying to block the recounts now, claiming it will cost millions of dollars when, IIRC, it's the greens and dems money that's being spent on the recounts.
Is there a possibility of finding something, or is it just them panicking at the possibility of it?
The State has a deadline to certify the count. Since the outcome isn't going to change, they don't want to waste the time or manpower or risk missing that deadline. Also, should something happen and the recount hit any snags, additional court challenges could occur. There's also the prevailing view that this recount effort is simply fundraising by Stein and not because there is some legitimate concern about the count.
It's interesting that Republicans are trying to block the recounts now, claiming it will cost millions of dollars when, IIRC, it's the greens and dems money that's being spent on the recounts.
Is there a possibility of finding something, or is it just them panicking at the possibility of it?
It's especially funny given Trump's explicit statement that "millions" of people voted illegally. The republicans should be supporting recounts, and in fact pushing for more of them.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Breotan wrote: Since the outcome isn't going to change, they don't want to waste the time or manpower or risk missing that deadline.
You won't know till you look. The issue with that whole approach to it is that it assumes that there was no fraud. However, voter fraud is, by and large, undetectable until a recount takes place (unless you get caught manipulating the ballots directly, or get caught i na sting talking about how you did it..... like some of Trumps extended family are I believe serving time for.). If there were, in fact, millions of illegal votes, a recount is the surest way to find them. Same hacking voting machines, the dead voting, etc etc.
And then you have to deal with the people who no longer have insurance and can't get insurance. If your solution is "let them die" then your mindset is not acceptable.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders!
...... it's not fun when it's this easy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/03 10:26:20
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but I think this Taiwan conversation is a good move by Team Trump - it's straight out of the Bismarck play book i.e keep your rivals off balance and guessing.
The Chinese are treating the South Pacific as though it were a Chinese lake.
Trump gently reminded the Chinese that the USA has options in the region, and it keeps them guessing about what kind of administration Trump will have with regards to foreign policy...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
It's interesting that Republicans are trying to block the recounts now, claiming it will cost millions of dollars when, IIRC, it's the greens and dems money that's being spent on the recounts.
Is there a possibility of finding something, or is it just them panicking at the possibility of it?
The State has a deadline to certify the count. Since the outcome isn't going to change, they don't want to waste the time or manpower or risk missing that deadline. Also, should something happen and the recount hit any snags, additional court challenges could occur. There's also the prevailing view that this recount effort is simply fundraising by Stein and not because there is some legitimate concern about the count.
Hasn't stopped them demanding a recount here in NC for the governor's race.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/03 12:50:22
EDIT: he just confirmed Mattis for Sec of Defense.
EDIT II: saying there should be consequences for flag burning...
>implying there shouldn't be punishment for burning your countries flag
Have some respect.
Freedom of speech and dissent is more important than your feeling getting hurt because someone burnt a piece of cloth.
Sure it is just a piece of cloth, but it is what it stands for. That flag is rested on the coffins of soldiers, and hung on proud patriots porches. Destroying that flag, while most likely screaming something about white people, capitalism, or Donald Trump, is desecration to the people that hold it dearly. Have your protest, but don't piss where you eat.
Once again, we march to war, for Victory or Death!
Never wake yourself at night, unless you are spying on your enemy or looking for a place to relieve yourself. - The Poetic Edda
EDIT: he just confirmed Mattis for Sec of Defense.
EDIT II: saying there should be consequences for flag burning...
>implying there shouldn't be punishment for burning your countries flag
Have some respect.
Freedom of speech and dissent is more important than your feeling getting hurt because someone burnt a piece of cloth.
Sure it is just a piece of cloth, but it is what it stands for. That flag is rested on the coffins of soldiers, and hung on proud patriots porches. Destroying that flag, while most likely screaming something about white people, capitalism, or Donald Trump, is desecration to the people that hold it dearly. Have your protest, but don't piss where you eat.
It's also used and worn as a doo rag, t-shirt, vest, car decal, air freshener, dog sweater, etc. by individuals thinking that the more Stars and Stripes they can adorn themselves with the better of an 'murican it makes them, which is just silly. So I think we're beyond the whole absolute sanctity of the physical flag thing. Besides, it's never been the actual cloth item that people should hold dearly. That misses the point completely. Respect it, sure, but it's only a "thing" and the USA...and what we represent...is bigger than just a "thing". It's always been about the what that item symbolizes, and that cannot be burned.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/03 13:58:27
Indeed. People may burn the flag because, to them, it no longer represents the values and ideals that the USA is meant to be founded on, that it has been twisted and turned into something which runs counter to those ideals.
That would seem to me to be a perfectly valid form of protest.
Also, if you want to prevent people burning the flag as a political protest without getting involved in all that free speech stuff then the solution is quite simple, have a legal requirement that all US flags are made of a flame resistant material.
It works wonders for the EU flag
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/03 14:59:47
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Sure it is just a piece of cloth, but it is what it stands for. That flag is rested on the coffins of soldiers, and hung on proud patriots porches. Destroying that flag, while most likely screaming something about white people, capitalism, or Donald Trump, is desecration to the people that hold it dearly. Have your protest, but don't piss where you eat.
It's also hung over the heads of men as they committed despicable crimes against humanity and shielded men who deserved the gallows and instead walked American streets as free men. (Looking at you, Shirō Ishii. And don't think you're off the hook that easily Von Braun).
Thing is, without the meanings one attaches to it, it's just a piece of cloth.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
A Town Called Malus wrote: Indeed. People may burn the flag because, to them, it no longer represents the values and ideals that the USA is meant to be founded on, that it has been twisted and turned into something which runs counter to those ideals.
That would seem to me to be a perfectly valid form of protest.
Also, if you want to prevent people burning the flag as a political protest without getting involved in all that free speech stuff then the solution is quite simple, have a legal requirement that all US flags are made of a flame resistant material.
It works wonders for the EU flag
Why would he post his failure on YouTube like that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/03 15:01:47
Flag Burning is a protected form of speech. The USSC says so. It does not cause anyone harm, and for many is nothing more then another form of speaking out against the government.
It is the rights of our citizens to do so. Does it make them donkey-caves? Yes. If you burn that, you're a scum bag, in my eyes. It is still your right to do so though.
Something a friend of mine said on the topic yesterday.
The entire takeaway: 1A isn't to protect your sensitive snowflake ears from everything offensive. Offended or triggered? That sucks. Deal with it.
"This protection applies even to ideas that are hateful, offensive, unorthodox, and outright un-American."
If you fought for the American flag, you fought for your neighbor's right to burn it as well as your right to call him an donkey-cave for doing so.
Reposting an almost two year old post, my thoughts haven't changed. It also has some quotes and replies from people in this thread that I didn't edit out because I'm on mobile.
It is not just a piece of cloth. It is a symbol. A symbol for something that I have devoted my life towards. Who are you to tell me that it is meaningless?
hotsauceman1 wrote:To me it is. I put stock in what America has done and what it will continue to do. Not something that waves in the wind.
But, for djones, myself and others like us, the American Flag is a symbol of what America has done and what it will continue to do (both good and bad)
My main problem with the flag (okay, not exactly the flag but attitudes regarding the flag) is that I have often seen the symbol placed at a higher level then whatever it is supposed to represent. And when the symbol is more important that whatever it symbolizes, then it becomes a problem.
The major example in that regards when it comes to the flag are the attempts to ban the burning of the flag or any other related flag laws. If people want to display a torn up flag without lighting it up, they should be able to. If people want to draw a swastika on the flag and fly it they should be able to. If people want to take a giant crap on the flag and then burn it, they should be able to. If people want to make flag tampons they should be able to. People should be able to do whatever they want with our flag. That doesn't mean that I don't think that whatever they are doing is extremely disrespectful, and it absolutely doesn't mean that you or djones can't get extremely pissed off when people do those things. It just means that people should be free to do those things.
The flag has zero authority. The flag doesn't write law. The flag is not part of our government. The only function of the flag is to be a symbol of all those things. It is a symbol of our country, it is a symbol for our laws, it is a symbol for our freedoms and accomplishments. It is also a symbol of our struggles, a symbol of "american imperialism", a symbol of racial bias, or whatever else anyone wants to see it as a symbol for. But the flag is not a source of law and it is not a source of our freedoms.
One such freedoms is our freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to burn the flag or desecrate it any other way that anyone wants to desecrate it. Our flag is great because it is a symbol of that freedom. But when you restrict any of the freedoms that the flag symbolizes in order to protect the symbol itself, then it becomes a meaningless piece of cloth. When you pass laws placing the symbol of the freedom above the actual freedoms it symbolizes, then both become meaningless.
I was talking to someone yesterday about Trump... and I think she brought up a good point.
You know how folks are worried about conflict of interests with respect to Trump's company? The Trump Company make their money within the public marketplace (real estate, branding, hoteliers, etc...).
Those are HUGE industries that other companies operate in these same Trump industries.
So, while Trump is claiming to divest his management role to his kids... he'll still be the principle owner of his businesses. That's a far cry from a blind trust. (c'mon, you don't think his kids wouldn't call daddy for a "little help" every now and then?).
Having said that, the person I was talking to said something to the effect of:
Its nice that we now have a President whose own assets are impacted by government polices. Of course, he'd be encouraged to enact policies that would be beneficial to his industries, or he'd take a longer look at adverse policies to ensure whether it still the best way forward.
Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
That's a nice change.
Rather than, like Congress, who carved themselves healthcare exemptions so that they wouldn't have to be covered by the ACA exchange.
I don't know how I feel about that. While I acknowledged that is a bit of different twist, in that Trump has already made his wealth so his perspective may be a bit different, the point I keep returning is the old axiom that Power Corrupts.
The only recourse now is Transparency and Government Oversight. The bummer here is that the GOP controls Congress... and, imo, they're not going to be that interested in *looking* at Trump as opposed to an hypothetical Clinton Presidency. That's a problem. The only thing left is transparency so that the American public can decide what's acceptable or not. Which, to make it known could only be a the ballot box. To me, that's too late.
Why would he post his failure on YouTube like that?
If you were called in to film your friend's political protest, and it failed, wouldn't you still post it for giggles??? I suspect that's what really happened here
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but I think this Taiwan conversation is a good move by Team Trump - it's straight out of the Bismarck play book i.e keep your rivals off balance and guessing.
The Chinese are treating the South Pacific as though it were a Chinese lake.
Trump gently reminded the Chinese that the USA has options in the region, and it keeps them guessing about what kind of administration Trump will have with regards to foreign policy...
So you criticize clinton dor being hawk yet aplaud trump for sabre rattlng with china.
whembly wrote: Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
Not necessarily. You could also have a Andrew Mellon situation where the politician legislates his competitors out of business. If you wonder why you have to buy expensive gasoline for your car, rather than a century of inexpensive biofuel, blame him. When DuPont found out that Ford was about to go with biofuel in the 1930's, Mellon set it up so that one of the key ingredients in Ford's formula became utterly illegal in the US.
It was called Cannabis sativa though you may know it as marijuana.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but I think this Taiwan conversation is a good move by Team Trump - it's straight out of the Bismarck play book i.e keep your rivals off balance and guessing.
The Chinese are treating the South Pacific as though it were a Chinese lake.
Trump gently reminded the Chinese that the USA has options in the region, and it keeps them guessing about what kind of administration Trump will have with regards to foreign policy...
So you criticize clinton dor being hawk yet aplaud trump for sabre rattlng with china.
Clinton wanted a no fly zone which might have led to Russian jets getting shot down. Trump exchanged brief pleasantries with the President of Taiwan.
There is a big difference between the two.
My preferred option is peace between China and the USA, but it doesn't hurt to send them a peaceful reminder now and again.
Talk softly and carry a big stick, and all that...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
whembly wrote: I was talking to someone yesterday about Trump... and I think she brought up a good point.
You know how folks are worried about conflict of interests with respect to Trump's company? The Trump Company make their money within the public marketplace (real estate, branding, hoteliers, etc...).
Those are HUGE industries that other companies operate in these same Trump industries.
So, while Trump is claiming to divest his management role to his kids... he'll still be the principle owner of his businesses. That's a far cry from a blind trust. (c'mon, you don't think his kids wouldn't call daddy for a "little help" every now and then?).
Having said that, the person I was talking to said something to the effect of:
Its nice that we now have a President whose own assets are impacted by government polices. Of course, he'd be encouraged to enact policies that would be beneficial to his industries, or he'd take a longer look at adverse policies to ensure whether it still the best way forward.
Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
That's a nice change.
Rather than, like Congress, who carved themselves healthcare exemptions so that they wouldn't have to be covered by the ACA exchange.
I don't know how I feel about that. While I acknowledged that is a bit of different twist, in that Trump has already made his wealth so his perspective may be a bit different, the point I keep returning is the old axiom that Power Corrupts.
The only recourse now is Transparency and Government Oversight. The bummer here is that the GOP controls Congress... and, imo, they're not going to be that interested in *looking* at Trump as opposed to an hypothetical Clinton Presidency. That's a problem. The only thing left is transparency so that the American public can decide what's acceptable or not. Which, to make it known could only be a the ballot box. To me, that's too late.
You want to see how this could be an issue, do a little research on Silvio Berlusconi and his political history. Quite a few eye brow-raising parallels for potential abuse and conflict.
whembly wrote: I was talking to someone yesterday about Trump... and I think she brought up a good point.
You know how folks are worried about conflict of interests with respect to Trump's company? The Trump Company make their money within the public marketplace (real estate, branding, hoteliers, etc...).
Those are HUGE industries that other companies operate in these same Trump industries.
So, while Trump is claiming to divest his management role to his kids... he'll still be the principle owner of his businesses. That's a far cry from a blind trust. (c'mon, you don't think his kids wouldn't call daddy for a "little help" every now and then?).
Having said that, the person I was talking to said something to the effect of:
Its nice that we now have a President whose own assets are impacted by government polices. Of course, he'd be encouraged to enact policies that would be beneficial to his industries, or he'd take a longer look at adverse policies to ensure whether it still the best way forward.
Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
That's a nice change.
Rather than, like Congress, who carved themselves healthcare exemptions so that they wouldn't have to be covered by the ACA exchange.
I don't know how I feel about that. While I acknowledged that is a bit of different twist, in that Trump has already made his wealth so his perspective may be a bit different, the point I keep returning is the old axiom that Power Corrupts.
The only recourse now is Transparency and Government Oversight. The bummer here is that the GOP controls Congress... and, imo, they're not going to be that interested in *looking* at Trump as opposed to an hypothetical Clinton Presidency. That's a problem. The only thing left is transparency so that the American public can decide what's acceptable or not. Which, to make it known could only be a the ballot box. To me, that's too late.
You want to see how this could be an issue, do a little research on Silvio Berlusconi and his political history. Quite a few eye brow-raising parallels for potential abuse and conflict.
I'm not saying Mattis wouldn't make a good SecDef, just commenting on the nature of the writing.
...it's like watching a teenage drama.
saying there should be consequences for flag burning...
