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.

**Co'tor Shas**

No matter what ideology, group, or belief, idiots are the one factor that always stays the same.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Reading the NYT article:
1. It feels true.
2. It sounds just like I thought it would.
3. Kim Kardashian is sitting in the WH. No one's actually running the country.

Pence needs to push out Bannon and start taking over. How do you do that? Accidents happen.

There's bound to be a grassy knoll in Washington

I joke of course.

My money is still on Kushner being the first to suffer a tragic accident. Not a lot of money, though.

In these uncertain times, put your money in gold, alcohol, or funeral providers. People always needs those three things.

**Ahtman**

Apparently Trump tweeted that any polls of his policies/EOs are fake and can't be trusted; positive news is real, negative news is false.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Apparently Trump tweeted that any polls of his policies/EOs are fake and can't be trusted; positive news is real, negative news is false.

GoodFacts, RealFacts, and BadFacts...

**reds8n**

best strap those hats on :

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-foxnews-kremlin-idUSKBN15L0XC

The Kremlin said on Monday it wanted an apology from Fox News over what it said were "unacceptable" comments one of the channel's presenters made about Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview with U.S. counterpart Donald Trump.

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly described Putin as "a killer" in the interview with Trump as he tried to press the U.S. president to explain more fully why he respected his Russian counterpart. O'Reilly did not say who he thought Putin had killed.

"We consider such words from the Fox TV company to be unacceptable and insulting, and honestly speaking, we would prefer to get an apology from such a respected TV company," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

Fox News and O'Reilly did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

Trump's views on Putin are closely scrutinized in the United States, where U.S. intelligence agencies have accused Moscow of having sponsored computer hacking to help Trump win office, and critics say he is too complimentary about the Russian leader.

Trump, when commenting on the allegations against Putin in the same interview, questioned how "innocent" the United States itself was, saying it had made a lot of its own mistakes. That irritated some congressional Republicans who said there was no comparison between how Russian and U.S. politicians behaved.

Asked in an interview on Sunday to clarify those comments, Trump told Westwood One Sports Radio: "Well, I don't have to clarify it. The question was do you respect him -- he's a head of a major country."

Putin, in his 17th year of dominating the Russian political landscape, is accused by some Kremlin critics of ordering the killing of opponents. Putin and the Kremlin have repeatedly rejected those allegations as politically motivated and false.

Trump, who has said he wants to try to mend battered U.S.-Russia ties and hopes he can get along with Putin, was asked a question about some of those allegations by Fox Business before he won the White House.

In January last year, after a British judge ruled that Putin had "probably" authorized the murder of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in London, Trump said he saw no evidence the Russian president was guilty.

"First of all, he says he didn't do it. Many people say it wasn't him. So who knows who did it?" Trump said.

(Reporting by Maria Tsvetkova/Andrew Osborn; Editing by Ralph Boulton and Alan Crosby)

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/january/exclusive-american-missionary-fights-to-pray-read-bible-in-putins-russia

MOSCOW – Twenty-five years after the collapse of communism, the fight to defend religious freedom in the Russian Federation still rages.

Seven months ago, Donald Ossewaarde became the first American convicted of breaking a Russian law that bans preaching the Gospel outside a registered church.

Now he's going before Russia's Supreme Court – and the outcome could have huge ramifications for all Christians in the country.

..........

............Twenty-five days before, on July 20, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed new amendments to a law that govern religious life.

Under the guise of confronting terrorism, Putin gave authorities the power to "ban preaching, praying, proselytizing, and handing out religious materials outside government-sanctioned churches".

The U.S State Department warned the move signaled a "troubling Russian trend of intimidation and harassment".

Sergey Rakhuba's organization works in Russia and 13 other countries of the former Soviet Union.

"This law is known among evangelical Christians in Russia as an "anti-missionary" law because it places harsh restrictions on evangelical churches and foreign missionary organizations," explained Rakhuba, who heads the Illinois-based Mission Eurasia.

Among other things, the law required foreign missionaries to have a permit to evangelize. Also, reading your Bible, singing or simply praying outside a registered church, even in a home, became illegal.

Roman Lunkin is a lawyer with the Slavic Center for Law and Justice, the Russian counterpart of the American Center for Law and Justice, a group that tackles religious freedom cases around the world.

"The law inflicted serious damage because suddenly many Christians feared that just talking about faith or sharing with others about God was a crime," Lunkin told CBN News in Moscow.

Andrei Desnitsky, a prominent Russian commentator, told CBN News that the "law tells us not to do anything that can be called a "missionary activity," including saying, 'I believe in Jesus' for instance."

...so he does he piss off ?

Fox news ?

The Russians ?

The Xtain fundies who have backed him ?

But seeing as, apparently , the USA isn't morally superior to Russia -- according to your VP anyway -- guess it doesn't matter.

**infinite_array**

So, what do conservatives pick - the old and steady relationship with O'Reilly, or the new hot fling with Putin?

**kronk**

infinite_array wrote:
So, what do conservatives pick - the old and steady relationship with O'Reilly, or the new hot fling with Putin?

Old and steady gets just the right amount of kinky after a few drinks. New hot fling is high maintenance.

**tneva82**

Ahtman wrote:
Apparently Trump tweeted that any polls of his policies/EOs are fake and can't be trusted; positive news is real, negative news is false.

Yeah. He obviously bases his statement because all around him say otherwise. The few dozen guys around him obviously represents all that matter.

**Frazzled**

infinite_array wrote:
So, what do conservatives pick - the old and steady relationship with O'Reilly, or the new hot fling with Putin?

Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

**BigWaaagh**

kronk wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
So, what do conservatives pick - the old and steady relationship with O'Reilly, or the new hot fling with Putin?

Old and steady gets just the right amount of kinky after a few drinks. New hot fling is high maintenance.

Yeah, but hot and new is always, well, hot and new...throw in the Russian angle and party time!

**Peregrine**

Frazzled wrote:
Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

60 million people voted for Trump. Conservatives support him.

**Frazzled**

Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

60 million people voted for Trump. Conservatives support him.

Ah I see. INcorrect perception.

60mm voted Trump. That doesn't mean they supported Trump, only didn't support Hillary.

Trump has almost no "conservative" positions.

He was almost a libertarian internationally but then turned into Bomb Bomb Bomb guy, just like HRC.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
Apparently Trump tweeted that any polls of his policies/EOs are fake and can't be trusted; positive news is real, negative news is false.

Well... to be fair, the polls were generally wrong in November...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
So, what do conservatives pick - the old and steady relationship with O'Reilly, or the new hot fling with Putin?

Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

What dis guy said...

**Peregrine**

jasper76 wrote:
For my part, i think tying tax exemption to free speech compromise is just a bad idea. The government should not be mucking about with free speech. The simple solution would be removing tax exemption from churches entirely, then this issue just goes away.

There is no free speech issue here, and the policy is a reasonable one if it is actually enforced. It's in the best interest of society to have non-profit organizations and not tax them. Paying taxes on donations to a charity project doesn't make much sense, it just takes away money from the people the project is trying to help. And, whatever your opinions on religion in general, it's clear that churches do a lot of charity work*. On the other hand we don't want to consider campaigning for a candidate to be tax-exempt charity work. Thus the rule: if your organization acts as a non-profit charitable group it doesn't pay (certain) taxes, if your organization acts like a for-profit business or a campaign fund for a candidate then you don't get the exemption. The only reason you mostly hear about this in the context of churches endorsing candidates is that churches are the only organizations that regularly try to claim the tax benefits while acting as campaign support for particular candidates.

*No, their religious activities should not count and should be treated the same as a concert or movie theater (with separation of finances for legitimate charity work), but we're in a bizarre world where the NFL is technically a "non-profit organization".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
60mm voted Trump. That doesn't mean they supported Trump, only didn't support Hillary.

No, supporting neither candidate means voting for neither. 60 million people actively made the choice to select Trump. You can say do the "no true Scotsman" thing all you like, but the undeniable truth here is that Trump got essentially the same votes as every other republican candidate in recent presidential elections. Conservatives have spoken, and the message is clear: "WE WANT TRUMP."

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
60mm voted Trump. That doesn't mean they supported Trump, only didn't support Hillary.

No, supporting neither candidate means voting for neither. 60 million people actively made the choice to select Trump. You can say do the "no true Scotsman" thing all you like, but the undeniable truth here is that Trump got essentially the same votes as every other republican candidate in recent presidential elections. Conservatives have spoken, and the message is clear: "WE WANT TRUMP."

No.

It's "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY!".

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
60mm voted Trump. That doesn't mean they supported Trump, only didn't support Hillary.

No, supporting neither candidate means voting for neither. 60 million people actively made the choice to select Trump. You can say do the "no true Scotsman" thing all you like, but the undeniable truth here is that Trump got essentially the same votes as every other republican candidate in recent presidential elections. Conservatives have spoken, and the message is clear: "WE WANT TRUMP."

No.

It's "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY!".

So they chose to vote for Trump. So they wanted Trump more than Hillary which means that they did want Trump.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
No.

It's "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY!".

Again, "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY" means not voting for her, and voting for a third-party candidate or voting for nobody. A vote for Trump is an active choice to make it more likely that Trump wins, and 60 million people (essentially the same number that every republican candidate gets) did exactly that. Stop burying your head in the sand and pretending that Your Team isn't responsible for the president they voted for, Trump is modern conservativism and the modern republican party.

**Vaktathi**

Frazzled wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

60 million people voted for Trump. Conservatives support him.

Ah I see. INcorrect perception.

60mm voted Trump. That doesn't mean they supported Trump, only didn't support Hillary.

Hrm, while true for many, if they voted for Trump, that doesnt make it an antihillary vote. Lots of conservative were enthusiastic about Trump, its how he ran roughshod over the GOP party establishment and "establishment" candidates, and there were alternative candidates aside from Trump, while Hillary lost by not engaging the enthusiastic chunk of her base that brought Obama to power in 08. I didnt support Hillary, and didnt vote for her, and I also didnt give my vote to Trump, many others could have made a similar choice.

Likewise, there doesnt seem to be any conservative opposition to Trump's awful nominees like DeVos or Trump's EO's aside from a couple random voices like McCain on one or two specific things.

Trump may not be the darling if the GOP establishment, but among the conservative base he seems to be well liked, according to Gallup amongst Conservatives his approval rating is 73% currently.

http://www.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx?g_source=POLITICS&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

**Frazzled**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
60mm voted Trump. That doesn't mean they supported Trump, only didn't support Hillary.

No, supporting neither candidate means voting for neither. 60 million people actively made the choice to select Trump. You can say do the "no true Scotsman" thing all you like, but the undeniable truth here is that Trump got essentially the same votes as every other republican candidate in recent presidential elections. Conservatives have spoken, and the message is clear: "WE WANT TRUMP."

Not sure what fethed up world you think this is No True Scotsmen. You clearly have no clue what an actual conservative is. I know in your world view if they aren't Team Blue they Are Fascist Racists Idiots (all things Reagan, Nixon, BushI and Bush II were accused of) just like Team Red thinks all Democrats are neo fascist Commie intellectual slackers, but yea no thats not the case.

Many many voted against Hillary, just as many voted against Trump.
His positions are usually populist and/or Democratic.

Race politics-time honored Democratic tradition.
Anti international business derp Sanders/HRC.
Russia good-Obama I.
Dictators good-Obama II
Dictators historically: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, Obama, Trump.
China bad-Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower.
Infrastructure spending-all the way back to the New Deal.
immigration control. No Nothings, Klan Democrats, Longs, William Jennings Bryan.
Tariffs for US business. Well thats all the way back to Day 1 of the Republic.
Talking to foreign leaders like he's the President of the WWF-ok thats new and a populists dream.

Refusing to read a book-yep that one's new too. Despite party propaganda, all our previous presidents were generally highly literate, some being self taught lawyers (Lincoln).

**feeder**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
No.

It's "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY!".

Again, "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY" means not voting for her, and voting for a third-party candidate or voting for nobody. A vote for Trump is an active choice to make it more likely that Trump wins, and 60 million people (essentially the same number that every republican candidate gets) did exactly that. Stop burying your head in the sand and pretending that Your Team isn't responsible for the president they voted for, Trump is modern conservativism and the modern republican party.

No, no, the left is responsible for Trump. It goes like this:

1) Call the racist things he said racist.

2) Call the sexist things he said sexist.

3) ???

4) The left is responsible for Trump!

**Easy E**

Frazzled wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
So, what do conservatives pick - the old and steady relationship with O'Reilly, or the new hot fling with Putin?

Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

Let me guess, the "He isn't Conservative enough!" angle?

**Frazzled**

Vaktathi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

60 million people voted for Trump. Conservatives support him.

Ah I see. INcorrect perception.

60mm voted Trump. That doesn't mean they supported Trump, only didn't support Hillary.
Hrm, while true for many, if they voted for Trump, that doesnt make it an antihillary vote. Lots of conservative were enthusiastic about Trump, its how he ran roughshod over the GOP party establishment and "establishment" candidates, and there were alternative candidates aside from Trump, while Hillary lost by not engaging the enthusiastic chunk of her base that brought Obama to power in 08. I didnt support Hillary, and didnt vote for her, and I also didnt give my vote to Trump, many others could have made a similar choice.

Likewise, there doesnt seem to be any conservative opposition to Trump's awful nominees like DeVos or Trump's EO's aside from a couple random voices like McCain on one or two specific things.

Trump may not be the darling if the GOP establishment, but among the conservative base he seems to be well liked, according to Gallup amongst Conservatives his approval rating is 73% currently.

http://www.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx?g_source=POLITICS&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

Then you have to define conservatives, because they aren't what there were two years ago.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
So, what do conservatives pick - the old and steady relationship with O'Reilly, or the new hot fling with Putin?

Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

Let me guess, the "He isn't Conservative enough!" angle?

Not a lot of rightwingers hang out with the Clintons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
No.

It's "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY!".

Again, "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY" means not voting for her, and voting for a third-party candidate or voting for nobody. A vote for Trump is an active choice to make it more likely that Trump wins, and 60 million people (essentially the same number that every republican candidate gets) did exactly that. Stop burying your head in the sand and pretending that Your Team isn't responsible for the president they voted for, Trump is modern conservativism and the modern republican party.

No, no, the left is responsible for Trump. It goes like this:

1) Call the racist things he said racist.

2) Call the sexist things he said sexist.

3) ???

4) The left is responsible for Trump!

What did he say was racist?

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
No.

It's "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY!".

Again, "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY" means not voting for her, and voting for a third-party candidate or voting for nobody. A vote for Trump is an active choice to make it more likely that Trump wins, and 60 million people (essentially the same number that every republican candidate gets) did exactly that. Stop burying your head in the sand and pretending that Your Team isn't responsible for the president they voted for, Trump is modern conservativism and the modern republican party.

Again... you're conflating 'Conservatives' with 'Republicans/Trump'.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Again... you're conflating 'Conservatives' with 'Republicans/Trump'.

"No true Scotsman".

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Again... you're conflating 'Conservatives' with 'Republicans/Trump'.

"No true Scotsman".

Baloney.

Just as Baloney to say Democrats are all leftist/progessive.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Frazzled wrote:
much better than "frazzled hates everyone, don't turn your back or he'll bite your face off like an enraged wiener dog"

How can you bite someone's face when they are turning their back on you? Bite their bottoms!

Frazzled wrote:
Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

So, who does? Who are all his fans? Who voted for him in the primaries and all?

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:
What did he say was racist?

I guess it's true, the memory is the first thing to go.

The most obvious was the Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers thing.

**Spinner**

Frazzled wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

60 million people voted for Trump. Conservatives support him.

Ah I see. INcorrect perception.

60mm voted Trump. That doesn't mean they supported Trump, only didn't support Hillary.
Hrm, while true for many, if they voted for Trump, that doesnt make it an antihillary vote. Lots of conservative were enthusiastic about Trump, its how he ran roughshod over the GOP party establishment and "establishment" candidates, and there were alternative candidates aside from Trump, while Hillary lost by not engaging the enthusiastic chunk of her base that brought Obama to power in 08. I didnt support Hillary, and didnt vote for her, and I also didnt give my vote to Trump, many others could have made a similar choice.

Likewise, there doesnt seem to be any conservative opposition to Trump's awful nominees like DeVos or Trump's EO's aside from a couple random voices like McCain on one or two specific things.

Trump may not be the darling if the GOP establishment, but among the conservative base he seems to be well liked, according to Gallup amongst Conservatives his approval rating is 73% currently.

http://www.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx?g_source=POLITICS&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

Then you have to define conservatives, because they aren't what there were two years ago.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
So, what do conservatives pick - the old and steady relationship with O'Reilly, or the new hot fling with Putin?

Conservatives do not support Trump. I thought we established that.

Let me guess, the "He isn't Conservative enough!" angle?

Not a lot of rightwingers hang out with the Clintons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
No.

It's "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY!".

Again, "WE DON'T WANT HILLARY" means not voting for her, and voting for a third-party candidate or voting for nobody. A vote for Trump is an active choice to make it more likely that Trump wins, and 60 million people (essentially the same number that every republican candidate gets) did exactly that. Stop burying your head in the sand and pretending that Your Team isn't responsible for the president they voted for, Trump is modern conservativism and the modern republican party.

No, no, the left is responsible for Trump. It goes like this:

1) Call the racist things he said racist.

2) Call the sexist things he said sexist.

3) ???

4) The left is responsible for Trump!

What did he say was racist?

We can start with things he said over the Trump University lawsuit ('he is, we believe, Mexican', anyone?) and work our way back in time from there.

Like we do every time this question is asked.

So what's the angle, then? The GOP prefers bigoted isolationism, authoritarianism and knee-jerk anger to actual conservatism? Because he did win the primary, and most of the Republican-controlled legislature doesn't seem to be speaking up against him.

**Frazzled**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Again... you're conflating 'Conservatives' with 'Republicans/Trump'.

"No true Scotsman".

Says the Democrat who candidate had fewer votes then Obama across the nation, including all those evilz racist states. Not lefty enough.

**A Town Called Malus**

If conservatives didn't support Trump then Conservatives must be the smallest political minority in US politics considering that Trump got more votes than both of the previous Republican candidates (who were not described as being "not conservatives").

So by losing the support of the conservatives it would seem that Trump and the GOP actually gained votes.