US Politics: 2017 Edition

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.

**Peregrine**

But really, Clinton was just as bad! Both sides!

**Co'tor Shas**

It may be because I play magic, but I laughed way to hard at that.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
It may be because I play magic, but I laughed way to hard at that.

I've been waiting for that joke to show up.

**Rosebuddy**

Peregrine wrote:

But really, Clinton was just as bad! Both sides!

Arguably Clinton and Trump aren't really on different sides, they were just rivals.

**Ahtman**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Please don't say stuff like that. We Russians are finally being taken seriously again. This was all Russia's doing. Russia can totally alter the outcome of US elections at will. Russia stronk.

You're confusing 'altering' and 'influencing'. Russia most likely didn't alter that much but they did try to influence it. Apparently for many on here one group doing wrong makes it okay so I wouldn't worry to much about it. Of course for most it just means both groups are doing something wrong but then this is also the same that think a public statement is the same as an illegal breach and release, so again, I wouldn't worry to much.

**Peregrine**

Rosebuddy wrote:
Arguably Clinton and Trump aren't really on different sides, they were just rivals.

There you go, proving my point very nicely.

**Verviedi**

Rosebuddy wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

But really, Clinton was just as bad! Both sides!

Arguably Clinton and Trump aren't really on different sides, they were just rivals.

Name a single issue that they actually agreed on? They were nothing alike.

**Ketara**

They both wanted the power and prestige being President brings?

**Compel**

Well, there's something good that's come out of all this.

Mark Hamill has some great new material for the Joker.

**Breotan**

Apparently some people are trying to convince Hillary to run for Mayor of New York.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-state-mind-speculation-mounts-164700428.html

My question is, why? Isn't Mayor, even of New York, a big step down from being a former Senator, Secretary of State, and Presidential candidate?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As a student of American history, I can assure my fellow dakka members that the USA is perfectly capable of undermining faith is its own democratic progress without Russian help and has been doing so since the declaration of independence!

But you probably already knew that

In our English history course, we learned about some American history. Including the long US tradition of... electoral mudslinging. Apparently it is a thing, one that has been around from almost the beginning. Believe it or not, when the elections turned into a gakfest around here, the usual complain is that they become "americanized".

[edit]WHY U NO WORK, PROFANITY FILTER? Y U WANT ME BANNED?[/edit]

**d-usa**

Breotan wrote:
Apparently some people are trying to convince Hillary to run for Mayor of New York.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-state-mind-speculation-mounts-164700428.html

My question is, why? Isn't Mayor, even of New York, a big step down from being a former Senator, Secretary of State, and Presidential candidate?

Depends on what your motivation is.

If it's to gain more and more power, then yes.

If it's to help people and make a positive difference, then not really.

**Vaktathi**

Well, even if it's about helping people and making a positive difference, there's a bajillion people in NY who would already be trying to move into that job from from below who have been in it from the ground floor that Hillary would basically be ****-blocking in their careers for lack of a better term, plopping into it from above would just be a an excuse to retain some sort power in this case I would think. It's not like NYC is exactly in need of help and making positive differences in the way HRC's campaigns have talked about, at least compared to just about every other municipality in the US. If Hillary is going for that job it's because she wants to be Queen of of the financial capital of the US and Trump's hometown (the mayor is essentially the monarch in terms of power of a small almost autonomous nation within the state of New York)

**Ahtman**

Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
they...Russia...covertly fethed with our election and internal affairs.

So Russia gave the USA a taste of their own medicine, did to the USA what the USA have been doing to other countries since 1945.

No offence to you or any American dakka member, but I'm supposed to give a damn?

You'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

Again, it's the moral grandstanding, the double standards that are something to behold...

You probably should give a damn because the repercussions could be worldwide, and last I checked you still lived on the world.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

That's why we (i.e. all non-americans) must influence the CIA so it assassinate Trump and instead put up a puppet dictator that they will control and force to pass sensible laws on pollution. Amen.

**motyak**

There are "haha funny" posts, which are barely acceptable as on topic and contributing, and then there are "I want someone to get assassinated" posts. Don't post the latter at all. They add nothing to the discussion and are just pointless. Thanks

**Ahtman**

Glorious Leader and Bestest Buddy of Sweet Lord Putin declares those who do not take a reach around in the same way are foolish. That under his puppetmaster's grand plans that the US things will be better.

Glorious Leader has spoken. So it is written. So shall it be done.

**LordofHats**

I could easily see a number of good arguments that a less adversarial relationship with Russia would be better for everyone (the opposite hasn't exactly been working as desired), but it's pretty stupid to think that can't possibly end up being worse and that anyone who thinks it might must be stupid.

Irony.

**Ahtman**

LordofHats wrote:
I could easily see a number of good arguments that a less adversarial relationship with Russia would be better for everyone

I don't disagree the problem here is how it has been presented and the nature of those presenting it. When one's alliances are up for question calling those who disagree stupid and foolish isn't going to make things better.

**Rosebuddy**

Verviedi wrote:

Name a single issue that they actually agreed on? They were nothing alike.

Upholding capitalism and the global supremacy of the United States. They are from the same class, the same social circles, and have the same fundamental economic interests.

**wuestenfux**

Good relationships to Russia aka Putin.
Trump is unpredictable and the worst president America could get.

**reds8n**

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/rupert-murdoch-is-turning-fox-news-into-trump-tv.html

Rupert Murdoch moved swiftly and unexpectedly to fill the void opened up by Megyn Kelly’s departure for NBC. Thursday morning, Fox News announced Tucker Carlson is taking over Kelly’s 9 p.m. slot. Carlson’s ascension to prime time is significant in several ways, the most crucial being this: It’s another sign that Murdoch is pushing Fox News in a more pro-Trump direction.

Carlson’s promotion stunned many inside Fox, according to sources. In the hours after Kelly announced Tuesday morning that she was leaving for NBC, senior Fox executives were led to believe the network would take time to fill her slot. “There will be a lot of experimenting,” one insider told me yesterday. The leading internal candidates were thought to be women. Since Fox’s launch, in 1996, a female anchor has held a prime-time position.

This morning, Fox co-president Bill Shine called Carlson to give him the news, a source said. Murdoch had personally made the decision to promote Carlson, two senior Fox staffers said. Murdoch is a big Carlson fan, according to sources. This fall, he invited Carlson to lunch at his Madison Square Park penthouse and personally offered him the 7 p.m. show when Greta Van Susteren left the network. Since then, Carlson’s show has been a ratings success, posting double-digit gains (in recent weeks Carlson’s 7 p.m. show beat Megyn Kelly’s at 9). Perhaps as important, Carlson has a good relationship with Trump, and his show has been broadly in line with the Trumpian wing of the GOP. Whereas Kelly was all but blacklisted by Trump, Carlson scored more than a dozen interviews with Trump during the campaign. In recent weeks, his show has been sympathetic to Trump’s skepticism about the intelligence community’s claims that Russia hacked the DNC and intentionally meddled in the election.

Getting 9 p.m. right is crucial for Fox. According to one network insider, Kelly’s show generated more advertising revenue than Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity. (Veteran Fox anchor Martha MacCallum is taking over at 7 p.m.)

Carlson’s promotion is one sign of just how much Murdoch wants to appease Trump, Fox insiders say. Murdoch has been intent on forging a tight relationship with Trump since his victory, sources close to both men tell me. One longtime Murdoch confidante told me the two speak by phone at least three times per week. As I reported Tuesday, at Mar-a-Lago over the holidays Trump criticized Roger Ailes and lavished praise on Murdoch. And Murdoch has told Fox executives that Trump asked him to submit names for FCC commissioner. (A Trump spokesperson denied that.) Murdoch has allowed Sean Hannity to turn his 10 p.m. show into de facto infomercials for Trump.

People close to Murdoch are surprised by how fast Fox has fallen into line with the Trump administration. This morning, Bill Kristol, a longtime Fox contributor, criticized Hannity’s fawning interview with Julian Assange. “I’m old enough to remember when Fox News was pro-American soldier not pro-anti-American leaker,” Kristol tweeted. During the GOP primary, Murdoch veered from neutral to openly hostile to Trump’s candidacy. One Murdoch associate told me that over the years Murdoch spoke of Trump as a buffoon. Murdoch was also turned off by Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric. But in the general election, Murdoch came around to backing Trump (after a détente brokered by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner). Now he seems intent on turning up Fox’s support to a new level.

Murdoch’s reversal, the associate said, can partly be explained by Murdoch’s longtime desire to have a relationship with an American president. Murdoch has met every occupant of the Oval Office since Nixon, but has never had a personal connection with one. The 85-year-old Murdoch may see Trump as his last chance.

One longtime Murdoch confidante told me the two speak by phone at least three times per week

... drain the swamp

... pfffttttt ... he's not even flushing it seems.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/05/bombs-dropped-in-2016/

..

..wow.

**Kilkrazy**

Modern Russia is an oligarchy with a veneer of semi-democracy pasted on top.

Under Putin, Russia has rolled back human rights, murdered political opponents at home and abroad, bullied and invaded neighbours, interfered in the US election, and is palling up with another new regressive state, Turkey.

I suggest liberal democracy should not welcome Russia with open arms.

**LordofHats**

Ahtman wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I could easily see a number of good arguments that a less adversarial relationship with Russia would be better for everyone

I don't disagree the problem here is how it has been presented and the nature of those presenting it. When one's alliances are up for question calling those who disagree stupid and foolish isn't going to make things better.

Agreed.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Modern Russia is an oligarchy with a veneer of semi-democracy pasted on top.

Under Putin, Russia has rolled back human rights, murdered political opponents at home and abroad, bullied and invaded neighbours, interfered in the US election, and is palling up with another new regressive state, Turkey.

I suggest liberal democracy should not welcome Russia with open arms.

I do not disagree with any of this. I am under no illusions about the wretched state of the mafia system that rules Russia and how much of a tyrant Putin is.

My problem with the attitudes of our politicians is this:

Russia is constantly portrayed as this bad guy, this awful place, and yet, these same politicians, especially ours in the UK, will roll out the red carpet for the Chairman of the Chinese Communist party, or embrace the rulers of Saudi Arabia like brothers in arms, despite the awful human rights violations that occur in both China and Saudi Arabia on a daily basis.

And yet, we're constantly told that Russia is unique in this regard.

That's always been my problem with this narrative: double standards.

And it's happening in the USA even as we speak. The Democrats whining about foreign interference. You could not make this gak up.

I glance over to my book case and what do I see?

Korean War - Harry Truman

Vietnam - Jack Kennedy

Vietnam - Lyndon Johnson

Iraq - Bill Clinton

Former Yugoslavia - Bill Clinton

Libya - Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama

need I say more?

We could argue about the merits of US involvement in these nations another day, but it's a bit rich for the Democrats to be banging on about foreign involvement in other nations given their long record of doing just that to other people.

I'll say again what I've said to every American member dakka on this subject:

Not for a minute should the USA roll over for anybody, but neither should you go looking for trouble.

With a three pronged attack on US interests coming from Russia, Iran, and China, I would use a dose of Realpolitik.

Fight the fights you have to fight, ignore the rest.

**BigWaaagh**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Modern Russia is an oligarchy with a veneer of semi-democracy pasted on top.

Under Putin, Russia has rolled back human rights, murdered political opponents at home and abroad, bullied and invaded neighbours, interfered in the US election, and is palling up with another new regressive state, Turkey.

I suggest liberal democracy should not welcome Russia with open arms.

I do not disagree with any of this. I am under no illusions about the wretched state of the mafia system that rules Russia and how much of a tyrant Putin is.

My problem with the attitudes of our politicians is this:

Russia is constantly portrayed as this bad guy, this awful place, and yet, these same politicians, especially ours in the UK, will roll out the red carpet for the Chairman of the Chinese Communist party, or embrace the rulers of Saudi Arabia like brothers in arms, despite the awful human rights violations that occur in both China and Saudi Arabia on a daily basis.

And yet, we're constantly told that Russia is unique in this regard.

That's always been my problem with this narrative: double standards.

And it's happening in the USA even as we speak. The Democrats whining about foreign interference. You could not make this gak up.

I glance over to my book case and what do I see?

Korean War - Harry Truman

Vietnam - Jack Kennedy

Vietnam - Lyndon Johnson

Iraq - Bill Clinton

Former Yugoslavia - Bill Clinton

Libya - Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama

need I say more?

We could argue about the merits of US involvement in these nations another day, but it's a bit rich for the Democrats to be banging on about foreign involvement in other nations given their long record of doing just that to other people.

I'll say again what I've said to every American member dakka on this subject:

Not for a minute should the USA roll over for anybody, but neither should you go looking for trouble.

With a three pronged attack on US interests coming from Russia, Iran, and China, I would use a dose of Realpolitik.

Fight the fights you have to fight, ignore the rest.

"The Democrats are whining about foreign interference." Seems there's an awful lot of GOP pols throwing their hands up too, or doesn't that fit your narrative? Also, kind of mirrors the GOP election narrative about foreign influence peddling concerns with the Clinton Foundation, eh? But concern about this incident is a "Democrat" thing. Right...

BTW, where's all the Republican instances of foreign intervention to balance out the selectively triaged Democratic list you've offered? What? Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Sr., and Dubya didn't engage in any of that? Y-e-a-a-h! But it's really not a partisan political issue, is it? See, the issue here isn't whether the US meddled in the past, or still meddles...we have and do...it's whether we just "Let's move on.", as Putin's chosen candidate suggests, or whether we respond to shut this down and send a message to anybody else with like ambitions. If anybody thinks this is a "one and done" instance, you're kidding yourselves.

I've stated clearly in responses to these attempts at diffusive, partisan narratives that this is going to be the beginning of a troublesome trend. How can it not? It's never been easier to globally sow doubt, lies, innuendo, slander, etc. to the masses than right now. If it gets a "meh" from those in office, regardless of party...or nationality...then it will be to the detriment of EVERYONE, regardless of political affiiliation. The US can absorb this and Trump proves to be the unwitting dupe that I believe he is, but what about lesser nations? What about local elections that are of particular interest to a foreign entity or an unsavory organization/party? I just posted an example of a Breitbart article that hyperbolized an incident in Germany the other day and in so doing painted Merkel with the same brush used by the Russians with HRC. German elections are coming up, anything not to be worried about here or, more importantly, anything to be worried about by the fact that Breitbart's boss is now a Trump Senior Advisor?

Try and argue this as a partisan issue, but that just doesn't hold water at all.

**Relapse**

What a laugh Russia was for Obama and his supporters 4 years ago.

**Compel**

It's almost as if, I dunno... stuff happened in those 4 years that made people change their opinions and wotnot.

**Rosebuddy**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Modern Russia is an oligarchy with a veneer of semi-democracy pasted on top.

Under Putin, Russia has rolled back human rights, murdered political opponents at home and abroad, bullied and invaded neighbours, interfered in the US election, and is palling up with another new regressive state, Turkey.

I suggest liberal democracy should not welcome Russia with open arms.

Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power? Additionally you aren't accusing Russia of anything the US hasn't already done. Singling Russia out as some eternal enemy seems both hypocritical as well as unwise.