# The Trump Presidency



## AWP (Jan 5, 2017)

Title says it all. Hit it, get it, and kill it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 6, 2017)

He is going to listen to the best people:

Former CIA director James Woolsey quits Trump transition team


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 6, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> He is going to listen to the best people:
> 
> Former CIA director James Woolsey quits Trump transition team


Maybe Woolsey is part of the problem and not the solution?


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 6, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Maybe Woolsey is part of the problem and not the solution?



Yup...  CIA Director during first WTC bombing and Somalia.  Oh yah and during Clinton presidency; not meeting with the President one-on-one during his whole tenure.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 6, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Maybe Woolsey is part of the problem and not the solution?





RackMaster said:


> Yup...  CIA Director during first WTC bombing and Somalia.  Oh yah and during Clinton presidency; not meeting with the President one-on-one during his whole tenure.



Lol. I almost wrote, "but most here will say he is the problem"

The way I see it, when a person hire's someone, then doesn't listen to their expertise, particularly if that person doesn't like what they say, the problem is that person.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 6, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Lol. I almost wrote, "but most here will say he is the problem"
> 
> The way I see it, when a person hire's someone, then don't listen to their expertise, particularly if that person doesnt like what they say, the problem is that person.



I'm sure he was listened in the beginning of transition but they're in the home stretch and positions are filled.  He's not filling any of those jobs and I don't blame PE Trump from focusing on the opinions of those that will be in his administration.  

To add, from the moment Woolsey was added to the transition team; he seemed like a token Democrat to appease the left.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 6, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> I'm sure he was listened in the beginning of transition but they're in the home stretch and positions are filled.  He's not filling any of those jobs and I don't blame PE Trump from focusing on the opinions of those that will be in his administration.
> 
> To add, from the moment Woolsey was added to the transition team; he seemed like a token Democrat to appease the left.



Like General Flynn?

He is also sparring with our lord and savior Gen Mattis:

Mattis clashing with Trump transition team over Pentagon staffing


----------



## Grunt (Jan 6, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> He is also sparring with our lord and savior Gen Mattis:
> 
> Mattis clashing with Trump transition team over Pentagon staffing



One thing I am fairly certain of...if PE Trump isn't sure that he wants people who will speak their mind and not simply be a "yes man", then Mad Dog isn't his man.


----------



## CDG (Jan 6, 2017)

I trust GEN(Ret.) Mattis far more than I trust PE Trump, or anyone on his transition staff.  I understand Mattis can't have his way 100% of the time, and I'm sure he understands that as well.  I would hope, with such important positions, the transition team would defer to the expertise of Mattis. The Republicans can be just as guilty of elitism as the Democrats, and I hope they don't think they know better because of Mattis's warrior background.

Link to a podcast from WOTR that talks about PE Trump and the IC.

He's Just Not That Into You: Trump, Intel & the American Presidency


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 6, 2017)

I saw an interview about Trump stating he basically didn't want the same old brief and only wanted to be briefed if things have changed or something new had come up. That pretty common in the corporate world. How that will work on Presidency level, I guess we will find out. 

He has definitely stacked his key positions with solid people, so I think if he allows those people to do their jobs and listens to them, it should have a good result.  We shall see what happens.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 6, 2017)

I thought Woolsey was a terrible CIA director and member of the administration.  He, the FBI director (Louis Freeh I think) and the SECDEF under Clinton I think served the administration poorly - and were the source of major conflicts between them and the administration.

I think it's a natural tendency - and one I fall victim to - but a bad one to define people by their opposition.  So, Woolsey has a good reputation amongst Republicans for being a thorn in President Clinton's side during his tenure (and concomitantly earns a poor reputation amongst Democrats).  Then, fast forward to the Trump campaign and Woolsey is a clear example to pro-Trump folks that Trump can 'reach across the isle' and has ideals that appeal to national security experts - and on the other side to those that oppose Trump Woolsey is again showing himself to be significantly under-qualified for the positions he's ascending.  Now that Woolsey found himself out of the decision circle (by his interpretation) he's shitting on the (pending) administration he's serving - the exact same thing he did in the Clinton administration - and the positions are flipped again with pro-Trump folks saying he's a dirtbag and anti-Trump saying how could you sideline such a great man.

I think it highlights the difficulty in our discussions of this stuff - something I just ran into in my postings yesterday.  When the start positions are based on where you support/trust and interpretation of facts (or even what are facts themselves) comes after that it makes for some dizzying reverses in logic.  The media is dishonest and lying when they report things I don't think are true - but any conspiracy or ill-founded trope in a news article that paints folks I don't like in a bad light should immediately be adopted as incontrovertible fact.

I don't mean to take the position of total factual relativism - everyone is bad, everything is false, all opinions are equal - but I do think the dynamic of the 24 hour news cycle really lends itself to this type of thing.  I find myself caught in it as well.  I had exactly the same reaction as @TLDR20 to the news on Woolsey - looks like somebody is getting wise to the Trump administration's emerging dysfunction.  But, then I started thinking about what I knew about Woolsey and thought - 'that dude is out for himself, that's been his MO for his entire career, and he was wrong on a ton of issues during his professional career.' 

I think ultimately we're going to have to wait and see on most of these things.  I think the signs are a mix of incompetence, wishful thinking, and un-paralleled success.  The thing is, if I'm honest with myself, because I oppose most of the policies of the incoming administration it's probably the 3rd one that gives me the most concern.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 6, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> *I think ultimately we're going to have to wait and see on most of these things.  I think the signs are a mix of incompetence, wishful thinking, and un-paralleled success.*  The thing is, if I'm honest with myself, because I oppose most of the policies of the incoming administration it's probably the 3rd one that gives me the most concern.


Not to take away from your other points, but this quip right here is on target. I think we are going to see a mix of the three, and not everyone (including me) is going to be happy with everything. Looks like this administration will not be a dull and static one at all.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 6, 2017)

Definitely agree - also think the definition of each of those things, 'success' being the most important will depend a lot on your where you're standing on issues.

Kind of gets to the overall philosophy.  What's worse - doing what I disagree with, or doing what I disagree with and it actually working :).  I'd like to think I've got the intellectual honesty not to malign the latter - but it's a tall order.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 6, 2017)

So, with NBC hiring all of the Fox women to come over are they attempting to become a middle of the road honest arbitrator and attempting to gain part of the ratings share?  Or will Kelly and Susternan become liberals overnight?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 6, 2017)

CDG said:


> Link to a podcast from WOTR that talks about PE Trump and the IC.
> 
> He's Just Not That Into You: Trump, Intel & the American Presidency


I really like the style and substance of this podcast.  I'm going to subscribe.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 6, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So, with NBC hiring all of the Fox women to come over are they attempting to become a middle of the road honest arbitrator and attempting to gain part of the ratings share?  Or will Kelly and Susternan become liberals overnight?



Kelly is liberal leaning on more than few issues.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 6, 2017)

@ke4gde -sorry, I think the cross-thread quote was making the post wonky.

IMO people aren't as concerned with the information contained in the hacked/leaked material because that's not the issue. If EVERY email contained in the leaks (or none of them) contained hard, indisputable evidence of illegal activity it means nothing. The issue is Russia 100% committed international cyberterrorism in order to influence our election for their benefit and it worked. Putin directed it. Russia wanted PE Trump to win, and he did, and they were happy about it. That's fact. Not conjecture, not guessing, no % of probability. PE Trump was 100% wrong on this one. Mike Pence said he felt Russia was involved because the obvious evidence pointed that way _in October!!!_ And the best we get is, "Yea, I guess that did happen (even though I have been saying outright that it didn't happen) but it didn't _actually _affect the election because they didn't hack the voting machines." True to form, he didn't wait for all the info to come out before tweeting out some ridiculous shit, even going as far as to say "I have inside information you don't have; trust me. You guys will find out like, Tuesday or Wednesday."

Side note- when people pull that shit here on the site they get called on it. "I know these things you don't but I cant't tell you but you have to believe me because trust me I have double secret top shelf clearance." Posers say that shit. It's the easiest way to catch someone in an obvious lie- I have a secret but I can't tell you. Anyway.

My big problem is that the answer from the right seems to be, "Lulz, Russia didn't hack us why don't we talk about what the DNC emails said, they were trying to influence the election and that got exposed" (exactly how you did) and NOT saying, "Holy shit, a state actor committed international cyberterrorism against America this must not stand!". Do you not care that Russia hacked a political party in America in order to undermine our democratic/republic process?

The further issue is that PE Trump fawns over Putin like a high schooler every chance he gets and has defended him since this whole thing started. Before that, even. "Russians didn't give Assange the info!!" Tweeted PE Trump. Uh, yeah, they did, and your intel SME's have been telling you that for weeks. But because of what would appear to be a very strong bias towards Putin and Russia, he refuses to believe the facts of the matter. That has to be somewhat worrisome to you, doesn't it?

What did you mean to say about "... waiting till it's official before we lambaste him."?


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 6, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Insert Space Saver lol


Using your example of "I have a secret and I can't tell you" is the exact same thing the intelligence community and this administration has been doing since the election. They claim to have proof over and over that Russia was behind the hacks. Unnamed congressional officials are talking to the media and releasing more allegedly classified information than ol Manning and Snowden appear to have (a bit of dramatic flare, but you get my point). IF a state actor hacked into our information systems and affected the outcome of the election, I want to know. So far the only 100% fact provided was that Russia was happy with the results through some recorded conversations. Well, Duh. That is not a smoking gun and is circumstantial at best. The same intel SME also stated that the Russians did NOT change any votes. Propaganda? Sure, countries try to influence elections all the time through propaganda. Hell, we have done it countless times throughout our short history. Is it right? No, but it is the cost of doing business in the world today. We can do it to everyone else, but when someone does it to us "whoa tiger".

Since their actual role in counting the votes has been determined, I would think the more important observation should be the fact that the DNC essentially tried to cheat their way to the top seat. Was anything they did illegal? We don't know for sure what went on at the DNC because they won't release the server for a forensic review. Highly unethical? You bet. I hope people realize here that the accusations of cyber-terrorism, that influence our politics, or affect out infrastructure are akin to acts of war. Which, if Putin wanted to be a dick, could be moving much more aggressively against us. Probably because he sees this administration and all of its flunkies as the joke they revealed themselves to be to the international community (yeah that last sentence was a bit much, but I want to vent my frustrations in a somewhat healthy manner, so your patience is appreciated).

What I meant was to at least wait till he is officially the POTUS before we start pile driving on the what actions he has or has not taken as a statesman. Last I checked, legally, the current administration has not been given a severance package and still is finishing out their two week notice  I will grant you, that this PE is more vocal than any previous ones we have had, but he appears to be much more proactive (good or bad) than anyone before him.

Oh and if we want to throw stones about "true to form" not waiting for the info before opening their mouth, I seem to recall several racially motivated cases where the current administration opened their mouth before all of the facts were in and promptly stuck their feet in their collective mouths. Just saying, if we are going to throw stones, let's not forget out recent past. 

ETA: -1 for too many just sayins


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 6, 2017)

EASY BUTTON!!!  :blkeye:


----------



## AWP (Jan 6, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Oh and if we want to throw stones about "true to form" not waiting for the info before opening their mouth, I seem to recall several racially motivated cases where the current administration opened their mouth before all of the facts were in and promptly stuck their feet in their collective mouths. Just saying, if we are going to throw stones, let's not forget out recent past.



I won't dispute that at all, but I personally take issue with the general defense of "so-and-so did it therefore 'my' guy's actions are acceptable." I think every single adult on the planet has to take responsibility for their own actions instead of passing the buck to choices made by someone else.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 6, 2017)

AWP said:


> I won't dispute that at all, but I personally take issue with the general defense of "so-and-so did it therefore 'my' guy's actions are acceptable." I think every single adult on the planet has to take responsibility for their own actions instead of passing the buck to choices made by someone else.


Totally agree. It wasn't meant as a defense. However, it is a valid point to bring up when one failing is pointed out, that is typically overlooked when the same failing is found closer to home.


----------



## AWP (Jan 6, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Totally agree. It wasn't meant as a defense. However, it is a valid point to bring up when one failing is pointed out, that is typically overlooked when the same failing is found closer to home.



Agree. Bringing it up to show the moral corruption of another entity is fine, but too many people try to accept one man's decision based upon the actions of one or more of his predecessors. Examples are one thing, excuses are another.


----------



## Etype (Jan 6, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I thought Woolsey was a terrible CIA director and member of the administration.  He, the FBI director (Louis Freeh I think) and the SECDEF under Clinton I think served the administration poorly - and were the source of major conflicts between them and the administration.
> 
> I think it's a natural tendency - and one I fall victim to - but a bad one to define people by their opposition.  So, Woolsey has a good reputation amongst Republicans for being a thorn in President Clinton's side during his tenure (and concomitantly earns a poor reputation amongst Democrats).  Then, fast forward to the Trump campaign and Woolsey is a clear example to pro-Trump folks that Trump can 'reach across the isle' and has ideals that appeal to national security experts - and on the other side to those that oppose Trump Woolsey is again showing himself to be significantly under-qualified for the positions he's ascending.  Now that Woolsey found himself out of the decision circle (by his interpretation) he's shitting on the (pending) administration he's serving - the exact same thing he did in the Clinton administration - and the positions are flipped again with pro-Trump folks saying he's a dirtbag and anti-Trump saying how could you sideline such a great man.
> 
> ...





amlove21 said:


> @ke4gde -sorry, I think the cross-thread quote was making the post wonky.
> 
> IMO people aren't as concerned with the information contained in the hacked/leaked material because that's not the issue. If EVERY email contained in the leaks (or none of them) contained hard, indisputable evidence of illegal activity it means nothing. The issue is Russia 100% committed international cyberterrorism in order to influence our election for their benefit and it worked. Putin directed it. Russia wanted PE Trump to win, and he did, and they were happy about it. That's fact. Not conjecture, not guessing, no % of probability. PE Trump was 100% wrong on this one. Mike Pence said he felt Russia was involved because the obvious evidence pointed that way _in October!!!_ And the best we get is, "Yea, I guess that did happen (even though I have been saying outright that it didn't happen) but it didn't _actually _affect the election because they didn't hack the voting machines." True to form, he didn't wait for all the info to come out before tweeting out some ridiculous shit, even going as far as to say "I have inside information you don't have; trust me. You guys will find out like, Tuesday or Wednesday."
> 
> ...


World powers always have a preference in other words powers' elections.

Russia has been engineering the likes of Obama and Sanders since the late 40s. 

So, Russia wanted Trump to win- did they have an impact on the election? Did they hack the actual election process? The answer to those questions, thus far, is no.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 6, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> ETA: -1 for too many just sayins


Meh, you're good on the 'just sayins', I notice myself using my own written pauses or go-to's and want to punch myself in the face just as much as anyone else, lol. Maybe more. 

I want us all to get to a place where we actually hold people accountable (much like what @AWP alluded to) for what they do. I had an issue with it during the campaign and I still have an issue with it now. I will 100% concede that the current administration may have spoken too soon (when the sauce is provided), but I think we would agree that it's wrong and it shouldn't be tolerated. 

I agree with the report- I would like to think that every vote that was cast is the correct and non-corrupted voice of the voter. That doesn't mean that the other claim- Russia and Putin influenced the election in PE Trump's favor- is false in any way. Both can be true simultaneously. I think we just have some confirmation bias and we cherry pick the info we would like that supports our view. On both sides. 



Etype said:


> World powers always have a preference in other words powers' elections.
> 
> Russia has been engineering the likes of Obama and Sanders since the late 40s.
> 
> So, Russia wanted Trump to win- did they have an impact on the election? Did they hack the actual election process? The answer to those questions, thus far, is no.


Again, I think I would challenge that statement. Russia wanted PE Trump to win, yes, did they hack the actual election process, no, did they have an impact on the election, yes. Having a preference in an election is not the same as being directed by your president to cause tangible effects in that election through illegal international cyber attacks. Even if you did have incontrovertible proof of America doing that in the past, it falls in the same category as the above- still wrong, still an issue, not ok cause some other guy did it. 

Also, I don't understand where this misconception is arising, but I have never said they hacked any polling machines or whatever- they hacked the DNC and filtered damaging information about the DNC at critical times to influence voter trends along with the propagation of fake news stories and a myriad of other cyber attacks influencing voters and degrading our election process.



SpongeBob*24 said:


> EASY BUTTON!!!  :blkeye:


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 6, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Meh, you're good on the 'just sayins', I notice myself using my own written pauses or go-to's and want to punch myself in the face just as much as anyone else, lol. Maybe more.


LoL Yeah, but everytime I reread them I feel my IQ drop. Mine, not yours


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 6, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> LoL Yeah, but everytime I reread them I feel my IQ drop. Mine, not yours


lol, fair enough. Not a big deal, just sayin'.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 6, 2017)

Since we're discussing influencing foreign elections...

US funds aided 2015 campaign to oust Netanyahu, Senate probe finds


----------



## Etype (Jan 6, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Meh, you're good on the 'just sayins', I notice myself using my own written pauses or go-to's and want to punch myself in the face just as much as anyone else, lol. Maybe more.
> 
> I want us all to get to a place where we actually hold people accountable (much like what @AWP alluded to) for what they do. I had an issue with it during the campaign and I still have an issue with it now. I will 100% concede that the current administration may have spoken too soon (when the sauce is provided), but I think we would agree that it's wrong and it shouldn't be tolerated.
> 
> ...


Influence is a long slow process, to think that it had an outcome on this election over such a short period of time is nonsense.

The leftist, politicized leaders of the IC know how it works, yet refuse to realistically relay it to the public. The mainstream media continues to both play the useful idiot and to shill for both them and Hillary. 

You can make your own decision, but make it with open eyes.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 6, 2017)

@amlove21  I love cartoons....they say more then you, @Wiener Licker   or @Il Duce can say in 3 pages of smart talk......

"Can you believe this Wilson....how dare they try to save us...?"


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 6, 2017)

Etype said:


> Influence is a long slow process, to think that it had an outcome on this election over such a short period of time is nonsense.
> 
> The leftist, politicized leaders of the IC know how it works, yet refuse to realistically relay it to the public. The mainstream media continues to both play the useful idiot and to shill for both them and Hillary.
> 
> You can make your own decision, but make it with open eyes.


This is sort of a wonky place we've gotten to. 

It's ok for you to classify the claims of our highest ranking government officials and the myriad of intel sources as nonsense because that's your opinion- but as to your advice about not believing the mainstream media and making my own decisioin "with eyes wide open"... how? 

Where do _you _get your 100% credible information? What do _you_ value as "good" information? This election cycle and the follow on period has us in this place where no information is good, nothing is right, everything is biased. "Clinton News Network", Breitbart and the Alt-Right, "Faux News" and NPR, all telling the same story differently, touting their own product while simultaneously telling us everything else is wrong. What's even worse is that just by design, housewives on Facebook and liberal arts feminists are somehow led to believe that they are smarter, better informed, "more right" than the opposition. 

And it trickles down to each of us. "Don't believe the leftist, politicized leaders of the IC, make your decision with eyes wide open." I mean, ok, but how? Read your right-ist, non-politisized non-mainstream media?


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 6, 2017)

I don’t think you can say on virtually anything – and I don’t think that’s what the IC is saying in this case – that it’s a 100% certainty Russia hacked the DNC and RNC, then released selected emails as a part of a coordinated campaign to help Mr. Trump win the election.  But, I think they’ve laid out a strong case in the classified and unclassified arenas that’s what happened.  If someone chooses to be skeptical of the government in this case – or in general – I don’t agree but I think that’s a reasonable position.  There are plenty of experts who don’t believe North Korea was behind the Sony hack – though again I think the case is very strong.  Further, most of the public domain information coming out on this sort of thing is through leaks – always something that must be taken with a grain of salt as no-one leaks (or in my view commits the crime of stealing classified information) without a prior agenda.

I take issue with the massive skepticism or disbelief in this case from a community that by-and-large doesn’t show the same level of skepticism on almost anything else.  Mr. Trump makes almost continuous spurious claims directly via his twitter feed – millions of people voted illegally in the election, he actually won the popular vote, global warming is a Chinese hoax, vaccines cause autism, President Obama was born in Kenya, and on and on – but those are waived away.  The copious spurious and false stories leaked or fabricated about HRC during the election cycle that were treated as fact - again by the same group.

I’m not trying to re-litigate the election – an election PE Trump won – and I don’t expect any Trump supporter to be more or as/skeptical of Trump as they are of HRC – nor the other way.  But, I definitely expected those who have previously been concerned with national security, respect for national security institutions, foreign interference, and the intelligence community to react with alarm to PE Trump’s reaction to this stuff.  To me there is an almost direct parallel when decrying the risks to national security from HRC’s server – then shrugging Russian interference off, decrying HRC’s contempt for the military but finding nothing wrong with PE Trump’s dismissal and malignment of the IC (which is approximately 40% military). 

I don’t think Russian interference changed the outcome of the election – as close and as complicated as it was.  The DNC emails were embarrassing showing unflattering backroom dealing, pettiness, and the types of political calculation at the heart of American disdain for politicians.  But, there was nothing criminal or with any real staying power in the news cycle.  They may have further alienated disaffected Sanders voters or unenthusiastic Democrats who failed to turn out in the election – but there were a host of other events during the election cycle that had a similar effect.  The actions of the FBI and the leaks from the ongoing server drama from the state department were much more damaging in the aggregate and with some key timing.  But even then, in an election this close and this complex it would be impossible to say those actions ‘decided’ the election any more than you could say if tapes of Mr. Trump weren’t released showing him talking about grabbing pussy and the like he would have won the popular vote.

Bias and opinion are going to factor into any assessment by a human – but having a standard that’s essentially ‘it's true, unless it's about my side’ as a paradigm fills me with dread.  It does so because I think it means it’s almost impossible to have discussions and will continuously make it difficult to have empathy for the other side’s positions.  On that same note I think it’s atrocious something like 50% of democrats polled think Russia hacked polling booths and changed the outcome.  That has no basis in fact and should be decried by anyone (like me) pissed about the 70% of Republicans (in the same poll) that think Mr. Trump won the popular vote because of massive voter fraud the other way.  Still, if this election has taught me anything it’s to distrust polls so who knows if those numbers on opinions are in any way legit. 

I saw an onion headline the other day that said 'man carefully evaluates the veracity of facebook article by weighing it against preconceived notions.'  I thought it was pretty apt but no less disturbing.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 6, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> ...I don’t think you can say on virtually anything – and I don’t think that’s what the IC is saying in this case – that it’s a 100% certainty Russia hacked the DNC and RNC, then released selected emails as a part of a coordinated campaign to help Mr. Trump win the election. But, I think they’ve laid out a strong case in the classified and unclassified arenas that’s what happened. ...


This is exactly what I meant- in my use of hyperbole I used 100%, what I should have said is that I thought it was a certainty and not only logical to believe that to be the truth but that dissenting views were at a severe disadvantage.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 7, 2017)

So basically all of this crap about Russia doing anything is steam.  If the FBI (CIA et. al) was not allowed to examine the equipment, then it didn't happen. 

Why do I say that...because all of this is bullshit.

Hillary Clinton is more of a friend to Putin than you could ever think Trump has been, it's all over the NYT in August 2015.  Ash Carter, Kerry...what we're seeing right now is the worst Battalion Change of Command to ever take place, and the day after the new CO is in for Table XII.

What a shit show.

Why didn't Obama expel the Chinese diplomatic delegation when we caught them?


----------



## Etype (Jan 7, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> ... did they have an impact on the election, yes.


I'm assuming that you are assuming that the was Russians who hacked the emails, and that is how they interfered with the process.

The evidence is supposedly Russian keyboard fingerprints. So someone who speaks Russian may have hacked the accounts. still a big assumption that it was the Russian gov't.

--------------------------

Now let's play a little game.
Suppose someone you know uses steroids, or likes to best their wife.

That person is up for a highly contested position, and irrefutable evidence of his misconduct is brought up, but in a less than proper manner.

Now, are you going to tell everyone in your unit to disregard the misconduct because the evidence was obtained illegally? Or are you going to go forward knowing this person is a liability?

Hillary had skeletons in the closet, she didn't do a good job protecting or hiding them. Thank God they came out now and weren't held for her future extortion.

--------------------------

Second point on security-
A former SECSTATE who doesn't understand her IA training is an untrainable liability.

As a successful businessman, I would assume that Trump uses a VPN and a paid, secure, email server.

Podesta's hacked account was a Gmail account. It's laughable that a national political campaign would conduct business using Gmail. Was he using Starbucks WiFi on his iPhone, too?

If you use Gmail for anything other than coordinating beers and BBQ, you deserve to be hacked.

I'm glad the Hillary amateur hack squad is not going to be running the country.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So basically all of this crap about Russia doing anything is steam.  If the FBI (CIA et. al) was not allowed to examine the equipment, then it didn't happen.
> 
> Why do I say that...because all of this is bullshit.
> 
> ...



This thread is about PE elect Trump and the first 100 days. You weren't here, but after President Obama won, everyone here had a great time saying" can't blame anything on bush..."

I am going to make that same challenge. Defend Trump, without attacking President Obama and Hillary. For some issues it is impossible to leave out the current POTUS, but it should be pretty fucking easy to leave Hillary out as she hasn't even been in a public office since 2012.


----------



## Etype (Jan 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Why didn't Obama expel the Chinese diplomatic delegation when we caught them?


So we expel their "diplomats" then they expel ours? Then we're left with a zero-sum spy game.

The only reason it happened in this case with Russia is to bolster the narrative that Hillary ONLY lost because of some sneaky Russian guys, and that we are VERY upset about it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This thread is about PE elect Trump and the first 100 days. You weren't here, but after President Obama won, everyone here had a great time saying" can't blame anything on bush..."
> 
> I am going to make that same challenge. Defend Trump, without attacking President Obama and Hillary. For some issues it is impossible to leave out the current POTUS, but it should be pretty fucking easy to leave Hillary out as she hasn't even been in a public office since 2012.



Then I think we should have kept the Election thread open, as every action this idiotic administration takes is a consequence of their party's loss.

So the Intelligence brief has been published, 23 pages, reading it now: The intelligence community report on Russian activities in the 2016 election


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Then I think we should have kept the Election thread open, as every action this idiotic administration takes is a consequence of their party's loss.
> 
> So the Intelligence brief has been published, 23 pages, reading it now: The intelligence community report on Russian activities in the 2016 election



This administration? This thread is about Trump and his first 100 days. 

Post election, bringing up the current administrations actions from long ago doesn't do any good here.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 7, 2017)

Back on topic -

While I still maintain my "anyone but Hillary" stance, Trump was obviously not my first choice.  The President-Elect getting into a Twitter war with Arnold Schwartzenrger about TV ratings is embarrassing, the President-Elect publicly questioning our intelligence community is frightening .

Somewhere in the prior election thread I made a post stating that Trump would be a unifier. Specifically that if he turned out to be an immediate train wreck you would see the Dems and Republicans unify in near unanimous agreement and impeach him out of office before he has the opportunity to cause any real damage.

I am beginning to see that as a realistic outcome more everyday.




_Edited to add comment about intel in 1st paragraph. _


----------



## Etype (Jan 7, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Dems and Republicans unify in near unanimous agreement and impeach him out of office before he has the opportunity to cause any real damage.


So the status quo political system can return us to the path of becoming an unsalvageable welfare state?

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Why are you freightened that he would question the IC? If Pres Bush would've done so, thousands of dead Americans might be alive today, and ISIS might not even exist.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 7, 2017)

Etype said:


> Why are you freightened that he would question the IC? If Pres Bush would've done so, thousands of dead Americans might be alive today, and ISIS might not even exist.



I welcome and encourage the questions. 

I do not think the questions should be asked by the President-Elect via Twitter. 

I do not think the questions should be asked (publicly) in a way that insinuates the Intel Community is trying to convince people that Trump only won because Russia "fixed" the election.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This administration? This thread is about Trump and his first 100 days.
> 
> Post election, bringing up the current administrations actions from long ago doesn't do any good here.


Kerry on Israel, Carter on Syria...those are current actions.  However, actions by the lame duck administration will have tremendous effect on the 1st 100 days!


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Kerry on Israel, Carter on Syria...those are current actions.  However, actions by the lame duck administration will have tremendous effect on the 1st 100 days!



Yes current stuff.


----------



## Etype (Jan 7, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I welcome and encourage the questions.
> 
> I do not think the questions should be asked by the President-Elect via Twitter.
> 
> I do not think the questions should be asked (publicly) in a way that insinuates the Intel Community is trying to convince people that Trump only won because Russia "fixed" the election.


- Trump uses Twitter to avoid the mainstream media filter.

- The only reason Russian involvement is in the news is because it's the excuse of the DNC and their shill network.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

Etype said:


> - Trump uses Twitter to avoid the mainstream media filter.
> 
> - The only reason Russian involvement is in the news is because it's the excuse of the DNC and their shill network.



I think he could use a "mainstream media filter".

Like this article says, we should see more this coming week. 

After weeks of tweeting, Trump and team face open questioning this coming week


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Like this article says, we should see more this coming week.
> 
> After weeks of tweeting, Trump and team face open questioning this coming week



Agree, also found this editorial made points similar to how I have been thinking: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/o...est&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Brooks does a good job of summarizing the difficulty in making clear judgements about aligning what PE Trump says, and what will actually happen (or even what he intends to happen) - and where the power center(s) of this administration will be.  I tend to believe running elements of the government takes a reasonable level of technical skill, so the large number of outsiders he's brought in to the administration will struggle to be effective regardless of their actual intentions.  Still, there is always a level of turnover and varying degrees of experience/technical expertise in the upper echelons of any new administration.  When PE Trump said in the debates 'HRC has experience but it's the wrong experience' I think he was reflecting a widely held view (amongst Trump supporters) that anything would be better than what we've had the last 8 years.  I think anything is a wide spectrum - and a deep hole - so it will be interesting to see how it goes.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 7, 2017)

Etype said:


> - Trump uses Twitter to avoid the mainstream media filter.
> 
> - The only reason Russian involvement is in the news is because it's the excuse of the DNC and their shill network.


Four questions:

1. Does it not concern you that the President-Elect is using his twitter account to post abject falsehoods straight to his followers?  By "abject falsehoods," I'm not referring to issues that are mere differences of interpretation.  I'm talking about things that are demonstrably false.
2. What does the phrase "fact-check" mean to you?
3. Can you answer the first question without referring to either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?
4. Who, in your opinion, were members of the DNC's shill network?

ETA: I'm good at math


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> Four questions:
> 
> 1. Does it not concern you that the President-Elect is using his twitter account to post abject falsehoods straight to his followers?  By "abject falsehoods," I'm not referring to issues that are mere differences of interpretation.  I'm talking about things that are demonstrably false.
> 2. What does the phrase "fact-check" mean to you?
> ...



I'm no math whiz, but that is four questions.


----------



## Etype (Jan 7, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> Four questions:
> 
> 1. Does it not concern you that the President-Elect is using his twitter account to post abject falsehoods straight to his followers?  By "abject falsehoods," I'm not referring to issues that are mere differences of interpretation.  I'm talking about things that are demonstrably false.
> 2. What does the phrase "fact-check" mean to you?
> ...


1.a. What, specifically, are you talking about?
1.b. It's not my preference, but he also says plenty that I agree with.

2. What does it matter? Go ahead and ask your follow-up question. 

3. I did, but what a wasted opportunity!

4. CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, Politico, President Obama, the SJW syndicate...


----------



## Rabid Badger (Jan 7, 2017)

I watched the first 30 minutes of the hearings (and actually watched all day) and had to re-wind to capture this foto:........which says, and along with the PEOTUS, stop wasting our time, stop spending our taxpayer money, stop crying like "Lumpers" (left leaning liberal looney-tune dis-barred lawyers} and let's get on with policing and governing this country.

You Libs had your chance, now it's our turn. I chuckle at you @amlove21 as you post a picture of Trump with the scythe and hammer. Do you really think Trump is going to ball lick Putin? This is one of those "wait and see" moments...but we can absolutely see your slant. Read the caption.... "NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MUCH INFLUENCE RUSSIA HAD ON OUTCOME"....and this from DNI Clapper... ZERO evidence, although my NDA has expired...I know yours hasn't........THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN....and none of your nonsense makes sense. Catch up and admit that McCain is a Rhino and needs to go, and that much of what you've read for the last year are MSM lies.

Topic of the convo" The First 100 Days: Repeal ACA....The Dims think (seriously, and with snowflake lumper tears) that the Repub Right don't have a replacement plan ready? Are you really serious right now? This is more MSM misdirection! The GOP had a replacement plan ready 6 years ago....right about the time Pelosi passed the bill in the middle of the night and stated we had to read it to see what was in it....That new repeal/replace bill will take effect soon after inaugural. THE WALL: When tractor trailers filled with new vehicles start stacking up at the US/Mexican border because the US companies refuse to pay import taxes, the Mexican government will aquiesce. When Mexican workers are put out of a job because companies that "were" moving to Mexico but are no longer, they will BEG to pay for a wall to export their wares. Mexico is on fire these days, in case no one has noticed....gas prices rising because US slowed oil exports, threats of wall re-construction, slowing exports from Mexico. The Red wall was constructed, the blue wall fell.

Get on board or lead from behind, as we, American Patriots, were forced to do for the last eight years by an ULTRA left POTUS.



LUMPERS:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 7, 2017)

RB said:


> LUMPERS:View attachment 17627


The Obamas licenses were never revoked.  They chose to be voluntarily inactive, Michelle can activate her Illinois license by paying the BAR Association dues next year.  President Obama has to do a little more since he changed his status to retired when he was elected President.

Now both the Clintons licenses were basically revoked.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 7, 2017)

Etype said:


> I'm assuming that you are assuming that the was Russians who hacked the emails, and that is how they interfered with the process.
> 
> The evidence is supposedly Russian keyboard fingerprints. So someone who speaks Russian may have hacked the accounts. still a big assumption that it was the Russian gov't.


Fair enough- I am assuming that Russia was the one that hacked the emails and released them through a number of methods, because the assessment released today say so explicitly, and I am way, WAY out of my line to discount the professional opinions of our nation's IC. As stated in the report, "_This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which_ _draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies._" (Pg 6). 

I won't copy and paste every line of the assessment, but look at pages 7-10. It says in plain language that Russia used cyber warfare to disrupt/influence our election cycle for one candidate (PE Trump) over another (Hillary). 

I suppose it is an assumption- the difference between my assumption (Russia influenced the election) and any other assumption (Russia did not influence the election) is that the top 3 intelligence agencies agree with me (or I with them) and no one has produced credible information otherwise.  Unless you have information that the people that compiled the report are not privy to, the assumption has to be that the report's assessment is the most likely scenario. In my opinion, it's a bit intellectually dishonest to say something other than that without providing anything to the contrary. Saying, "It could have been some guy that speaks Russian" is a bit of a reach on no evidence, and it's certainly not enough of a hypothesis to refute the report. 

As for your thought experiments- it looks as if you're saying, "Thank god (insert whoever you think hacked and released the emails if not Russia) hacked one of our political parties and influenced/degraded our election process, they saved us from Hillary and got my guy elected."

That worries me. People can hate Hillary all they want, but using an "ends justify the means" sort of argument here is pretty strange, considering that hurts us a nation in the long run.



RB said:


> You Libs had your chance, now it's our turn. I chuckle at you @amlove21 as you post a picture of Trump with the scythe and hammer. Do you really think Trump is going to ball lick Putin? This is one of those "wait and see" moments...but we can absolutely see your slant. Read the caption.... "NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MUCH INFLUENCE RUSSIA HAD ON OUTCOME"....and this from DNI Clapper... ZERO evidence, although my NDA has expired...I know yours hasn't........THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN....and none of your nonsense makes sense. Catch up and admit that McCain is a Rhino and needs to go, and that much of what you've read for the last year are MSM lies.
> 
> Get on board or lead from behind, as we, American Patriots, were forced to do for the last eight years by an ULTRA left POTUS.



If what you mean by "my nonsense" or "my slant" is me agreeing with a published report from the nation's top three IC's because I am not willing to say I know better and no one is putting up any competing possibilities (non-Russian, fluent Russian speaking super hacker group theories aside), so be it. Nonsense it is. 

Ad hominem and silly name calling aside- DNI Clapper did not say there was zero evidence, nor did he say Russia had zero influence on the election. The implication there is that while the assessment couldn't quantify how much, Russia most certainly did interfere with our election, the question is to what degree. I guess the only question I have is, do you value that assessment? If you don't, what information do you have that no one else does that leads you to believe it's not true? Do you distrust the CIA, FBI, and NSA on this matter and think they got it wrong or are maliciously saying this for some sort of gain? 


And no, I 100% do not need to get on board with anything or anyone. It seemed to work just fine for you and the other American Patriots the last 8 years, so I am sure you'll be empathetic as to why I will vehemently oppose all this tomfoolery and will not just get on board and keep my mouth shut.  

 

They do look good together though!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 7, 2017)

I wonder if Putin can talk Trump into loosing the comb over for the cleaner hairless look? That would take some serious negotiating.


----------



## Etype (Jan 8, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> ..._The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA)_


The CIA-
- Headed by John Brennan, who has definitely carried some political water in regards to the CIA's drone program.
- Brought us the Iraq war.
- Provided wonderfully doctored reports on ISIS to support the President's narrative.

The FBI-
- Headed by James Comey, who read us a list of crimes committed by Clinton- a list of crimes who others had been previously prosecuted for.  Mr. Comey then went on to tell us that he could find no criminal intent.
- The same FBI who also negotiated a quib pro quo involving a Brian McCauley email, which was pertinent to the Beghazi scandal.

The NSA-
- Probably the least credible of all of the intelligence agencies.
- IA policies brought us Mr. Snowden- incredible.
- Cited that the Russian email hack showed, "fingerprints of a Russian keyboard."
- So the hack occurred using the Russian language?
- There are, at least, thousands of US citizens who speak Russian fluently and access the internet in that language.  Some of them even do it for OUR government.  In fact, I would assume that the number of countries whose governments access the internet using the Russian language for intelligence purposes is in the triple digits.​

The aforementioned organizations are going through a time of record distrust and politicization, and it's not unfounded.

To think that they are credible in terms of political dealings is a stretch.  To think that they are beyond reproach is downright insanity.



amlove21 said:


> As for your thought experiments- it looks as if you're saying, "Thank god (insert whoever you think hacked and released the emails if not Russia) hacked one of our political parties and influenced/degraded our election process, they saved us from Hillary and got my guy elected."
> 
> That worries me. People can hate Hillary all they want, but using an "ends justify the means" sort of argument here is pretty strange, considering that hurts us a nation in the long run.


What I'm saying is, people who use bathroom email servers and Gmail to conduct campaign and state department business-
- Don't deserve to be president.
- Deserve to be hacked.

Argue that point.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 8, 2017)

Etype said:


> The CIA-
> - Headed by John Brennan, who has definitely carried some political water in regards to the CIA's drone program.
> - Brought us the Iraq war.
> - Provided wonderfully doctored reports on ISIS to support the President's narrative.
> ...


This is inline with my view on these agencies. While the everyday workers I'm sure, bust their assess to do good work and report things as they see them, it is likely the administrators and leaders that are the problems for these agencies. While slightly different, I have personally seen a law enforcement agency's (one in a state capital and a fairly large one for the area) leader purposefully refuse reports on incidents if they did not meet a certain narrative criteria. Meaning they were kicked back until they read a certain way to avoid something uncomfortable, but maintain plausible deniability. There is virtually zero oversight or accountability when information is spun or doctored at the orders of the top administrator. What's worse is the underlings will typically be the ones held accountable in court if the deception is discovered. I realize this is anecdotal, but the same is likely true within the IC as the LE community. These people love what they do and don't want to lose their livelihood. 

This is only one of many reasons why many of us distrust the IC and anything they put out. So, while many of us may not have damning evidence to contradict their reports, we are skeptical of anything released by them. Even on the odd chance they may be right.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 8, 2017)

Etype said:


> ...snip...


Wait a second- when did we start talking about the NSA, CIA, and FBI engaging in "political dealings"? I am talking about the intelligence report assessing Russia influenced our election by various means in PE Trump's favor, and the subsequent reaction of PE Trump and his transition team.

I believe that those agencies can/do get things wrong. However, given the information we have right now, it's far more insane to say that our top 3 national intelligence agency are all malicious, negligent, and incompetent and nothing they do can be trusted. The way you frame it, you're implying that it's actually a concerted effort, near conspiracy. It's borderline tin foil hat zone. Can you please get me some sources are you reading that support your viewpoint? I am asking because I genuinely want to know where to find information that would help me understand your position. It doesn't have to be in the open, you can PM them, or just tell me stuff to look for. 



Etype said:


> What I'm saying is, people who use bathroom email servers and Gmail to conduct campaign and state department business-
> - Don't deserve to be president.
> - Deserve to be hacked.
> 
> Argue that point.


Flatly, no. Because that's not the issue, no matter how bad you want it to be. Your entire platform about Russia's hacking is basically "The NSA, CIA, and FBI can't be trusted you need to wake up sheeple" and "Hillary shouldn't be president she deserved to get hacked." We have tried desperately to get away from that rhetoric the entire thread and actually talk about PE Trump, his decades long business ties to Russia, how that affects his first 100 days and America as a whole, etc. 

What do you need me to say, so we can all get past this negative feedback loop talking about a  former SECSTATE that has no bearing on the conversation? My stance has always been, "I don't like Hillary, I don't think she's a good candidate." For months. I don't dispute the election. I don't think the election results were tampered with; PE Trump got smoked by nearly 3 mil in the popular vote and had one of the most narrow victories in the electoral college in history. I am not glad PE Trump won, because I think he's a steaming pile of shit topped with immature bravado. But I am also relieved that Hillary lost, because _I don't think she should have been president either_. Is everyone good now? Can we please talk about the actual topic and not your personal feelings about a 70 year old failed politician that you don't like?

As an American, I think that state-sponsored cyber terrorism, targeting any high ranking US official can not stand. It does not matter who it is. It doesn't matter if it was the fucking devil him/her/itself, enemies of America should not be able to exploit Americans. 

As for PE Trump's transition team- Kellyanne Conway doesn't want to talk about the issue, but my question is this- when it comes time for PE Trump to make a military call, based on intelligence, how am I supposed to have confidence that he's taken in all the information and listened to SME's? At this point, I get the impression that he doesn't trust the intelligence community- so how do we get "ok" with that scenario?


----------



## Etype (Jan 8, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> ...


It wouldn't be the first time those organizations have lied based on a political agenda- or even the third or fourth time.

He's not obligated to trust the IC, especially while it is still run by Pres Obama's appointees.

Hell, even in the world of intelligence, you aren't supposed to trust or distrust anyone initially- veracity always needs to be validated.

Lucky for you, it doesn't matter whether or not you have confidence in the president. Your job is to do what you're told.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 8, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Wait a second- when did we start talking about the NSA, CIA, and FBI engaging in "political dealings"? .


That's exactly what this whole thing has been about.


----------



## alibi (Jan 8, 2017)

Etype said:


> I'm assuming that you are assuming that the was Russians who hacked the emails, and that is how they interfered with the process.
> 
> The evidence is supposedly Russian keyboard fingerprints. So someone who speaks Russian may have hacked the accounts. still a big assumption that it was the Russian gov't.
> 
> ...



The evidence is a bit more than the keyboard fingerprints.  The implant toolchains found on the DNC network have been tied to Russian state actors for years.  

This is an interesting twitter write-up of the Podesta phishing attempt. 

APT29 (Cozy Bear) has professionally engineered and tested implants, that, in the past, have used 0-days in hard targets (Windows, Flash, various browsers) to compromise and persist on targeted hosts.  They also, incidentally, keep Russian work hours and cease working on Russian holidays.

APT28 (Fancy Bear) has a phishing at scale operation that is a quite a bit more sophisticated than your run of the mill "give me your password in exchange for an iPhone" spam.

I think the keyboard fingerprints evidence was from Guccifer 2.0's claims that they were Romanian, not Russian, even though the evidence shows them using a Russian language VPN service.  The Trump oppo dump that was released by them also had metadata indicating modifications by someone using a Cyrillic keyboard.

Both of those facts definitely point to organized and skilled nation-state teams.  Combine that with the OPSEC lapses above and these groups known targets, by far the easiest conclusion (based on public evidence) is that this hacking was done by a group sanctioned and directed by the Kremlin.


----------



## Etype (Jan 8, 2017)

alibi said:


> ...


So let's take it as a given that all facets of the USG are under constant cyber attack- which they are.

The best the DNC had to offer was either-
1. Unaware of this fact.
2. So arrogant that they thought the rules didn't apply to them.

Failure to perform E-4 level IA/OPEC tasks, and she wanted to be president???

Hahahahahaha


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 8, 2017)

Etype said:


> It wouldn't be the first time those organizations have lied based on a political agenda- or even the third or fourth time.
> 
> He's not obligated to trust the IC, especially while it is still run by Pres Obama's appointees.
> 
> ...


President Obama's fault, no obligation to trust anyone appointed by anyone other than PE Trump, the FBI/CIA/NSA are liars. Check. 

As far as "my job is to do what I am told", lol. I'm sure what you meant to say was, "as a military member you are beholden to lawful orders of the officers appointed over you and the POTUS regardless of your personal feelings." I figured out how to do that over the last 16+ years pretty well, so I appreciate the mentorship and everything, but serving professionally and hating the administration you serve aren't mutually exclusive. See: the last 8 years with vocal members of this board, yourself included. 



ThunderHorse said:


> That's exactly what this whole thing has been about.


Disagree.

The "whole thing" has been about PE Trump's administration first outright denying, then acknowledging to the smallest degree that sure, Russia hacked the DNC and gave that info to Wikileaks in order to influence the election in PE Trump's favor. Further down the road, what does show us about how PE Trump handles complex issues like this and what should we expect after the first 100 days. 

IMO, it's not as much about politics (while politics permeate the entire issue), it's more about PE Trump and his new guard (Conway, Preibus, et al) are handling their first real international issue and what that means for the first 100 days and beyond.

So far I see a whole lot of passing the buck, zero accountability, and disjointed/poor leadership. PE Trump loves the spotlight and has made a point to continue to own the news cycle with his tweeting and his overall behavior, so the world is indeed watching. 

It just sucks that the world is watching him perform poorly in these first 100 days.



Etype said:


> So let's take it as a given that all facets of the USG are under constant cyber attack- which they are.
> 
> The best the DNC had to offer was either-
> 1. Unaware of this fact.
> ...


You 100% ignored @alibi 's actual post, which was pretty good and actually relevant to the discussion. 

He commented with sourced material refuting your contention that there was no evidence Russia was the state actor that hacked the DNC, and you ignored it, in favor of once again bringing up your personal feelings about Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 8, 2017)

Thought this was an excellent summary of the demographic and economic shifts at work in the last election cycle: 2016: A Year Defined by America’s Diverging Economies

Any election has a diverse array of opinions that coalesce into the voting booth but I thought this article did a good job of showing how the underpinnings of demographic, social, and economic shifts in the country have an impact.


----------



## Etype (Jan 8, 2017)

I'm growing bored with trolling you hillary supporters. You folks need to go through the grieving process.

Meanwhile, I'm going to click on over to shop.donaldjtrump.com and buy me a Camo Make America Great Again hat!

I'll leave you with crazy uncle Joe-


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 8, 2017)

I really like Biden. Sometimes I feel like he is your Prince Philip.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 9, 2017)

So the current deployable fleet is 274:
The U.S. Navy

And the plan just released calls for 355:
Navy, Trump planning biggest fleet expansion to deter Russian, Chinese threats


----------



## CDG (Jan 9, 2017)

Interesting article that ties in with the above post.

Congress and the Navy: Forty Years of Dysfunction


----------



## AWP (Jan 9, 2017)

The Navy would have the numbers it wants if it learned how to design, source, and field ships. The last three programs are seagoing dumpster fires.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 9, 2017)

Just like those plane programs the air force has?

Well, life just got interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html



Il Duce said:


> Looks like bad news any way you cut it to me.  The PE is already disinclined to trust the IC based on the hacking back-and-forth going on now.  The fact that he can't seem to get any information from the IC without it leaking immediately has got to only exacerbate those concerns.  Whoever is leaking this stuff straight from his briefings is virtually guaranteeing the new ODNI and CIA directors are going to go apeshit on a top-level loyalty purge just so they can have some trust that every conversation the President has isn't leaked immediately.
> 
> That's of course assuming the leaks are coming from the briefing side of things - certainly could be folks on the PE's staff.


Or from Obama's side, or from someone on the Gang of 8's staff?

We just can't keep freaking secrets anymore, clown shoes.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 10, 2017)

A similar take from The Guardian

A direct link to the report is here
(Note that the classification markings are proprietary, as the document was prepared by a private company.  Don't worry about getting in trouble for reading classified material)

While the report is apparently from a reputable British CI dude, it's still unsubstantiated.  The accusations are incredibly damning, and as much as I don't approve of the President Elect, I also don't want these allegations to be true.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 10, 2017)

Roger, after reading through the reporting - thought NYT did the best job with it - it was an appendix to the official report briefed to the PE, the President, and Congress.  Definitely was going to leak, probably not reasonable to expect that to stay under wraps with that many consumers in the capital.

Still, the IC is digging themselves further and further in with this stuff.  I can see the ODNI's delimma though.  If the IC doesn't include that stuff in the report - and the information has been all over the place as opposition research during the campaign, they're very vulnerable to accusations of cover up and bias.  But, salacious reports with zero corroboration are just the sort of thing that make the IC look like political hacks who deserve zero trust.  A no-win situation for the IC for sure.



Wiener Licker said:


> A similar take from The Guardian
> 
> A direct link to the report is here
> (Note that the classification markings are proprietary, as the document was prepared by a private company.  Don't worry about getting in trouble for reading classified material)
> ...



Right, but of course the argument can be made they were addressed - though they never got significant media play - during the election.  The supposition that PE Trump was favored by Russia and had extensive business ties to Russia that could be compromising was trotted out on the campaign trail by his opponents throughout the race.  It was won of the strongest cases for how important it was to see PE Trump's tax returns.  But, he won anyway so even if it comes out as true - which I think eventually when Trump's tax returns come out there will be at least some basis for the accusations - take-backs are almost impossible to do in the election business.

I think though, it does make sense of the PE's violent reaction to the Russian hacking allegations.  As I thought about this I've thought the PE is not only reacting very poorly to this information from a leadership perspective but it's a very stupid reaction politically.  I mean, the PE's inauguration is not in question - he's going to become the President very shortly.  So, the accusation doesn't put him in danger - it hurts his pride a bit but there's no real political consequence other than opposition voices - which are still going to be complaining.  So, if the PE had stepped up and said something like 'This is terrible news and I am with President Obama in denouncing this Russian aggression against our sovereign election process.  I have campaigned on extending an opportunity at forward progress with Russia but make no mistake - I put America's interest first and I won't be pushed around.  All Americans should understand I'm resolutely behind our great democracy and the integrity of our electoral process.'

All at once he would have defanged the Russian collusion accusations - while not taking any real action against Russia and maintaining his bromance with Putin.  He would appear especially presidential, conciliatory towards the shit-ton of people who voted against him, and give a concrete sound-bite for his surrogates to use against the argument that PE Trump is an authoritarian-in-waiting.

But of course, when you add in the allegations at the end of the report it virtually guarantees PE Trump is going to have a really hard time seeing it as anything but an attack on him personally and on his legitimacy.  Still think his political team could have helped him make a better choice but it doesn't look like anybody is in the kill-chain on his twitter account but him.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 10, 2017)

I don't know.  At the very least, the material on pages 34 and 35 of the report, which concern payment for the cyberespionage against the DNC, could be considered actual crimes.  If it's true, that is.

ETA: 4chan is claiming that the bit about Trump ordering prostitutes to urinate in front of him was fabricated by a poster and passed on to Rick Wilson.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 10, 2017)

And with that, I'd consider this whole thing bogus.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 10, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> And with that, I'd consider this whole thing bogus.


The whole thing is really murky.  On one hand, there IS a post from November 1st that claims to have fabricated something (they weren't specific) sent to Rick Wilson which got picked up by CIA. /pol/ - Politically Incorrect » Thread #95568919

  On the other, it's a non-specific comment, which was posted one day after Mother Jones posted an article about Russia potentially cultivating Trump for 5+ years, echoing some of the things that we saw in this report: A veteran spy has given the FBI information alleging a Russian operation to cultivate Donald Trump

It could very well have been some some channer saying that they fabricated something non-specific after seeing the MJ article, or the litany of other articles about the Trump/Russia connection.  Like I said, it's all very murky.


----------



## alibi (Jan 10, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> The whole thing is really murky.  On one hand, there IS a post from November 1st that claims to have fabricated something (they weren't specific) sent to Rick Wilson which got picked up by CIA. /pol/ - Politically Incorrect » Thread #95568919
> 
> On the other, it's a non-specific comment, which was posted one day after Mother Jones posted an article about Russia potentially cultivating Trump for 5+ years, echoing some of the things that we saw in this report: A veteran spy has given the FBI information alleging a Russian operation to cultivate Donald Trump
> 
> It could very well have been some some channer saying that they fabricated something non-specific after seeing the MJ article, or the litany of other articles about the Trump/Russia connection.  Like I said, it's all very murky.


Rick Wilson has hinted about having this stuff way before November 1st.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 10, 2017)

Well...this is getting fun: 4Chan Claims To Have Fabricated Anti-Trump Report As A Hoax | Zero Hedge


----------



## Etype (Jan 11, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> A similar take from The Guardian
> 
> A direct link to the report is here
> (Note that the classification markings are proprietary, as the document was prepared by a private company.  Don't worry about getting in trouble for reading classified material)
> ...


On the subject of foreign governments meddling with our elections, now we are giving credence to foreign intelligence reports regarding our elected officials???

Surely on the heels of BREXIT, the UK would have no reason to subvert Trump.

James Comey's name comes up, yet again.

James Comey, part of Obama's weaponozation of gov't- right alongside the IRS.

Damning testimony from Engrlbrect-


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 11, 2017)

Etype said:


> On the subject of foreign governments meddling with our elections, now we are giving credence to foreign intelligence reports regarding our elected officials???
> 
> Surely on the heels of BREXIT, the UK would have no reason to subvert Trump.



I don't think it's fair to categorize someone working in private security in the US who retired from the British intelligence services as representing British government or British intelligence services' positions on anything.

It's sort of hilarious to see this sort of thing get so much play - and so much reaction from the Trump team.  There has been tons of reporting on substantiated malfeasance on the part of the PE - his 'charitable' foundation, his long-running business interests, his shady business practices, the stream of lies/untruths/misinformation/tantrums coming out of his twitter feed.  None of that stuff stuck - or at least stuck enough to keep him getting elected President.  At the same time any allegation, no matter how far fetched or unsubstantiated, about HRC - and more than a few about President Obama - was taken as gospel on the right - she runs a child pornography ring, was hacked by the Russians, has aides killed - he outlawed the pledge of allegiance, etc.  Now, when the election is over the thing getting the most play - and the most reaction from Trump - is the least sourced, least credible accusation against him.


----------



## Etype (Jan 11, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I don't think it's fair to categorize someone working in private security in the US who retired from the British intelligence services as representing British government or British intelligence services' positions on anything...


So is the way of agents of influence.

Since when is an intelligence firm who is not contracted by the gov't taken seriously?


ETA-

The Trump haters are at the end of their rope.  The NSA and CIA with their severely damaged credibility, couldn't make shit stick to the wall.  So now we have industrial espionage firms being brought into the fray. Brilliant.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 11, 2017)

Etype said:


> So is the way of agents of influence.
> 
> Since when is an intelligence firm who is not contracted by the gov't taken seriously?
> 
> ...



Had some type of credibility with his Republican opponents and HRC...more than likely just out to make a good buck.

What in the Freakin Freakin is John McCain doing? John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts to FBI


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> What in the Freakin Freakin is John McCain doing? John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts to FBI



That was pretty much my verbal reaction when I saw this about 5 minutes ago....

Trump's nemesis John McCain kicked off 'Kremlin memo' scandal by handing dossier to FBI | Daily Mail Online


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 11, 2017)

Or rather, what does Putin have on McCain.  I mean the dude cheated on his first wife, mother of his children who stood by him, not truly know if he was dead or not.  Is he the Manchurian Candidate?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Or rather, what does Putin have on McCain.  I mean the dude cheated on his first wife, mother of his children who stood by him, not truly know if he was dead or not.  Is he the Manchurian Candidate?



Or maybe we actually look hard at Trump.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 11, 2017)

John McCain so badly needs to be put out to pasture. I've never liked McCain, ever, POW status set aside, he probably is one of the biggest war mongering politicians we have in this country.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Or maybe we actually look hard at Trump.


What's there to look at?  I knew he was a schmuck, but he was better than his opponent.


----------



## Etype (Jan 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> What in the Freakin Freakin is John McCain doing? John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts to FBI


John McCain, the warmongering liberal Republican.  Who did he endorse for the presidency?

He needs to retire.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 11, 2017)

Etype said:


> James Comey's name comes up, yet again.
> 
> James Comey, part of Obama's weaponozation of gov't- right alongside the IRS.
> 
> Damning testimony from Engrlbrect-


True the Vote WAS under congressional investigation in 2012 for alleged voter suppression efforts.  While the amount of visits by those various agencies seems a little excessive to a lay person like me, it's part of an investigation.  Now, we had talked about voter suppression a few months back and there was definitely some disagreement on either side.  But in this case, which concerned an Ohio offshoot of True the Vote, it seems pretty deliberate: Ohio voters face challenges from tea party groups
That article is reportedly the genesis of the congressional investigation, and it include juicy quotes like this one:



> The racial dimension of the 2012 clash over weekend voting burst into the open last month when one of Ohio's most powerful Republicans, Franklin County GOP Chairman Doug Preisse, told the Columbus Dispatch, "We shouldn't contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African American — voter-turnout machine."



If you want to blame someone, blame Elijah Cummings, not Obama.  Believe it or not, he's not the mastermind behind every devilish government action of the last eight years.


----------



## Etype (Jan 11, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> If you want to blame someone, blame Elijah Cummings, not Obama.  Believe it or not, he's not the mastermind behind every devilish government action of the last eight years.


I never mentioned Obama, or that he may be a mastermind behind a devlish gov't action...

... but now that you mention it...


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 11, 2017)

Etype said:


> James Comey's name comes up, yet again.
> 
> James Comey, part of Obama's weaponozation of gov't- right alongside the IRS.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 11, 2017)

Looks like our Trump haters here got played as well.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 11, 2017)

So is this all bullshit?

Trump Intelligence Allegations


----------



## Etype (Jan 11, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> ...


Whoops.



Ooh-Rah said:


> So is this all bullshit?
> 
> Trump Intelligence Allegations


You do realize these are from a private entity, not an accredited gov't intelligence officer- right?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 11, 2017)

Etype said:


> You do realize these are from a private entity, not an accredited gov't intelligence officer- right?



Truth be told, I've not spent more than 5  minutes looking at this, so no, I did not know.  My anti-Trump family members have been filling my email box with this shit all day long.  

You've given me better info that I've been able to find online today, so I am going with, "yes", it is bullshit.

Thankyou, @Etype .


----------



## Etype (Jan 11, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ..."yes", it is bullshit.
> 
> Thankyou, @Etype .


I'm not sure if it is or not; but, I am sure that its not any type of official US report and not done in a US reporting format.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 11, 2017)

Etype said:


> I am sure that its not done in any type of official US report and not done in a US format.



I guess that is what I meant my saying it's bullshit. Thanks again.

Next up I need to figure out if I am supposed to be "mad" at John McCain.

To add -

My BS Detector goes into overdrive when the first quote I read is this:

_'I did what any citizen should do. <McCain said>I received sensitive information and handed it to the FBI,' he told CNN_


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 11, 2017)

Etype said:


> You do realize these are from a private entity, not an accredited gov't intelligence officer- right?



It's not like they're right all the time either though...just to be cynical.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 11, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I guess that is what I meant my saying it's bullshit. Thanks again.
> 
> Next up I need to figure out if I am supposed to be "mad" at John McCain.
> 
> ...


Be pissed at McCain for not passing the data to Trump.
I believe he figured Comey would pass it on allowing it to be used against Trump.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 11, 2017)

Thank you Mattis!!! Trump Pentagon likely to abandon social experiments for core mission under Mattis, say experts


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 11, 2017)

Okay, I should probably lay out some facts about this thing.  It's pretty complex and if you don't carefully read it then you might miss something.

-This report is the result of opposition research that was commissioned by Republicans last year.  It is unclear as to why it was not used during the campaign.
-The report was produced by a retired British CI guy.  According to IC sources cited in the Guardian article, he has reportedly reliably in the past, which is why this report is getting any play at all.  He also apparently has a strong Russian source network
-It is not an official IC document, hence the unconventional markings and language used.
-The report was actually presented to the FBI twice: 
   a. The first time was during the summer last year.  The author of the report was so alarmed by what he learned during the opposition research that he sent it directly to the FBI.  It is unknown how widely it was   distributed
   b. The second time was John McCain, who learned of the existence of the report, "...separately by an intermediary from a western allied state."  He sent a representative to talk with the author of the report, and was sufficiently convinced of the veracity of the information to arrange a direct meeting with Director Comey in early December.  Note that this is after the election.
-This is an important detail related to point A: Sometime last year, the FBI sought FISA warrants to monitor four members of the Trump campaign staff who reportedly had ties to Russia's Alfa Bank (also mentioned in the opposition research, thought incorrectly cited as "Alpha Group").  After some hemming and hawing, the warrants were granted in October, but it is not known what came of the taps.
-Last week, the report was briefed to both Obama and President-Elect Trump by DNI Clapper, FBI Director Comey, CIA Director Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Rogers.  So it is known (and presumably in the process of being vetted) by the major heads of the IC.

Hopefully this clears up some confusion.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 11, 2017)

Etype said:


> You do realize these are from a private entity, not an accredited gov't intelligence officer- right?



Weren't you saying how accredited gov't intelligence folks were full of shit like 24 hours ago?  And yes, the details of those unverified reports are very likely bullshit.  There may be some ties to Russia, some ongoing relationships between the Trump campaign, and there is almost certainly a file in the Kremlin on the PE with some unflattering stuff but accusations of essentially being a sleeper agent are on par with SEN McCain being a Manchurian candidate thanks to his time as a POW.

Unless the PE makes that accusation on twitter - then it's a fact and if you disagree with it you're a whinny liberal bitch who is tearing our country apart.



Wiener Licker said:


> Okay, I should probably lay out some facts about this thing.  It's pretty complex and if you don't carefully read it then you might miss something.
> 
> -This report is the result of opposition research that was commissioned by Republicans last year.  It is unclear as to why it was not used during the campaign.
> -The report was produced by a retired British CI guy.  According to IC sources cited in the Guardian article, he has reportedly reliably in the past, which is why this report is getting any play at all.  He also apparently has a strong Russian source network
> ...



Just one thing about 'reporting reliably.'  In the HUMINT/CI world that means accurately relaying information - not necessarily that the information proved correct.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 11, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Just one thing about 'reporting reliably.'  In the HUMINT/CI world that means accurately relaying information - not necessarily that the information proved correct.


You're right, but the description comes from a journalist who is probably not spun up on the nuances of intelligence language.  That's not to say that this guy is an A1 super duper source extraordinaire, but I imagine that his information accuracy is also probably pretty good.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 11, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Weren't you saying how accredited gov't intelligence folks were full of shit like 24 hours ago?  And yes, the details of those unverified reports are very likely bullshit.  There may be some ties to Russia, some ongoing relationships between the Trump campaign, and there is almost certainly a file in the Kremlin on the PE with some unflattering stuff but accusations of essentially being a sleeper agent are on par with SEN McCain being a Manchurian candidate thanks to his time as a POW.
> 
> Unless the PE makes that accusation on twitter - then it's a fact and if you disagree with it you're a whinny liberal bitch who is tearing our country apart.


The IC can be full of shit, especially when they're directed to make a packet to get us on a War Footing.  Also, I'd believe the IC is less full in comparison to a private intelligence firm that was hired to build a packet of dirt by both the Republican opposition and HRC.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 11, 2017)

This whole election I kept thinking of PE Trump saying how he could straight up shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose voters. Whether this particular new thing is true or not, the fact that so many follow him so blindly, is very upsetting.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 11, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> You're right, but the description comes from a journalist who is probably not spun up on the nuances of intelligence language.  That's not to say that this guy is an A1 super duper source extraordinaire, but I imagine that his information accuracy is also probably pretty good.



Definitely - I think congress (and maybe the President) are in the same boat on the reliability thing.  I definitely believe this guy was told this story - and likely from more than one source.  Still, doesn't mean the story is true - just means several people believe it and/or have a reason to spread it.



ThunderHorse said:


> The IC can be full of shit, especially when they're directed to make a packet to get us on a War Footing.  Also, I'd believe the IC is less full in comparison to a private intelligence firm that was hired to build a packet of dirt by both the Republican opposition and HRC.



So, you think Russia didn't hack the DNC as part of a campaign to help PE Trump with the election - as the IC contends.  But, you do think this private security firm is right that PE Trump has been working closely with the Russian government for his whole campaign because they have incriminating evidence against him including video of him engaged with prostitutes and a 'golden shower' show of some sort.  Does that make you support the PE more or less?

I thought during the debates when HRC trotted out her 'I call it trumped up trickle down' line it was pretty lame.  Now I'm thinking that's a pretty decent meme...


----------



## AWP (Jan 11, 2017)

I have produced some hideous farts, some used to cropdust (Xthread points), and they have NEVER smelled as bad as this story. Russian hacks, Republicans undermining (or trying to) Trump in comical ways, the FBI seemingly decided its law enforcement and investigation process is irrelevant (email and now this story), private intel firms, foreign nationals investigating Russian interference in a US presidential election....holy shit. If this were a movie it would land a sub-4.0 on Rotten Tomatoes. What is this, some 11th hour attempt to set the stage for impeachment?

This is such a bucket of fail I can't trust either side's argument in full.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 11, 2017)

I don't understand what 'sides' there are to this.  Today the PE says he believes Russia was behind the hack on the DNC - essentially coming around to the IC position even though there were still some hems and haws.  The rest of the accusations are unsubstantiated - and have been reported as unsubstantiated by both the IC and the press even with the leaks.


----------



## Etype (Jan 11, 2017)

AWP said:


> ... private intel firms...


Does anyone know the name of this form in question?

The private international intelligence realm can be pretty dicey.

Another thing that set off my alarm is that the company only has 80ish cables by June of the year?  How many officers do they have working???


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 11, 2017)

Does the fact that they mis ID'd the guy who supposedly went to Budapest bother anyone but me?


----------



## AWP (Jan 11, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I don't understand what 'sides' there are to this.



Trump v. The World. Any story, any event will have people taking sides, so the emotion surrounding PE Trump guarantees two camps on any topic. He could Tweet that he prefers Count Chocula and a hue and cry would erupt because he doesn't like Lucky Charms.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 11, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> So, you think Russia didn't hack the DNC as part of a campaign to help PE Trump with the election - as the IC contends.  But, you do think this private security firm is right that PE Trump has been working closely with the Russian government for his whole campaign because they have incriminating evidence against him including video of him engaged with prostitutes and a 'golden shower' show of some sort.  Does that make you support the PE more or less?
> 
> I thought during the debates when HRC trotted out her 'I call it trumped up trickle down' line it was pretty lame.  Now I'm thinking that's a pretty decent meme...


I'm believing in none of this crap. 

What I am believing in are the jobs that are coming back due to TRUMPENOMICS.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 12, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm believing in none of this crap.
> 
> What I am believing in are the jobs that are coming back due to TRUMPENOMICS.


I'll give him this: those 500 jobs here and there sound pretty good.  But when you remember that monthly jobs report numbers regularly do six-figure moves, it's suddenly not as impressive.  Like, I'll will be much more convinced after the first few BLS reports come out.  It should also be noted that the economy IS currently in an upswing, so at least some job growth can be attributed to the outgoing administration for at least the next year.  

Would anyone care to summarize the job publicized job savings attributed to the incoming President Elect?  I remember that the Carrier A/C plant got some press, as did Ford most recently.  Although the Ford CEO stated that Trump did not have any effect on their decision to remain local.



Etype said:


> Does anyone know the name of this form in question?
> 
> The private international intelligence realm can be pretty dicey.
> 
> Another thing that set off my alarm is that the company only has 80ish cables by June of the year?  How many officers do they have working???


According to WSJ, it's Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd.

ETA: Today the House Intelligence Committee voted to allow all House members access to the Russia briefing on Friday.  This really, really seems like they're laying the groundwork for an impeachment.
I'll try to find a news link.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 12, 2017)

...taking a break from trying to comprehend who/what we have elected into office and instead focusing for a moment on what's important:


----------



## Etype (Jan 12, 2017)

Who is Christopher Steele?

Assumption*-
He, or his company is behind the recent intelligence report on Donald J. Trump.

Fact-
Christopher Steele lives alone, with a cat.


> *3. Steele Left His Cat With a Neighbor & Went Underground, Fearing ‘Potentially Dangerous Backlash’ From Russia*


Can we really trust this guy?  He is a middle-aged British fellow who lives alone, with a cat.

Additionally, his neighbor stated-


> “I’m not sure where he’s gone or how to contact him. I don’t really know much about him except to say hello. We’re all pretty secretive round here to be honest. All I know is he runs some sort of consultancy business.”


A secretive fellow drops a cat at your door, and doesn't mention how long he'll be gone or how to contact him?  Does the cat have special needs? Does he even care about his cat?  Why does he even have one?  Has the RSPCA been contacted?


A report is only as legitimate as it's reporter, and this one smells pretty fishy (like cat food).



*When using the MDMP, assumptions are unknown entities that you have reason to assume are true- so you can continue with planning.


----------



## Viper1 (Jan 12, 2017)

Mattis confirmation hearing on TV now


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 12, 2017)

I suppose Iraq is not a Democracy...Mattis is so frank.

Carrier Deal 800 Jobs for 700k/year in Tax Cuts.
Forbes Welcome
jobs/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Ford Cancels Mexican Plant for $700 million expansion in Michigan, 700 jobs will be added for vehicle manufacture, doesn't take into account the term construction jobs required for the project:
Ford canceling plans for $1.6 billion plant in Mexico, investing $700 million in Michigan expansion instead

Fiat-Chrysler $1 Billion Investment in Michigan and Ohio with 2,000 new jobs
Fiat Chrysler Announces Plans to Invest $1 Billion in the U.S.

GM is attempting to go against TrumpNomics.

IBM to hire 25,000 people, invest $1billion in training program for new hires:
IBM announces plan to hire 25,000 ahead of Trump tech meeting

Sprint had announced a 2500 person job cut, but has announced they will create 5k new jobs.  One Web will hire 3k people.  SoftBank will hire 50k people with a $50billion investment:
Sprint, OneWeb say 8,000 jobs announced by Trump are part of SoftBank pledge


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 12, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> I'll give him this: those 500 jobs here and there sound pretty good.  But when you remember that monthly jobs report numbers regularly do six-figure moves, it's suddenly not as impressive.  Like, I'll will be much more convinced after the first few BLS reports come out.  It should also be noted that the economy IS currently in an upswing, so at least some job growth can be attributed to the outgoing administration for at least the next year.
> 
> Would anyone care to summarize the job publicized job savings attributed to the incoming President Elect?  I remember that the Carrier A/C plant got some press, as did Ford most recently.  Although the Ford CEO stated that Trump did not have any effect on their decision to remain local.




Yeah, I have thought the same thing.  I think the PE has been very adroit at positioning himself in the news cycle as being good for the economy since his election.  For all his twitter and other controversies he’s ensured he’s in the news at least twice a week for some sort of economic message – especially one catered to working class voters.  The things that stick out for me are him taking credit for the fact we’ve reached the highest consumer confidence rating in some time and for several manufacturing decisions companies have made – but there may be others.  Of course, in those cases the consumer confidence has been climbing under President Obama for the last several years and most of the companies (besides Carrier – who was offered major tax incentives by PE Trump) have stated other reasons – or earlier decisions – as the cause of their manufacturing decisions.


Still, I think it’s a canny political move on the part of the PE and fits with his business experience.  President Obama has overseen something like 75 months of straight job growth in the country during his tenure – I read one of the longest in history.  It makes political sense to position yourself to take advantage of the results of that even if you had and have nothing to do with it.  If you look at Trump’s business history he’s been very successful in inserting himself as a beneficiary of credit where he’s had very little impact – and distancing himself from his failures through the media.  It will be interesting if those kind of ‘salesman/promoter-in-chief’ skills really translate well into the oval office.


I read a really interesting blog post that compared the PE’s actions to the myth of Batman in an interesting way.  The guy talked about how the President trying to negotiate individual business deals 500 or 1000 jobs at a time was a terrible use of energy considering the size of the economy and how anything less than 150,000 job growth a MONTH was considered very poor growth.  He compared it to Batman saying.  Here’s this billionaire head of a multi-national company concerned with crime.  Does he donate millions of dollars to hire more police, lobby on behalf of nation/state/city legal reform, pay for massive research in improving law enforcement procedures, start a charity to combat the criminal environment?  No, he puts a million-dollar suit on and punches criminals in the face one at a time – AND WE THANK HIM FOR IT.  I thought it was funny – but also kind of ruined Batman for me.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 12, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Yeah, I have thought the same thing.  I think the PE has been very adroit at positioning himself in the news cycle as being good for the economy since his election.  For all his twitter and other controversies he’s ensured he’s in the news at least twice a week for some sort of economic message – especially one catered to working class voters.  The things that stick out for me are him taking credit for the fact we’ve reached the highest consumer confidence rating in some time and for several manufacturing decisions companies have made – but there may be others.  Of course, in those cases the consumer confidence has been climbing under President Obama for the last several years and most of the companies (besides Carrier – who was offered major tax incentives by PE Trump) have stated other reasons – or earlier decisions – as the cause of their manufacturing decisions.
> 
> 
> Still, I think it’s a canny political move on the part of the PE and fits with his business experience.  President Obama has overseen something like 75 months of straight job growth in the country during his tenure – I read one of the longest in history.  It makes political sense to position yourself to take advantage of the results of that even if you had and have nothing to do with it.  If you look at Trump’s business history he’s been very successful in inserting himself as a beneficiary of credit where he’s had very little impact – and distancing himself from his failures through the media.  It will be interesting if those kind of ‘salesman/promoter-in-chief’ skills really translate well into the oval office.
> ...



Why have so many quit the workforce if job growth has been so strong? and are those entry level jobs or middle-class jobs?

500 here, 500 there add up; they also create additional jobs with vendors, McD's and elsewhere.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 12, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Still, I think it’s a canny political move on the part of the PE and fits with his business experience.  President Obama has overseen something like 75 months of straight job growth in the country during his tenure – I read one of the longest in history.


That's great, but wages haven't come up at all. Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts

Wage increases haven't done shit vs. productivity since 1973.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 12, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Why have so many quit the workforce if job growth has been so strong? and are those entry level jobs or middle-class jobs?
> 
> 500 here, 500 there add up; they also create additional jobs with vendors, McD's and elsewhere.



I think this article I posted earlier on the thread does a good job, succinctly and in one place, of summarizing a lot of the scholarship on what's been going on with job growth and it's affect on the electorate and perceptions: 2016: A Year Defined by America’s Diverging Economies



ThunderHorse said:


> That's great, but wages haven't come up at all. Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts
> 
> Wage increases haven't done shit vs. productivity since 1973.



Real wage growth been one of the difficult parts of the 'recovery' after the 2008 financial collapse.  Will be interesting to see if President Trump's policies really help with those economic trends.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 12, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Real wage growth been one of the difficult parts of the 'recovery' after the 2008 financial collapse.  Will be interesting to see if President Trump's policies really help with those economic trends.


Wage growth won't happen as long as you have an overabundance of workers.
That's another reason why we need to throttle immigration back.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 12, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Real wage growth been one of the difficult parts of the 'recovery' after the 2008 financial collapse.  Will be interesting to see if President Trump's policies really help with those economic trends.



We've purged a lot of jobs since Nixon went to China that were medium skill in textile manufacturing.  In El Paso, before NAFTA the place was the jean manufacturing capital of the world, the city didn't build towards higher skill jobs.  Then NAFTA hit and it plunged the place into a localized depression that was only brought back to life because of BRAC when 1AD came home and garrisoned at FT Bliss.  But we've purged a lot of industrial jobs, part of that was the power of the UAW when it came to wages...some cats were getting paid $70/hour to fit doors to trucks.  That and the pensions were unsustainable which is why there was such a huge investment in Mexico by US Automakers.  I'm not really worried about Ford's China plants, China still imports Fords from the US because there just isn't the production capacity.  But at one point all of those vehicles were made here.  Localized production has driven costs down since raw materials can come from China as well.  That part of economics I can understand.

What I truly can't understand is producing things elsewhere at no cost savings and then the majority of your market is here.

Our job growth has not been in medium and high skilled jobs, it has been in the low-skilled sector because Raisin Cane's and Chick Fil-A are mmmmmm good.  Our economy is unbalanced.

ETA 1:


DA SWO said:


> Wage growth won't happen as long as you have an overabundance of workers.
> That's another reason why we need to throttle immigration back.



Supposedly there are between 1million and 1.5million jobs that remain unfilled everyday in the US.  The issue is that the majority of the work force doesn't meet the qualifications for the jobs, the problem is the companies looking to fill the jobs don't want to spend the time and money to train their workforce.

My brother-in-law is a Welder, he could move to North Dakota and make a hell of a lot more than he is in California.  But my sister is an idiot that thinks living in CA is better...well she doesn't have the drive to hustle and find a job.  She chose to quit school, she got let go from her full-time gig at Starbucks because she didn't return to work following her post-partum leave and then got let go from her hostess gig at Chili's in November...why, because she was unavailable.  They were going to Vegas for festivals and shit...that's great but when you have a 1 yr old, you don't need to be wasting money in Vegas for anything.

ETA 2: I remember when Anderson Cooper wasn't an asshole: Anderson Cooper, Kellyanne Conway clash over Russia report  - CNNPolitics.com

ETA 3:  Waiver for Mattis was approved 24-3 in committee.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 12, 2017)

Trump isn't going to bring back jobs that went overseas. Period. He isn't going to bring back industry that has left. What he may do, and I hope he will do, is start working on infrastructure projects to fix some of the problems we have with our roads, bridges, damns, and levees. That may create jobs, depending on how the contracts are written up.

Does anyone not see the glaring problem in the logic of "well they are low paying jobs" while simultaneously decrying the people  who "won't work" while calling for less immigration? We have jobs that Americans will not do. We have jobs that cannot be filled. Alabama passed an anti-immigration law to "put Alabama back to work" the result was predictable, farms went under, or were criminalized...


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 12, 2017)

Armed Services committee passes GEN Mattis waiver.

Senate panel easily approves waiver for Mattis


----------



## Centermass (Jan 12, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Armed Services committee passes GEN Mattis waiver.
> 
> Senate panel easily approves waiver for Mattis



I just got a chubbie.....


----------



## Gunz (Jan 12, 2017)

God created Mattis in His own image. And it was good.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 12, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Trump isn't going to bring back jobs that went overseas. Period. He isn't going to bring back industry that has left. What he may do, and I hope he will do, is start working on infrastructure projects to fix some of the problems we have with our roads, bridges, damns, and levees. That may create jobs, depending on how the contracts are written up.
> 
> Does anyone not see the glaring problem in the logic of "well they are low paying jobs" while simultaneously decrying the people  who "won't work" while calling for less immigration? We have jobs that Americans will not do. We have jobs that cannot be filled. Alabama passed an anti-immigration law to "put Alabama back to work" the result was predictable, farms went under, or were criminalized...



Although I agree with regards to jobs that Americans won't do bit. I think it's a bit of a bold statement to state that Trump will not repatriate good paying jobs, manufacturing and money's being held over seas.

I do believe that the corporate tax cuts mixed with taxes on import goods, will 1)level the playing field, and 2) in courage companies to come back or move to the states. However,  a draw back will obviously be a consumer cost increase. 

But again, I think it is disingenuous to make "it won't happen statements" before he has even assumed office.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 12, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Trump isn't going to bring back jobs that went overseas. Period. He isn't going to bring back industry that has left. What he may do, and I hope he will do, is start working on infrastructure projects to fix some of the problems we have with our roads, bridges, damns, and levees. That may create jobs, depending on how the contracts are written up.
> 
> Does anyone not see the glaring problem in the logic of "well they are low paying jobs" while simultaneously decrying the people  who "won't work" while calling for less immigration? We have jobs that Americans will not do. We have jobs that cannot be filled. Alabama passed an anti-immigration law to "put Alabama back to work" the result was predictable, farms went under, or were criminalized...



Agree on the part of we have jobs that Americans won't do.  Easy disagree on your opinion that his policies won't bring jobs back.

Americans are soft these days, I really don't get it.  When it comes to feeding yourself, most don't have the self respect to grind at two jobs if they have no skills IOT pay for education.  But controlling our immigration, and mobilizing public thought towards hard work.  I'll be if you cut a lot of welfare programs from both the federal and state governments people would go to work.  Or they'd die, but that's on them.

I always hated seeing people with Lone Star Cards buying Chips and beer at the market, then jumping into a new escalade.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 12, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Although I agree with regards to jobs that Americans won't do bit. I think it's a bit of a bold statement to state that Trump will not repatriate good paying jobs, manufacturing and money's being held over seas.
> 
> I do believe that the corporate tax cuts mixed with taxes on import goods, will 1)level the playing field, and 2) in courage companies to come back or move to the states. However,  a draw back will obviously be a consumer cost increase.
> 
> But again, I think it is disingenuous to make "it won't happen statements" before he has even assumed office.



@TLDR20's comments on the state of manufacturing and low-paying jobs is the conventional wisdom of economists - both left and right of center.  I haven't seen a single credible academic source arguing any of the PE's policies will do what he has promised.

But, the argument he made to the electorate - and it worked - was 'what the fuck do those guys know, this is what's going to happen.'  We'll see in the coming years.  But the pretense it's 'disingenuous' to believe the experts when they predict something - I don't agree with that.

Still, doesn't mean the experts can't be wrong - and doesn't mean it's impossible for the PE's promises to become a reality.  I hope they do - but I don't believe they will.  I mean, the polling and political experts almost universally believed polling indicated HRC would win the election - and again largely on the left and right (though there were certainly outliers on the right) - and look how that turned out.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 12, 2017)

Puhleeze....:wall:

Obama Awards Biden With Presidential Medal Of Freedom In Surprise White House Tribute | The Huffington Post

WASHINGTON ― President Barack Obama on Thursday awarded Vice President Joe Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, during a surprise event at the White House paying tribute to him.

Moving Biden to tears, Obama hailed Biden as *“the best vice president America has ever had”* and “a lion of American history.” When concluding his remarks, he surprised Biden by announcing the honor, a medal of freedom with distinction.


----------



## Poccington (Jan 12, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'll be if you cut a lot of welfare programs from both the federal and state governments people would go to work.  *Or they'd die, but that's on them.*



Oh please, lose the act.

You live in America, that isn't how a functioning society works. This is real life, not the Hunger Games.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 12, 2017)

Trying to think of what VP Biden did in office to rate the Medal of Freedom....I know it's a gimmee award at that level.....but still....

According to the History channel:

*"Joe Biden as Vice President *
Biden kicked off his second attempt at the White House 20 years later but dropped out after securing only 1 percent of the delegates in the Iowa Democratic caucuses. Despite his penchant for gaffes, Barack Obama tapped him to be his running rate after winning the Democratic nomination. In the November 2008 presidential elections, Obama and Biden bested their Republican opponents, John McCain and Sarah Palin, with 52.9 percent of the popular vote.

After taking office in January 2009 as the 47th vice president of the United States, Biden was charged with overseeing a $787 billion economic stimulus package, running a middle-class task force and reviving an arms reduction treaty with Russia. *He also played a strong advisory role with respect to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.* Biden considered a presidential run in 2016, but ultimately decided against it."

Joe Biden - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

*He also played a strong advisory role with respect to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.* <==  WHAT the F@CK !?!?!


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 12, 2017)

Gotta agree.  The Medal of Freedom for VP Biden is kind of a head-scratcher.  Kind of like Pres. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 12, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Oh please, lose the act.
> 
> You live in America, that isn't how a functioning society works. This is real life, not the Hunger Games.


What's the act?  If you remove food stamp programs at the federal and state levels...will the people work, or will they starve?


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 12, 2017)

Middle class task force-Fail. Arms reduction with Russia=we hit below reduction numbers yet Russian numbers are higher since New START, supposedly violated the INF treaty, and have invested heavily in their strategic arms bombers, subs, and MIRV capabilities- Super Fail. But sure, give the guy a medal that should really mean something.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 12, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Oh please, lose the act.
> 
> You live in America, that isn't how a functioning society works. This is real life, not the Hunger Games.


Maybe that's why folks don't feel like working?


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 12, 2017)

MAN! Been super busy, haven't been on in a few. Let me just re-read this bad boy and catch up real quick...

... what the literal shit.


Ocoka One said:


> God created Mattis in His own image. And it was good.


Other way around, bro, other way around!!!


AWP said:


> This is such a bucket of fail I can't trust either side's argument in full.


Or in part. At all. I literally have not a clue as to how we got here. 


TLDR20 said:


> This whole election *I kept thinking of PE Trump saying how he could straight up shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose voters*. Whether this particular new thing is true or not, the fact that so many follow him so blindly, is very upsetting.


I don't know if I would call it 'blindly'. I am not actually sure what it is. But to the bolded- I am actually convinced that he could urinate on a Lady of the Night from the Ukraine on video and Kellyanne Conway would get on TV and admonish the ghost of Tom Brokaw for fake news and people would lap it up. 


DA SWO said:


> Maybe that's why folks don't feel like working?


I lol'd. Well done!


----------



## AWP (Jan 12, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> Gotta agree.  The Medal of Freedom for VP Biden is kind of a head-scratcher.  Kind of like Pres. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.



But no different than the auto MSM's awarded to retirees on their way out. It is all stupid and unwarranted, but not without a precedent (that I strongly disagree with) elsewhere. At the end of the day they should all stand on their own merits and that clearly isn't the case.

ETA to change "warranted" to "unwarranted."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 12, 2017)

Piers knows how to spot the bullshit: PIERS MORGAN: The only hookers in Trump story are the cheap, lazy journalists | Daily Mail Online


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 12, 2017)




----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 12, 2017)

I love it when we randomly agree with people for calling bullshit..

Some other things Piers has spotted as bullshit:

Piers Morgan's 10 Worst Moments


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 12, 2017)

Putin just gave the CIA and FBI four names.....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 12, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I love it when we randomly agree with people for calling bullshit..
> 
> Some other things Piers has spotted as bullshit:
> 
> Piers Morgan's 10 Worst Moments


You obvs don't get it.  I know Piers sucks, so I guess you could say you betta rekognize GOAT respeckin GOAT.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 13, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> @TLDR20's comments on the state of manufacturing and low-paying jobs is the conventional wisdom of economists - both left and right of center.  I haven't seen a single credible academic source arguing any of the PE's policies will do what he has promised.
> 
> But, the argument he made to the electorate - and it worked - was 'what the fuck do those guys know, this is what's going to happen.'  We'll see in the coming years.  But the pretense it's 'disingenuous' to believe the experts when they predict something - I don't agree with that.
> 
> Still, doesn't mean the experts can't be wrong - and doesn't mean it's impossible for the PE's promises to become a reality.  I hope they do - but I don't believe they will.  I mean, the polling and political experts almost universally believed polling indicated HRC would win the election - and again largely on the left and right (though there were certainly outliers on the right) - and look how that turned out.



Well yeah, because what the "experts" have been pushing for the last quarter century has been working great. Right?

I get it, I really do. I think it's going to be close to 2020, before we know, one way or the other. HRC didn't win, the establishment is out, maybe we wI'll all be fucked because of it. I kinda doubt it,  but I'm willing to sit back and watch.


----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> @TLDR20's comments on the state of manufacturing and low-paying jobs is the conventional wisdom of economists - both left and right of center.  I haven't seen a single credible academic source arguing any of the PE's policies will do what he has promised.
> 
> But, the argument he made to the electorate - and it worked - was 'what the fuck do those guys know, this is what's going to happen.'  We'll see in the coming years.  But the pretense it's 'disingenuous' to believe the experts when they predict something - I don't agree with that.


Conventional wisdom has us backsliding. 

A credible academic source?  Academia is pretty far to the left side of the spectrum these days.

Trump is known in the business world for finishing on time and under budget.  Trump has no political experience.

Hilary has no known or quantifiable political achievements, and her business is comprised of high priced speeches and overseas politician donations.

Obama is known for wealth redistribution (stimulus) and a failed health care bill, again, with no notable business success.


1.  How would Trump make things worse than Obama?

2. How would Hillary do better than Trump?

Libs talk about how bad life is going to be under Trump, but can't realistically quantify or qualify how Hillary would've been any better.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 13, 2017)

Wow.

There is nothing in the article that I could not have written made up and published.  For those wondering what "fake news" is?  Here you go....

'US officials warn Israel on transferring information to Trump White House'

_US Intelligence officials warned their Israeli counterparts to “be careful” when transferring intelligence to the White House after Donald Trump becomes president, an Israeli newspaper reported.
Top-classified information from Israel could be leaked to Russia and from there shared with Russia’s close ally Iran, the officials warned, Yediot Aharonot reported Thursday._


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2017)

Again, looking into bullshit. Again, not having any understanding of vaccines or the science behind them. This guy is a fucking piece of work. Think about how many people may now think vaccines are unsafe because of him. How many children may go unvaccinated because of stupid parents thinking "the President is concerned".

This is clown shoes.
Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just made pediatricians’ jobs a lot harder


----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Again, looking into bullshit. Again, not having any understanding of vaccines or the science behind them. This guy is a fucking piece of work. Think about how many people may now think vaccines are unsafe because of him. How many children may go unvaccinated because of stupid parents thinking "the President is concerned".
> 
> This is clown shoes.
> Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just made pediatricians’ jobs a lot harder


The author says that his life just became a lot harder.

Just implies that it happened in the recent past.

The good doctor then says-


> The work of every medical provider for children is likely to become more difficult..


He then states that it, "...is likely...", admitting that it is nothing but speculation.

This is exactly what I meant when I talked about a political shill network. Some random pediatrician speculates on a possible outcome, the WaPo writes up a headline as though it's a fact, and all the little parrots on the internet repeat it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 13, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Trump is being set up for impeachment proceedings during his first year in office.



I would be surprised to learn  Trump was being "set up" to be impeached during his first year. 

I would not be surprised to see Trump impeached during his first year.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 13, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I would be surprised to learn  Trump was being "set up" to be impeached during his first year.
> 
> I would not be surprised to see Trump impeached during his first year.



Let's call it "laying the groundwork."


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> The author says that his life just became a lot harder.
> 
> Just implies that it happened in the recent past.
> 
> ...



A healthcare providers responsibility is to their patients, and using evidence to treat those patients. I don't even know how to respond to your post. It is not shilling to say that this is fucking absurd.


----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> A healthcare providers responsibility is to their patients, and using evidence to treat those patients. I don't even know how to respond to your post. It is not shilling to say that this is fucking absurd.


Nothing has happened! A pediatrician in Texas speculates and suddenly, "... bullshit...This guy is a fucking piece of work... This is clown shoes.". 

You want to talk about patients and providers? Replacing the ACA couldn't possibly go wrong with what a train wreck that is. 

Now we've gone from private intelligence firms to a random pediatrician in Texas- you folks have scraped through the bottom of the barrel and are now digging in the dirt.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> Nothing has happened! A pediatrician in Texas speculates and suddenly, "... bullshit...This guy is a fucking piece of work... This is clown shoes.".
> 
> You want to talk about patients and providers? Replacing the ACA couldn't possibly go wrong with what a train wreck that is.
> 
> Now we've gone from private intelligence firms to a random pediatrician in Texas- you folks have scraped through the bottom of the barrel and are now digging in the dirt.



I disagree. 

When the PE has said that he thinks vaccines cause autism, which is not true AT ALL, and then directs a commission to look into it, it is relevant. It isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel, it is bringing up relevant worries.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Again, looking into bullshit. Again, not having any understanding of vaccines or the science behind them. This guy is a fucking piece of work. Think about how many people may now think vaccines are unsafe because of him. How many children may go unvaccinated because of stupid parents thinking "the President is concerned".
> 
> This is clown shoes.
> Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just made pediatricians’ jobs a lot harder


And when the CDC doesn't change the vaccine schedule...we'll call this shit retarded.  Call me when the bill hits congress.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> 1.  How would Trump make things worse than Obama?
> 
> 2. How would Hillary do better than Trump?
> 
> Libs talk about how bad life is going to be under Trump, but can't realistically quantify or qualify how Hillary would've been any better.


. Trolling. You are the only person on this thread still talking about Hillary.



Etype said:


> The author says that his life just became a lot harder.
> 
> Just implies that it happened in the recent past.
> 
> ...


. We know, we know- there are no news organizations that can be trusted. No government agencies get your stamp of approval. Everyone is against you and the GOP, everyone is a liar.


Etype said:


> Nothing has happened! A pediatrician in Texas speculates and suddenly, "... bullshit...This guy is a fucking piece of work... This is clown shoes.".
> 
> You want to talk about patients and providers? Replacing the ACA couldn't possibly go wrong with what a train wreck that is.
> 
> Now we've gone from private intelligence firms to a random pediatrician in Texas- you folks have scraped through the bottom of the barrel and are now digging in the dirt.


. More trolling. Looking forward to hearing some actual facts on the ACA repeal and a plan.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 13, 2017)




----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> And when the CDC doesn't change the vaccine schedule...we'll call this shit retarded.  Call me when the bill hits congress.



Dude. Do you not understand the power of public perception? You keep referring to how dumb people are. People do not understand how vaccines work. They don't understand why so many are needed so early. When the fucking PE is talking about how the schedule causes autism, and is commissioning a committee to research it, that alone can have profound effects.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Dude. Do you not understand the power of public perception? You keep referring to how dumb people are. People do not understand how vaccines work. They don't understand why so many are needed so early. When the fucking PE is talking about how the schedule causes autism, and is commissioning a committee to research it, that alone can have profound effects.



I get your point and then I say, hey, healthcare provider, educate your patients and customers about why.  Explain to them the chance of their child dying is significantly higher without the shot than it is for them to get Autism.  You know, spread the knowledge.

There was some Paleo chick that I followed on Facebook that doesn't believe in vaccines apparently, and I was like wtf.  Apparently being Paleo now means being against vaccines.  People are dumb, and their sheep.  As a person with knowledge, it's your job to aid in their ever on going education.

ETA:
I'm obsessed with data, I wear a fitness watch so I know what my heart rate is, how well I slept, how strenuous my workouts were, I log all of my lifts on a plan, I count my calories, I had performance labs taken and I found out I had Low T, so I adjusted my training and it came up.

So the more information people have, the more educated they are to make decisions, and here's the thing, I'll bet every single one of his kids is vaccinated.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> Conventional wisdom has us backsliding.
> 
> A credible academic source?  Academia is pretty far to the left side of the spectrum these days.
> 
> ...



This is the kind of shit that makes it virtually impossible to have any sort of conversation. 

Academia is liberal, so anything from academics - especially if it's widely accepted can't be right.  So that means social science, the scientific method, peer-reviewed study, all that evidence-based reasoning is out because you feel like everyone is 'biased.'  I don't really think there's anything I can say to that.  It implies you don't really accept any basis for conclusions other than what you 'feel' like is true. 

I don't think that's what Trump is known for in the business world at all.  When you look at the PE's business record his reputation in the business world is for marketing, licensing his name, and earlier in his career being excellent at negotiating his debt - i.e. not paying back everything he owes.  Of course, I'm basing what I think PE Trump is 'known' for from reading journalistic accounts of his exploits - where journalists interview people, look at the public record, make sense of the data, and put together a narrative story.  But, since journalism is another 'liberal' endeavor and nothing in any media can be taken seriously - unless of course it confirms your existing views - there's no way for me to make this argument either. 

The same thing for HRC and President Obama.  There's certainly more people - based on their political disposition - who would make your same statements of opinion.  But, neither of those opinions is a very fair or comprehensive analysis of those political figures.  But, those types of analyses come from using the very methods in academia and journalism you reject.  Public policy experts have speculated endlessly about the consequences of the PE's policies - especially in the areas of trade, healthcare, and foreign policy.  There's shit-tons of quantified and qualified assessments of the consequences of the PEs policies - though in fairness they are speculation.  I prefer informed speculation from experts - but if you reject the very title of expert (or things like experience or scholarship as making experts) - then those are going to have no effect on you.


----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> . We know, we know- there are no news organizations that can be trusted. No government agencies get your stamp of approval. Everyone is against you and the GOP, everyone is a liar.


I didn't say they couldn't be trusted. I said one pediatrician speculated to the negative and a news outlet wrote it up as a fact that had already occurred.

You've degenerated to the same level as your news outlets by completely misconstruing words to fit your narrative.



Il Duce said:


> This is the kind of shit that makes it virtually impossible to have any sort of conversation.
> 
> Academia is liberal, so anything from academics - especially if it's widely accepted can't be right.  So that means social science, the scientific method, peer-reviewed study, all that evidence-based reasoning is out because you feel like everyone is 'biased.'  I don't really think there's anything I can say to that.  It implies you don't really accept any basis for conclusions other than what you 'feel' like is true.
> 
> ...


If you folks stopped having such a negative emotional response to Trump's election, folks like me would stop trolling you.

However, you insist on scraping through 'academic' and 'news' sources to find something negative.

Eta- I originally stated supporting Trump due to lack of options.

At this juncture, I have decided I will be trolling Trump haters for a minimum of 4 years.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 13, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> This is the kind of shit that makes it virtually impossible to have any sort of conversation.
> 
> Academia is liberal, so anything from academics - especially if it's widely accepted can't be right.  So that means social science, the scientific method, peer-reviewed study, all that evidence-based reasoning is out because you feel like everyone is 'biased.'  I don't really think there's anything I can say to that.  It implies you don't really accept any basis for conclusions other than what you 'feel' like is true.
> 
> ...


The economics professors I had that were pure econ nerds were liberal as well you know what...the CPA dudes were conservative and didn't teach the same stuff.  But in the larger colleges, the CPA types end up only teaching the business courses and not the Economics 201 course.


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The economics professors I had that were pure econ nerds were liberal as well you know what...the CPA dudes were conservative and didn't teach the same stuff.  But in the larger colleges, the CPA types end up only teaching the business courses and not the Economics 201 course.



So? Running a business is different than understanding the narrative of converging and diverging economic trends. Economics is much more complicated than the supply and demand curves of certain products that is typically taught in Intro to Economics courses.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 13, 2017)

So business owners don't know policies that promote growth for them...right!


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 13, 2017)

Yea for their specific business, and unless someone runs a conglomerate or business that deals in multiple different sectors, they are only qualified to speak on their sector. Being an expert in one thing does not make you an expert in other things. Economics professors may not make great business owners and CPAs usually can't quote international trade theories despite being affected by them. They are interrelated functions of one another, but follow completely different rules. Saying that a CPA is qualified to teach an upper level college economics course is fallacious. Sorry for getting the thread off topic.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 13, 2017)

You're missing the point.  The point is diversity of thought.


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 13, 2017)

You're right, that point was definitely lost on me from your post.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> And when the CDC doesn't change the vaccine schedule...we'll call this shit retarded.  Call me when the bill hits congress.



What bill? Congress doesn't vote on the vaccine schedule from the CDC.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> If you folks stopped having such a negative emotional response to Trump's election, folks like me would stop trolling you.
> 
> However, you insist on scraping through 'academic' and 'news' sources to find something negative.
> 
> ...


Where are the emotional responses?  From what I've seen it's been four or five posters laying out cogent, well thought-out arguments on myriad topics related to the PE and his incoming administration, both his strengths and his faults.  Meanwhile, you've seemingly spun yourself into this strange information cocoon where the news is wrong, our intelligence agencies are wrong, academia is wrong, as is every other entity who doesn't agree with your world view.  It's almost as if you've ensconced yourself in a small "chamber" wherein your constant shouting at the walls cotinually "echo" back at you.  I feel like there's a name for this phenomenon, but it escapes me at the moment.

Look, I get that clickbait articles, like articles that grab some random doctor of no renown for an opinion on a medical policy issue, kinda suck.  However, the above article was an opinion piece and not a news item.  In that context, it is completely fine.

As for "trolling," I will just say this: on this board we argue on good faith on a variety of important topics.  "Trolling" implies that you are misrepresenting your position in order to rile up an internet stranger.  We don't do trolling here.  Argue in good faith.  If someone makes a convincing argument, they deserve kudos.  Likewise, if an argument sucks, lay out why it sucks.


----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> Where are the emotional responses?


Here's one.


TLDR20 said:


> Again, looking into bullshit. Again, not having any understanding of vaccines or the science behind them. This guy is a fucking piece of work. Think about how many people may now think vaccines are unsafe because of him. How many children may go unvaccinated because of stupid parents thinking "the President is concerned".
> 
> .


As for the rest of your post, TLDR.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> I didn't say they couldn't be trusted. I said one pediatrician speculated to the negative and a news outlet wrote it up as a fact that had already occurred.
> 
> You've degenerated to the same level as your news outlets by completely misconstruing words to fit your narrative.


Yeah yea man. Good inputs.

***TRIGGER WARNING***

I know how people feel about a guy with a red tag saying something like this, so I just want to give people the chance to miss the post. This isn't me acting as an Admin, it's me as a guy, talking directly to another guy.

Troll whoever you want. I lost a lot of respect for you when you started taking the tack of "I'm not gonna source anything, I am just trolling you guys with my unsubstantiated personal opinions". I believe everything you say now is to get attention and to make other people mad, and I don't value your input. Go troll your facebook page.

***TRIGGER WARNING OVER****


----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Yeah yea man. Good inputs.
> 
> ***TRIGGER WARNING***
> 
> ...


Believe what you want, I don't feel an obligation to substantiate a retort against a private intelligence firm or a pediatrician in Texas.

I've lost similar respect for folks touting aforementioned reports as powerful anti-Trump evidence.

Lastly, the jokes on you- I don't have a Facebook page.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> Believe what you want, I don't feel an obligation to substantiate a retort against a private intelligence firm or a pediatrician in Texas.
> 
> I've lost similar respect for folks touting aforementioned reports as powerful anti-Trump evidence.
> 
> Lastly, the jokes on you- I don't have a Facebook page.


Fair enough.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 13, 2017)

This vaccine "investigation" could be a stroke of genius too.
Take an anti-vaccine guy, feed him data (pro and con) and let him come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe.

BTW- This anti-vaccine shit is more junk science from the UK.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 13, 2017)

What do you mean by "more" out of interest? I would argue the US is the world leader in junk science.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> This vaccine "investigation" could be a stroke of genius too.
> Take an anti-vaccine guy, feed him data (pro and con) and let him come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe.
> 
> BTW- This anti-vaccine shit is more junk science from the UK.



??? Why appoint an anti-vaccine guy in the first place? That shows a profound lack of judgement.



Etype said:


> Here's one.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, TLDR.



I am emotional about public health concerns. Most people should be. Vaccination is why our life expectancy is what it is. It is why 3:8 babies don't die before adulthood. But hey "fuck it" right? Let's not get emotional about kids getting preventable diseases because idiots don't understand the basics.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 13, 2017)

Oh my, the butt hurt is strong. The Donold is going to make America great again, economic crashes, children back into sweat shops, $2 an hour jobs for everyone, the return of small pox/black plague. No more retards due to vaccines filled with egg shell, or whatever the stupid shit is today. Oh, and the intelligence, my God, the intelligence...






You guys are too cool to boo-boo over this silly shit, I mean really, there is so much misinformation out there, who knows what the truth of anything is anway? I sure as fuck don't.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 13, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> What do you mean by "more" out of interest? I would argue the US is the world leader in junk science.


The initial (now debunked) Climate Change study came out of the UK.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 13, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> The initial (now debunked) Climate Change study came out of the UK.



Then my reply to you is "so what?" So what if it came out of the UK. Climate Change is still contentious BTW so it's rich to say it's been debunked at this stage. 

Where a dumb theory comes from is irrelevant. I could list off the top of my head at least five examples of junk science coming out of the US. Does that make all other science from the US irrelevant? I think we can quite comfortably say it doesn't.


----------



## DasBoot (Jan 13, 2017)

RB said:


> I watched the first 30 minutes of the hearings (and actually watched all day) and had to re-wind to capture this foto:........which says, and along with the PEOTUS, stop wasting our time, stop spending our taxpayer money, stop crying like "Lumpers" (left leaning liberal looney-tune dis-barred lawyers} and let's get on with policing and governing this country.
> 
> You Libs had your chance, now it's our turn. I chuckle at you @amlove21 as you post a picture of Trump with the scythe and hammer. Do you really think Trump is going to ball lick Putin? This is one of those "wait and see" moments...but we can absolutely see your slant. Read the caption.... "NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MUCH INFLUENCE RUSSIA HAD ON OUTCOME"....and this from DNI Clapper... ZERO evidence, although my NDA has expired...I know yours hasn't........THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN....and none of your nonsense makes sense. Catch up and admit that McCain is a Rhino and needs to go, and that much of what you've read for the last year are MSM lies.
> 
> ...


That last meme is at least partial bullshit. POTUS and FLOTUS did not lose their licenses


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 13, 2017)




----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> What do you mean by "more" out of interest? I would argue the US is the world leader in junk science.


We're also the irrefutable world leader in quality science, you're welcome.



TLDR20 said:


> ??? Why appoint an anti-vaccine guy in the first place? That shows a profound lack of judgement.


Is he appointed to do anything yet?

The answer is no. Trump also met with various climate change proponents only to name the EPAs greatest nemesis as his pick for head of the EPA.

Trump understands opposition research.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> Is he appointed to do anything yet?
> 
> The answer is no. Trump also met with various climate change proponents only to name the EPAs greatest nemesis as his pick for head of the EPA.
> 
> Trump understands opposition research.



He is going to head the "Vaccine safety Commitee" so yes.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 13, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Then my reply to you is "so what?" So what if it came out of the UK. Climate Change is still contentious BTW so it's rich to say it's been debunked at this stage.
> 
> Where a dumb theory comes from is irrelevant. I could list off the top of my head at least five examples of junk science coming out of the US. Does that make all other science from the US irrelevant? I think we can quite comfortably say it doesn't.


No, the initial study has been thoroughly debunked.
The cherry picked locations to get the results they wanted (leaked e-mails proved that).
You can hang your hat on follow-up research, but the initial study isn't worth a damn.


----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> He is going to head the "Vaccine safety Commitee" so yes.


Vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr. says Trump asked him to lead commission on ‘vaccine safety’


> ...a spokeswoman for Trump’s transition said that while Trump would like to create a commission on autism, no final decision had been made.


Kennedy says Trump asked him. Trump's camp says no decisions have been made.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> Vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr. says Trump asked him to lead commission on ‘vaccine safety’
> 
> Kennedy says Trump asked him. Trump's camp says no decisions have been made.


This is a good point.  While the thought of an anti-vaxxer leading a commission on autism should be more than a little disquieting, no decisions have been made and nothing is set in stone.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> Vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr. says Trump asked him to lead commission on ‘vaccine safety’
> 
> Kennedy says Trump asked him. Trump's camp says no decisions have been made.





Wiener Licker said:


> This is a good point.  While the thought of an anti-vaxxer leading a commission on autism should be more than a little disquieting, no decisions have been made and nothing is set in stone.



Yeah.

I guess I am being hysterical.

It isn't like raising hell about things before they become problems has ever done any good in the past...


----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah.
> 
> I guess I am being hysterical.
> 
> It isn't like raising hell about things before they become problems has ever done any good in the past...


Trump also met with Gates, and... Leonardo DiCaprio on climate change. That raised some eyebrows initially.

They were nowhere near as confusing as him meeting with Romney.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 13, 2017)

Etype said:


> We're also the irrefutable world leader in quality science, you're welcome.



Which is totally beside the point being made, no?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 13, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> This is a good point.  While the thought of an anti-vaxxer leading a commission on autism should be more than a little disquieting, no decisions have been made and nothing is set in stone.



It is an anti-Vaxxer, leading a committee on vaccine safety. That is like.... I don't even have a comparison, a fucking terrible stupid idea is what that is.

My only consolation, is that I know the science stands up. But in the world PE Trump lives in, will it matter?


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 14, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> It is an anti-Vaxxer, leading a committee on vaccine safety. That is like.... I don't even have a comparison, a fucking terrible stupid idea is what that is.
> 
> My only consolation, is that I know the science stands up. But in the world PE Trump lives in, will it matter?


Anti-Vaxxing? You're still talking about anti-vaccines? That was SO 12 hours ago.


While you are all arguing whether vaccines cause autism, PE Trump is already talking sweeping immigration changes "day one", ignoring world reactions to his historically shitty press conference, and is apparently open to working with the country he admitted to hacking us. Hell, he's even asked the Army Corps of Engineers for advice on his border wall- cause you know, with a 3 theater international war going on, ignoring intelligence briefings and asking how America can pay for a wall (with a Mexican IOU, of course) is a priority. 

In the between time, the Pres Elect said he could run both his expansive business and our government at the same time, and took to twitter to make sure an actress got what she deserved for getting under his skin for an awards speech. 

That's a week. That's what we have had coming from our President Elect in a week.


----------



## Etype (Jan 14, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Which is totally beside the point being made, no?


Nope, completely relevant.  When you have so much scientific research coming out of a given country, the law of averages tells us that some of it is going to be bad.  It's disingenuous to leave that half of the argument out.



amlove21 said:


> While you are all arguing whether vaccines cause autism, PE Trump is taking sweeping immigration changes "day one", ignoring world reactions to his historically shitty press conference, and is apparently open to working with the country he admitted to hacking us. Hell, he's even asked the Army Corps of Engineers for advice on his border wall- cause you know, with a 3 theater international war going on, ignoring intelligence briefings and asking how America can pay for a wall (with a Mexican IOU, of course) is a priority.


Lets put some of these things into perspective-

Immigration-
Eliminating executive orders and enforcing existing laws aren't terribly extreme measures.

Historically Shitty Press Conference-
It was strange, and different; but thats what got him elected.  Non-Trump supporters are rattled by his unorthodox practices.

Working with Russia-
Reagan worked much more closely with Russia than Carter did, and look what happened- he ended the cold war.  I don't see Trump's end game with Russia, but I honestly don't see the current administration doing anything but making relations much worse.

Border Wall-
National security and regulating international trade were the two main reasons the Federal Gov't were created.  International trade is regulated through tariffs- these tariffs are used to pay for things of national importance.  If Trump imposes additional tariffs on Mexican goods to promote national security by way of the border, that would be a great use of the Federal Gov't.  It would also provide a deterrent for companies to leave the US and move operations to Mexico.

Sticking with the trend of this post and taking a mini-break from trolling- The majority of the time, Trump fails to articulate these points.  He uses vague language and looks for applause inducing one-liners.  It shakes up his base and works well at the big rallies.  It takes a bit of digging to get to the meat and potatoes of his plans, but the details are there.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 14, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Anti-Vaxxing? You're still talking about anti-vaccines? That was SO 12 hours ago.
> 
> 
> While you are all arguing whether vaccines cause autism, PE Trump is already talking sweeping immigration changes "day one", ignoring world reactions to his historically shitty press conference, and is apparently open to working with the country he admitted to hacking us. Hell, he's even asked the Army Corps of Engineers for advice on his border wall- cause you know, with a 3 theater international war going on, ignoring intelligence briefings and asking how America can pay for a wall (with a Mexican IOU, of course) is a priority.
> ...



I'm afraid we have three named operations going on, we haven't been at War...in a long time, perhaps we need a Congress with balls.  And I think we can curtail the Syrian front, immediately.

So instead of being a stoic he's more similar to you, regular joe on the line.  No issues with that, Truman was closer to regular guy than most, and he turned out ok.  Hell, everyone tries to say that Trump is a business failure, of which he is not.  Truman was a business failure, Trump is a success, irregard to what he started with.

During the Cold War we may have been adversaries in a Bi-Polar world with Russia, but the red phone was used often, the Soviet Ambassador was called for an audience often with every president.  Because engagement with your most powerful enemy is important.  I get all the bullshit about how they're our most powerful threat, but truly, what is the most direct threat to both our ways of life?  Because if radical Islam is not #1, I have some folks resting that would enjoy you explaining that to them.

For the border wall, it already exists in most places, you just have to connect it.



Etype said:


> Lets put some of these things into perspective-
> 
> Border Wall-
> National security and regulating international trade were the two main reasons the Federal Gov't were created.  International trade is regulated through tariffs- these tariffs are used to pay for things of national importance.  If Trump imposes additional tariffs on Mexican goods to promote national security by way of the border, that would be a great use of the Federal Gov't.  It would also provide a deterrent for companies to leave the US and move operations to Mexico.



Tariffs on US Companies that decide to build their shit somewhere else but the US is still the primary market...whoda thunk that incentives would keep them here.  I mean we used protectionist policies to prop up US Steel forever, but then US and National Steel failed to innovate at home which made Chinese Steel still competitive after the tariffs.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 14, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm afraid we have three named operations going on, we haven't been at War...in a long time, perhaps we need a Congress with balls.  And I think we can curtail the Syrian front, immediately.
> 
> So instead of being a stoic he's more similar to you, regular joe on the line.  No issues with that, Truman was closer to regular guy than most, and he turned out ok.  Hell, everyone tries to say that Trump is a business failure, of which he is not.  Truman was a business failure, Trump is a success, irregard to what he started with.
> 
> ...


I'll say he owns the news cycle well, like no one else. If that's a compliment, not sure. 

Don't really care about PE Trump's success or failure as a business man at this point, I care that he prioritizes issues important to his constituents appropriately. I don't care if he's successful or a failure; every minute spent on his businesses is a minute not spent on serving the American people. That's unacceptable to me. _Can _we curtail the Syrian front? Is that a priority to you? Is the Syrian front a larger priority than tet-a-tet's with actresses and border walls and replacing the ACA? 

As to your bolded- this probably isn't the place to play that card.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 14, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> As to your bolded- this probably isn't the place to play that card.



Agree.


----------



## Poccington (Jan 14, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> What's the act?  If you remove food stamp programs at the federal and state levels...will the people work, or will they starve?



You're missing the point.

The Government in a functioning society is not going to let its citizens starve, simple as that. 

If you wish to live in a country where you either have money or starve, pop on over to Africa, I'm sure somewhere will take you in.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Jan 14, 2017)

Since we're all walking the emotional line of international politics, here's a friendly reminder to keep it respectful.


----------



## Etype (Jan 14, 2017)

Poccington said:


> If you wish to live in a country where you either have money or starve, pop on over to Africa, I'm sure somewhere will take you in.


Are you somehow under the impression that food stamps are preventing people from starving to death?

If you are, you are mistaken.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 14, 2017)

We interrupt this important debate to bring you this message from  Hollywood -

"They" will survive Trump.

_"God bless America"_ . <assuming you can still say that>

Celebrities come under fire from Trump supporters for 'I Will Survive' | Daily Mail Online






*We now return you to our in-progress topic at hand.  *

*"Foodstamps...temporary subsidy for those down on their luck, or yet another government handout for lazy Americans and illegals who don't want to work"  

<cause obviously it cannot be somewhere in the middle>*


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 14, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> We interrupt this important debate to bring you this message from  Hollywood -
> 
> "They" will survive Trump.
> 
> ...


If there's one trend that's always been a trend that I wish wasn't, it's hollywood doing crap like this, for either side. So dumb.


----------



## Poccington (Jan 14, 2017)

Etype said:


> Are you somehow under the impression that food stamps are preventing people from starving to death?
> 
> If you are, you are mistaken.



Nope.

I addressed a post which proposed the notion that if you withdrew the majority of welfare programes, people would either work or die and if they died, that's their fault... A proposal which has no basis in reality.

As I've said already, that's just not how a functioning society works and rightly so.



amlove21 said:


> If there's one trend that's always been a trend that I wish wasn't, it's hollywood doing crap like this, for either side. So dumb.



All their money and Twitter followers has given them a massively skewed idea of just how important their opinion is.

Clowns.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 14, 2017)

Poccington said:


> All their money and Twitter followers has given them a massively skewed idea of just how important their opinion is.
> 
> Clowns.


I mean, I guess I understand (to a point) that they're private citizens as well, and they have opinions about politics or  world events or whatever, but access to broadcasting their opinions and their opinions being somehow more valid or deserving of such attention are two different things. 

Clowns is about right- I pay you to entertain me, just entertain me. I don't *actually* care about you as a person.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 14, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Clowns is about right- I pay you to entertain me, just entertain me. I don't *actually* care about you as a person.



I thought I had read that not all that long ago, actors/clowns/performers used to be lowest on the society totem pole.  Assuming that to be true, I have to imagine that began to change when the first motion pictures came out - 

Interesting when you really think about it, they really are like a form of royalty to more of America than not.


----------



## Etype (Jan 14, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Nope.
> 
> I addressed a post which proposed the notion that if you withdrew the majority of welfare programes, people would either work or die and if they died, that's their fault... A proposal which has no basis in reality.
> 
> As I've said already, that's just not how a functioning society works and rightly so.


Government does not equal society, it's just a facet of it.

Before social welfare programs, we had churches, charities, families, and more hard workers.  No one was starving to death, however, they may have been uncomfortable- which is a catalyst for change.


----------



## AWP (Jan 14, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I mean, I guess I understand (to a point) that they're private citizens as well, and they have opinions about politics or  world events or whatever, but access to broadcasting their opinions and their opinions being somehow more valid or deserving of such attention are two different things.



It is essentially a bully pulpit and we clamor for the privilege of hearing their views.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 14, 2017)

AWP said:


> It is essentially a bully pulpit and we clamor for the privilege of hearing their views.



I think it is so funny how when Denzel Washington says something the right agrees with it is fine, or even encouraged, Meryl Streep runs her suck and it is the end of the fucking world.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 14, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think it is so funny how when Denzel Washington says something the right agrees with it is fine, or even encouraged, Meryl Streep runs her suck and it is the end of the fucking world.


Same thing for the left, it is what the media focuses on that day.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 14, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think it is so funny how when Denzel Washington says something the right agrees with it is fine, or even encouraged, Meryl Streep runs her suck and it is the end of the fucking world.



You did not reference anything specific so I am assuming you are talking about the anti-Hillary crowd (I won't say pro-Trump, because I'm struggling to fall into that category), and their claim that Denzel came out against Streep?   What's funny about that is his quote is from nearly a month ago; these stupid ass "fake news" sites picked it up and portrayed it is current.

And of course my more conservative brethren take it as gospel without fact checking.  Why is that?  Because Denzel is black and it feels good to have him on "our" side.  Please, the fact that Denzel is black and said what he said is what caused me to fact-check in the first place.  I could in no way see a way that he would go after her, and he did not.

Regarding Streep -

While not the end of the world, it was these two quotes from her speech that pissed me off a bit:
_
"So Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. And if we kick 'em all out, you'll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts."  _
What she (and most of Hollywood forget), is that a large number of the people who buy tickets to their movies would be very happy  to chooses football and MMA over Hollywood's "art"

_When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose._
Entertainers have been using their powerful positions to bully those whom they do not agree with for decades.  It has been a while since their lectures have fallen on resentful ears, that must be hard for them.

I wish Trump would get the F off of Twitter.  Some, even some on this site have said that they like his 'unfiltered' comments vs. what the filtered media reports.  Just my personal opinion, but I think when you become President, a little filtering is okay.

To add - If I never hear the words "fake news" again, it will be too soon.

To add part 2:  I try not to take quotes out of context, and believe I did not do so to Ms. Streep, but if you are curious, here is her full speech.  (Text)

What did Meryl Streep say about Donald Trump at Golden Globes? President-elect responds


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 15, 2017)

I've always found it funny that anyone would put any weight behind someone's opinion, who makes their living pretending to be someone else. That's like listening to the opinion of a MMA fighter about quantum physics, they probably wouldn't be using their head as a punching bag if they actually had a clue. 

These are filthy rich people, who have zero clue what it is like to be common, if they did, they wouldn't say the stupid shit that comes out of their mouths.  Meanwhile, you have a shit load of rock heads who follow their bullshit like the word of god. 

I actually know a couple of very wealthy people, that will give the spill of government assistance programs and helping the poor. They do so because it's a conversation piece with their rich friends to boost their selfesteem, and they will toss into your less fortunate face the same way people claim to not be racist by having a black friend.  However, the second you ask why they don't donate their worth and salary to the poor, they will come back with how hard they worked for it and how anyone can make it, they just have to put in the work. Oh, wait yeah how about that, your proud of your accomplishment of wealth, but would rather keep the poor lazy and fat on government handouts. Yeah, let's see these crybaby actors donate every single cent they have to the poor. Not just the tax break worthy charity, all of it. Than maybe I'll give a fuck about what they have to say...


----------



## Etype (Jan 15, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> However, the second you ask why they don't donate their worth and salary to the poor, they will come back with how hard they worked for it and how anyone can make it, they just have to put in the work...


It's a valid point.

Also, a lot of folks don't see any reason to donate to charity when govt redistribution of wealth through social welfare programs is already forcing them to.


----------



## CDG (Jan 15, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Yeah, let's see these crybaby actors donate every single cent they have to the poor. Not just the tax break worthy charity, all of it. Than maybe I'll give a fuck about what they have to say...



Man, I don't give a shit about what an actor has to say ever.  But this is a ridiculous thing to say.  I don't expect anyone, with any amount of money, to donate it.  It's a nicety that they do.  But to act as though wealthy people are obligated to give away a shitload of their money is crazy. They did work for it, regardless of anyone's personal opinion on how valuable that work is. I could never be an actor.  The years of living broke and focusing everything on trying to make a dream happen?  I have goals for my career in the military, but if I am never able to achieve them, I'm still getting paid twice a month, have great benefits, and a retirement plan.  A lot of actors spend years working wherever they can, supplementing income by waiting tables, parking cars, bartending, whatever.  They have student debt and a dream of making it big.  So while I don't agree with a lot of their politics, and while I think we put celebrities on way too high of a pedestal, they aren't subhuman pieces of shit who don't deserve the wealth they worked for.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 15, 2017)

CDG said:


> Man, I don't give a shit about what an actor has to say ever.  But this is a ridiculous thing to say.  I don't expect anyone, with any amount of money, to donate it.  It's a nicety that they do.  But to act as though wealthy people are obligated to give away a shitload of their money is crazy. They did work for it, regardless of anyone's personal opinion on how valuable that work is. I could never be an actor.  The years of living broke and focusing everything on trying to make a dream happen?  I have goals for my career in the military, but if I am never able to achieve them, I'm still getting paid twice a month, have great benefits, and a retirement plan.  A lot of actors spend years working wherever they can, supplementing income by waiting tables, parking cars, bartending, whatever.  They have student debt and a dream of making it big.  So while I don't agree with a lot of their politics, and while I think we put celebrities on way too high of a pedestal, they aren't subhuman pieces of shit who don't deserve the wealth they worked for.



I don't disagree with anything you said. I don't expect anyone to donate all of their wealth either. I also don't expect the government to donate the national wealth either. My point is that actors talk a good game, want the government to all sorts of things, but are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is (unless of course they are getting a tax break for it). I don't view them as sub-human, I just think they are all fake ass people living in a false reality.


----------



## CDG (Jan 15, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I don't disagree with anything you said. I don't expect anyone to donate all of their wealth either. I also don't expect the government to donate the national wealth either. My point is that actors talk a good game, want the government to all sorts of things, but are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is (unless of course they are getting a tax break for it). I don't view them as sub-human, I just think they are all fake ass people living in a false reality.



I don't disagree with this post at all.  It's not just actors that do that though.  Remember #BringBackOurGirls? Actors are a microcosm of the society that creates them.


----------



## Etype (Jan 15, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> We interrupt this important debate to bring you this message from  Hollywood -
> 
> "They" will survive Trump.
> 
> ...


Fuckin' drama nerds. Remember these dorks from high school?


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 15, 2017)

One thing I am absolutely looking forward to, not only in the first 100 days but for a possible longer time, is the punchlines. SNL hasn't been funny in a while, I am glad they're back.

Watch Donald Trump Press Conference Cold Open from Saturday Night Live on NBC.com

It won't let me embed, so just follow the link, natch.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 15, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


>




Hate because I like the Hate, Mr Kraut.

PS. Whenever I adjust the thermostat in my home, I always call Leonardo DiCaprio because he's so smart about science and politics, just like all the other rich, coddled, spoiled, obscenely overpaid, undereducated and entirely detached from the real world Hollywood stars.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 15, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> One thing I am absolutely looking forward to, not only in the first 100 days but for a possible longer time, is the punchlines. SNL hasn't been funny in a while, I am glad they're back.
> 
> Watch Donald Trump Press Conference Cold Open from Saturday Night Live on NBC.com
> 
> It won't let me embed, so just follow the link, natch.


Still not funny.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 15, 2017)

Yeah well I suppose it won't be funny if you're face down in the dirt bowing to the almighty. 

I thought it was pretty good.


----------



## Etype (Jan 15, 2017)

The best punchline comes on Friday.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 15, 2017)

Pretty solid introspection from the liberal rag itself: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/opinion/sorry-liberals-bigotry-didnt-elect-donald-trump.html


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 16, 2017)

The list of performers at the inauguration has been announced: Toby Keith, 3 Doors Down to play inauguration concert - CNN.com

Including:
-Toby Keith
-Three Doors Down
-Lee Greenwood
-The Piano Guys
-The Frontmen of Country (who?)
-The Mormon Tabernacle Choir
-Radio City Music Hall Rockettes*
-Missouri State University Chorale
-And Jackie Evanco, runner-up on America's Got Talent, will sing the national anthem

*Apparently the performance will not be mandatory for all Rockette performers, so who knows how many will be there.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 16, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> The list of performers at the inauguration has been announced: Toby Keith, 3 Doors Down to play inauguration concert - CNN.com
> 
> Including:
> -Toby Keith
> ...


That list is great. He got the BEST bands. Great bands. And singers? The best singers. He got all the best singers.

Three Doors Down sold more records than every band in the world this year, if you don't count the illegals that bought Metallica's album. They won by a landslide.



ThunderHorse said:


> Still not funny.


No? Maybe just not your type of humor then, sir.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> No? Maybe just not your type of humor then, sir.


I'm just real tired of satirists not going after both sides with the same punches.  So if this is all that is on SNL for the next four years I'll continue to not watch as SNL hasn't done anything before this last year to get me a regular.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 16, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm just real tired of satirists not going after both sides with the same punches.  So if this is all that is on SNL for the next four years I'll continue to not watch as SNL hasn't done anything before this last year to get me a regular.


Have you ever heard of "punching up" in comedy?  The idea is that good comedy comes from satirizing the rich, the powerful, or people who are otherwise doing well in life.  SNL has always satirized the sitting president (Dana Carvey as Bush 1, Daryl Hammond as Clinton, Will Ferrel as GWB, Jay Pharaoh as Obama, etc) since its inception.  Hell, they've been taking shots at Trump since the 90's, so why stop now?

They've gotten very lucky with this administration in two regards:
1. The administration is providing them tons of material.  Hell, Trump's inevitable post-SNL tweet is is just bonus entertainment.  Like, c'mon.  Regardless of what you think of the man's policies, can you not agree that he has incredibly thin skin?  The guy gets offended more often than a college liberal!  While I agree that some of it feels kind of cheap, SNL more than makes up for it because...
2. Alec Baldwin's impersonation is really, really funny.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 16, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> Have you ever heard of "punching up" in comedy?  The idea is that good comedy comes from satirizing the rich, the powerful, or people who are otherwise doing well in life.  SNL has always satirized the sitting president (Dana Carvey as Bush 1, Daryl Hammond as Clinton, Will Ferrel as GWB, Jay Pharaoh as Obama, etc) since its inception.  Hell, they've been taking shots at Trump since the 90's, so why stop now?
> 
> They've gotten very lucky with this administration in two regards:
> 1. The administration is providing them tons of material.  Hell, Trump's inevitable post-SNL tweet is is just bonus entertainment.  Like, c'mon.  Regardless of what you think of the man's policies, can you not agree that he has incredibly thin skin?  The guy gets offended more often than a college liberal!  While I agree that some of it feels kind of cheap, SNL more than makes up for it because...
> 2. Alec Baldwin's impersonation is really, really funny.



They've done a very poor job of punching hard at THIS administration, but then again they'll cater to their own views and that of their viewers rather than expanding the brain.  Their criticism of Obama has been poor, just like Stewart became a huge cheerleader of the left rather than giving the viewer a 60/40.  I got it, their slant is to the left just like the majority of the media.  But without a middle ground it is extremely un-entertaining, because perhaps Republicans want to laugh too!


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 16, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> They've done a very poor job of punching hard at THIS administration, but then again they'll cater to their own views and that of their viewers rather than expanding the brain.  Their criticism of Obama has been poor, just like Stewart became a huge cheerleader of the left rather than giving the viewer a 60/40.  I got it, their slant is to the left just like the majority of the media.  But without a middle ground it is extremely un-entertaining, because perhaps Republicans want to laugh too!


I feel like you haven't actually watched a lot of either show.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 16, 2017)

I've watched plenty to develop an opinion.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 16, 2017)

You might like this one


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 16, 2017)

I watched about half of the Trump parody.  I though it was dumb as hell, and about on a qualitative par with what SNL has recently put out about Pres. Obama in the recent past.  Hot garbage.  Maybe it's because I don't have a sense of humor, or maybe I don't like a dozen straight "piss joke" gags related to a disgusting rumor of an event that never even happened.

At least this episode's overtly political message didn't make the audience start crying and feeling sorry for themselves.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 16, 2017)

No Democrat in office to influence: Clinton Global Initiative to Close Amid Drop in Foreign Donations


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 16, 2017)

^this is interesting, and something I'm going to follow closely.  It would seem reasonable that with both Clintons out of office and with a whole bunch of time on their hands, their charities and initiatives would take off.  Unless...


----------



## Etype (Jan 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> That list is great. He got the BEST bands. Great bands. And singers? The best singers. He got all the best singers.
> 
> Three Doors Down sold more records than every band in the world this year, if you don't count the illegals that bought Metallica's album. They won by a landslide.





amlove21 said:


> No? Maybe just not your type of humor then, sir.





amlove21 said:


> View attachment 17756



^Google image search result for 'bitter troll'^


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 16, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm just real tired of satirists not going after both sides with the same punches.  So if this is all that is on SNL for the next four years I'll continue to not watch as SNL hasn't done anything before this last year to get me a regular.


I think we talked about it, but at this point it's just the amount of material out there. Will Ferrell did pretty well for himself simply by poking fun at Pres Bush for like 8 years, if I remember. But you're right, one side of this thing is getting it way more frequently than the other.

Anyway, I will agree that I don't watch SNL regularly and even the current stuff probably won't convince me to tune in weekly.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2017)

SNL has sucked for about 10 years now. But even back then it wasn't near as good as the 90's.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 16, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> SNL has sucked for about 10 years now. But even back then it wasn't near as good as the 90's.


TBH, unless Jimmy Fallon was giggling through a sketch or Will Ferrell was walking around in an American Flag speedo, it really wasn't even all that funny in the early 2000's either. I'm gona agree on the 90's being the last time it was actually relevant and funny as a standard. There are ok sketches now, but they're the exception.

I laughed like an idiot at this one.

saturday night live ryan gosling aliens - Bing video


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 16, 2017)

I think the cast was amazing from 2011-2014. Fred Armisen, Kristen Wiig, Keenan Thompson... there were a lot of great comedians and performers on the show.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 16, 2017)

C'mon now!  This sketch has to be the funniest that SNL has produced in the better part of 10 years.  And look who they're lambasting!


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 16, 2017)

The hate is for SNL not making it available here. 

Cunts.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 16, 2017)

No way.....Bruce Willis Navy SEAL!!!!


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 16, 2017)

SNL was great in the early days (late 70's?)
Bass-O-matic with Dan Akroyd is a classic.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 16, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> SNL was great in the early days (late 70's?)
> Bass-O-matic with Dan Akroyd is a classic.



Jane & John doing the news, Gilda- Anna Rosanna Danner, John as Samurai Option, Chevy Chase doing anything, and Bill Murray the sleazy Lounge Singer.

Yup, the classic SNL.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 16, 2017)

File this under double standard - our resident liberals here excluded, between my sister, my mom, and most of the people I work with, it really makes me regret being subdued during the Obama years for fear of being called a racist.   Fuck, now for supporting anyone but Hillary, and not joining their pink-safetypin cry ins, I'm still a racist.




Protesters caught plotting to shut down Trump inauguration | Daily Mail Online

_Activists who oppose President-elect Donald Trump were caught on camera in an undercover video discussing ways to disrupt a gala celebrating his inauguration, including the use of butyric acid, better known as stink bombs.

An edited video, shot by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas, a conservative group known for conducting sting operations on liberals, that was released Monday shows three members of the D.C. Anti-Fascist Coalition brainstorming ways to shut down the inauguration eve DeploraBall in Washington, D.C.

'Yeah, if you had a pint of butyric acid, I don't care how big the building is, it's closing,' an anti-Trump activist, identified as Luke Kuhn in the video, says in the opening clip._


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 17, 2017)

Obama will commute the sentence of Chelsea Manning before leaving office.  Manning will be released in May, instead of 2045
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/...-sentence.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0



> WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday largely commuted the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the army intelligence analyst convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration, and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.
> 
> The decision by Mr. Obama rescued Ms. Manning, who twice tried to commit suicide last year, from an uncertain future as a transgender woman incarcerated at the male military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.
> 
> Now, under the terms of Mr. Obama’s commutation announced by the White House on Tuesday, Ms. Manning is set to be freed in five months, on May 17 of this year, rather than in 2045.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 17, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> Obama will commute the sentence of Chelsea Manning before leaving office.  Manning will be released in May, instead of 2045
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/...-sentence.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0



Ugh


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 17, 2017)

There's a wager I would have lost.  Wow.

Just this paragraph  alone:

_The disclosures set off a frantic scramble as Obama administration officials sought to minimize any potential harm, including getting to safety some foreigners in dangerous countries who were identified as having helped American troops or diplomats. Prosecutors, however, presented no evidence that anyone was killed because of the leaks._


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 17, 2017)

One small silver lining


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 17, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> One small silver lining



Everything I've read so far says that Obama technically cannot do anything for Snowden (or Bergdahl) because they have not been formally charged yet or gone thru the legal process.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 17, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> One small silver lining


Joke's on Obama.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Everything I've read so far says that Obama technically cannot do anything for Manning (or Bergdahl) because they have not been formally charged yet or gone thru the legal process.



Manning was charged, hence his sentence.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 17, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Manning was charged, hence his sentence.



I meant Snowden, not Manning.  Thanks for pointing that out.

Democrats and media (I repeat myself) better not say another damn word about Hillary and how evil Wikileaks is. 

Period. 

Stuff this down their throat the next time you hear one spout off on 'election being influenced'. If Wikileaks is evil, you don't commute the sentence of a guy for giving them confidential, secret and top secret information.

Unreal.  Just  unreal.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> File this under double standard - our resident liberals here excluded, between my sister, my mom, and most of the people I work with, it really makes me regret being subdued during the Obama years for fear of being called a racist.   Fuck, now for supporting anyone but Hillary, and not joining their pink-safetypin cry ins, I'm still a racist.
> 
> View attachment 17762
> 
> ...



I wouldn't put too much stock in project veritas allegations given their history of fabrication - and being caught fabricating this story: Counter-Sting Catches James O'Keefe Network Attempting To Sow Chaos At Trump's Inauguration | The Huffington Post

Maybe there will be violent protests - the article is from Huffpost after all, but I wouldn't take project veritas' word on it.

As far as the Manning thing goes, there is no excuse in my book.  I think almost all the allegations I've seen lobbed at President Obama on this board are bullshit - this one is not.  If I could go back and change my vote from 2012 based on this I would.  This is the most disgusting act of President Obama's tenure in my view.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Everything I've read so far says that Obama technically cannot do anything for Snowden (or Bergdahl) because they have not been formally charged yet or gone thru the legal process.



Negative brother, pre-emptive Presidential pardons are totally a thing.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 17, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Negative brother, pre-emptive Presidential pardons are totally a thing.



Nixon being a very good example.  I even thought of him, but somehow dismissed him.

Nothing will surprise me now...absolutely nothing.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 17, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Negative brother, pre-emptive Presidential pardons are totally a thing.


I learned that today myself. Crazy.

Pres Obama was basically quoted as saying, "Snowden hasn't presented himself before the court or applied for clemency so I am not even considering it."


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 17, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I wouldn't put too much stock in project veritas allegations given their history of fabrication - and being caught fabricating this story: Counter-Sting Catches James O'Keefe Network Attempting To Sow Chaos At Trump's Inauguration | The Huffington Post
> 
> Maybe there will be violent protests - the article is from Huffpost after all, but I wouldn't take project veritas' word on it.
> 
> As far as the Manning thing goes, there is no excuse in my book.  I think almost all the allegations I've seen lobbed at President Obama on this board are bullshit - this one is not.  If I could go back and change my vote from 2012 based on this I would.  This is the most disgusting act of President Obama's tenure in my view.


Has the unedited version of the Veritas video from the campaign season come out yet?  I'm surprised at how quickly this one came out.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Nixon being a very good example.  I even thought of him, but somehow dismissed him.
> 
> Nothing will surprise me now...absolutely nothing.


I think it was Bill Simmons who coined the term, but we are firmly in the Tyson Zone.

Remember when Mike Tyson went through that stretch where you heard so many crazy things going on that you had to immediately believe the insane things you heard because he was just on a tear of unrivaled proportions?

That's where I am with politics.

If you told me PE Trump found Buddha, and both parties disbanded and world peace broke out, I would literally just go, "Huh. Crazy."


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 17, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> Has the unedited version of the Veritas video from the campaign season come out yet?  I'm surprised at how quickly this one came out.



No, I don't believe so.  The only unedited version of any project veritas video I'm aware actually came out was the ACORN related ones - because of legal action.  In that case every single allegation turned out to be misleading or outright fraudulent i.e. the dude supposedly condoning prostitution played along to get as much information as he could, then immediately called the police and reported everything.  To my knowledge only the heavily edited versions of their other videos have been released.  In fairness, if the Huffpost article can be believed, it sounds like that's exactly what this other group is trying to do back to project veritas - which is also fucked up.

To me it exemplifies the 'post-truth' era.  As long as someone says something that meets your general disposition - the actual facts of the case are irrelevant.  Obama was born in Kenya - well no he wasn't but he still shouldn't be President.  HRC and her aides run a child prostitution ring - well, no they don't but I hate them and they're criminals so whatever.  PE Trump is a Russian agent - well, no he's not but he's corrupt and terrible.  Kind of ironic that in the era of anti-PC, with PC being defined as being too soft and concerned with feelings, most of our political opinions and news end up being driven by our 'feelings' - with evidence as a distant afterthought.


----------



## AWP (Jan 17, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> Obama will commute the sentence of Chelsea Manning before leaving office.  Manning will be released in May, instead of 2045



We just saw this in my shop. The chorus line of "what the fucks" echoed around the room. It is insulting to pardon that turd and gives ammo to the "Obama hates America/ the military" crowd. Fuck Mannings, even Peyton and Eli.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 17, 2017)

AWP said:


> We just saw this in my shop. The chorus line of "what the fucks" echoed around the room. It is insulting to pardon that turd and gives ammo to the "Obama hates America/ the military" crowd. Fuck Mannings, even Peyton and Eli.



I just hope that Bergdahl is not next.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 17, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I think it was Bill Simmons who coined the term, but we are firmly in the Tyson Zone.
> 
> Remember when Mike Tyson went through that stretch where you heard so many crazy things going on that you had to immediately believe the insane things you heard because he was just on a tear of unrivaled proportions?
> 
> ...


Ditto. Somehow I think this sums up the feelings of a quite a few people, both on the left and right.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 17, 2017)

AWP said:


> We just saw this in my shop. The chorus line of "what the fucks" echoed around the room. It is insulting to pardon that turd and gives ammo to the "Obama hates America/ the military" crowd. Fuck Mannings, even Peyton and Eli.


He also pardoned General Carter, somebody was the sacrificial lamb for the rank and file.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 18, 2017)

Huh. I decided to do a bit of digging and try to figure out why he (Obama) did this. 

Mistake.

Now I'm back to being as pissed off today as I was yesterday.  I have some words to say about President Obama, but out of respect to the rule that we do not insult/degrade/or otherwise disrespect the sitting Commander-in-Chief, the rest of my rant will have to wait until sometime Friday.  Til then, I'll just leave this here:


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh. I decided to do a bit of digging and try to figure out why he (Obama) did this.
> 
> Mistake.
> 
> ...



The manning pardon by obama  is just so bad. There is still time for a few more.

This musical piece was played at the British surrender at Yorktown, and it is so fitting to hear it again; "The World Turned Upside Down":


----------



## AWP (Jan 18, 2017)

"Wikileaker?" GTFO. Wikileaker sounds so much better than some of the alternatives I suppose....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh. I decided to do a bit of digging and try to figure out why he (Obama) did this.
> 
> Mistake.
> 
> ...


Was given a long sentence, didn't even serve 40% of it...shitty rationale.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 18, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Was given a long sentence, didn't even serve 40% of it...shitty rationale.



6 years of a 35 year sentence is less than 20% - maybe check out the calculator thread...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 18, 2017)

Uh, yeah, I can do math.  If you look at the attachment posted by @Ooh-Rah it says part of the rational was that he already served six years of a very long sentence...well, he obviously wasn't in jail for a very long time if he was given a very long sentence.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 18, 2017)

Color me shocked....


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 18, 2017)

Well there's a fucking surprise.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Color me shocked....
> 
> View attachment 17771


*SHOCKED*


----------



## CQB (Jan 18, 2017)

I wish JA would quite grandstanding, but I digress. Some commentary and figures in the link below are interesting. 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/anach...-whom-they-voted-against-20170111-gtpgmz.html


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 18, 2017)

This guy...calling third party votes rubbish...the Electoral College has been a part of a system that has kept this great nation a Republic for 228 years under the Constitution.  Within that time, the French have gone through Five separate Republics.

So because Trump won all of the small states he's going to mourn the US...what a guy!


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 18, 2017)

Terrible analogy.


----------



## CQB (Jan 18, 2017)

I don't agree with his final position but the figures are interesting when compared to the British result in a first past the post system. One of my lecturers was given the task in-country of explaining democracy to the local Arab population, needless to say, he said it was difficult for them to get it. I add that if a horse wins the Melbourne Cup by a nose, it still wins.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 18, 2017)

I mean, the quick and dirty is simple.  It's 50 separate popular contests.  The best way to explain it is rounds of a fight or a sport where you have a seven game series. Which has probably been mentioned.


----------



## CQB (Jan 19, 2017)

The electoral college system looks needlessly complex to me, when compared with the Brits, which is a truer reflection of the will of the people. The author made this point but not very clearly. I'm not disputing the result, it is what it is, but there are wiser heads than mine who consider the electoral college system needs some reform.


----------



## Etype (Jan 19, 2017)

CQB said:


> The electoral college system looks needlessly complex to me, when compared with the Brits, which is a truer reflection of the will of the people. The author made this point but not very clearly. I'm not disputing the result, it is what it is, but there are wiser heads than mine who consider the electoral college system needs some reform.


We aren't a democracy, we are a republic. Additionally, we have a federal government and not a national government.

The electoral college recognizes states' rights alongside the popular vote.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 19, 2017)

CQB said:


> The electoral college system looks needlessly complex to me, when compared with the Brits, which is a truer reflection of the will of the people. The author made this point but not very clearly. I'm not disputing the result, it is what it is, but there are wiser heads than mine who consider the electoral college system needs some reform.



I think @Marauder06 talked about this in another thread in more detail but essentially the electoral college keeps large states from dominating smaller states.  The same principles run through our bicameral legislature - with the Senate serving to put all states on an equal footing and until a few years ago the seniority system in both houses allowing smaller states to achieve parity of legislative power by having higher incumbent rates.  I think the dynamic of urban vs rural is putting more pressure on the electoral system now than the big state vs little state dynamic - but that's just my opinion.


----------



## CQB (Jan 19, 2017)

Etype said:


> We aren't a democracy, we are a republic. Additionally, we have a federal government and not a national government.
> 
> The electoral college recognizes states' rights alongside the popular vote.



Interesting, but does the popular vote count? It looks like a consolation prize, as it doesn't look like it it had a direct bearing on the result.


----------



## Etype (Jan 19, 2017)

CQB said:


> Interesting, but does the popular vote count? It looks like a consolation prize, as it doesn't look like it it had a direct bearing on the result.


States get one vote in the electoral college for each senator and each representative they have.

Each state has two senators, regardless of size.  There are 435 representatives, which are subdivided into congressional districts by population. Therefore, states have different numbers of representatives based on size. California has over 50 representatives, whereas several states have only one.

States give their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state. Small states still have a voice because of the fixed number of senators, while states with a large population have a louder voice due to their number of representatives.

The popular vote across the whole country is irrelevant.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 19, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I think @Marauder06 talked about this in another thread in more detail but essentially the electoral college keeps large states from dominating smaller states.  The same principles run through our bicameral legislature - with the Senate serving to put all states on an equal footing and until a few years ago the seniority system in both houses allowing smaller states to achieve parity of legislative power by having higher incumbent rates.  I think the dynamic of urban vs rural is putting more pressure on the electoral system now than the big state vs little state dynamic - but that's just my opinion.



Right on.  It's exactly why he won the EC, but lost the popular vote...because the difference in the popular vote came from California alone.  He needed several "red" states to secure the same amount of EC votes he would lose California by, even if doing so he could not gain popular votes.

As for the Senate, remember, just 100 years ago, Senators were appointed, not elected.  Think of how much messier this would all be if they were still appointed.


----------



## CQB (Jan 19, 2017)

It seems very complex when put beside a first past the post system.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 19, 2017)

CQB said:


> It seems very complex when put beside a first past the post system.



It_ is_ complex.  I have a degree in political science; I had a whole semester dedicated to it, and I am sure there things about the system I don't understand.  Hell, the talking heads on TV with PhDs can't agree on it.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 19, 2017)

Etype said:


> ...The popular vote across the whole country is irrelevant...




And this time it's a good goddam thing otherwise Jim Mattis would not be SECDEF and the liberals would have another four years to social-engineer the military right down the crapper.


----------



## CQB (Jan 19, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> It_ is_ complex.  I have a degree in political science; I had a whole semester dedicated to it, and I am sure there things about the system I don't understand.  Hell, the talking heads on TV with PhDs can't agree on it.



Just spitballing, but with your background, how could the current complexity be simplified?


----------



## ShadowSpear (Jan 19, 2017)

It's amazing that our forefathers had the foresight to come up with the system at that time.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 19, 2017)

ShadowSpear said:


> It's amazing that our forefathers had the foresight to come up with the system at that time.



I think given today's climate, the current group couldn't do it.  It was one of those moments in time, probably could have been done before, and certain can't be done now.

There are several good articles about just how much negotiation the forefathers had to do, how much compromise, to get what we got.



CQB said:


> Just spitballing, but with your background, how could the current complexity be simplified?



I am not sure it can be.  I think if we were to tweak anything, it would be a train wreck.  I think getting rid of the electoral college guarantees a democrat president for, oh, forever.  I think the singular best thing we could do to "improve" our system is to have term limits.


----------



## CQB (Jan 19, 2017)

That would be simple and effective, though I'm not sure I follow why it would mean a Democrat hold on the trophy. @Admin above mentioned the thought in coming up with the constitution, which given the time was amazing. When our Australian model was created there was a copy in our legislators back pocket of yours.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 19, 2017)

CQB said:


> That would be simple and effective, though I'm not sure I follow why it would mean a Democrat hold on the trophy. @Admin above mentioned the thought in coming up with the constitution, which given the time was amazing. When our Australian model was created there was a copy in our legislators back pocket of yours.



I think because most of the big population centers are heavily democratic because of demographics. Minorities, alternative life-style types, LGBTs, the young, the pseudo sophisticates, academics, tend to gravitate toward urban environments, primarily for jobs, art, culture etc. People out in the country, like me, are a bit more conservative and generally have country roots.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think as some pointed out previously, the all or nothing aspect of the electoral college could be improved. So in certain places you get a percentage of the votes, based on the margin.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think as some pointed out previously, the all or nothing aspect of the electoral college could be improved. So in certain places you get a percentage of the votes, based on the margin.



Maybe.  Something akin to proportional representation or even regional representation.  Tweaking, yes.  Wholesale abandonment, no.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think as some pointed out previously, the all or nothing aspect of the electoral college could be improved. So in certain places you get a percentage of the votes, based on the margin.


Personally, I think that this is the best near-term solution for the EC.  And really, it would benefit rural/conservative voters moreso than urban/liberal voters.  It would mean that you couldn't win, say, Nevada just by carrying the Las Vegas vote.  Or New York just with votes from the city.  I think that that factor along would make the vote truly proportional and representational.  However, one side effect that I can see is that it could potentially extend the campaign season even further back, as potential candidates would basically need to campaign everywhere.  I'm not sure if I'd be up for that.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 19, 2017)

ShadowSpear said:


> It's amazing that our forefathers had the foresight to come up with the system at that time.



One thing I think gets forgotten in this sentiment is how much has evolved and changed from the county's founding.  The role of the EC, how we select the president and vice president, the role of the states, definitely the role of the supreme court - all of those things shifted massively from what the framers enshrined.  To me one of the great/amazing things about our democracy is it's ability to evolve. 

It's something that really sticks out to me when I see glowing revisionist imaginings of different times in our history.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 19, 2017)

Do you know that they call a candidate who loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College?


President.


It's not that the popular vote isn't important; it's a good metric to measure the will of the people and establish how much of a mandate the incoming administration might have.  But if you want to live in the White House, better make sure you win those electoral votes.

Our system isn't designed to be efficient.  Speed in government contributes to rash decisions or to tyranny of the majority, both of which have disastrous long-term consequences.  I'm OK with the EC the way it is.

Sorry, I was responding to earlier posts without realizing they weren't the most recent ones in this thread.



Il Duce said:


> I think @Marauder06 talked about this in another thread in more detail but essentially the electoral college keeps large states from dominating smaller states.  The same principles run through our bicameral legislature - with the Senate serving to put all states on an equal footing and until a few years ago the seniority system in both houses allowing smaller states to achieve parity of legislative power by having higher incumbent rates.  I think the dynamic of urban vs rural is putting more pressure on the electoral system now than the big state vs little state dynamic - but that's just my opinion.


Where were you when I was trying to learn how to teach American Politics?  #GuestLecturer


----------



## Etype (Jan 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think as some pointed out previously, the all or nothing aspect of the electoral college could be improved. So in certain places you get a percentage of the votes, based on the margin.


Then it would mirror the popular vote, which is what the electoral college is intended to not do.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 19, 2017)

Etype said:


> Then it would mirror the popular vote, which is what the electoral college is intended to not do.



Not exactly. It would certainly help even it out in the big states, and would help make people feel like their votes matter.


----------



## Etype (Jan 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Not exactly. It would certainly help even it out in the big states, and would help make people feel like their votes matter.


Yeah, I put a bit more thought into it- you are right.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 19, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Sorry, I was responding to earlier posts without realizing they weren't the most recent ones in this thread.



That's ok, Obama will pardon you.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2017)

0630am and sitting here at my favorite breakfast haunt.  It happens to be located in the hub of the most liberal area of Minneapolis.  There are people sitting at the bar watching the TV's (all preset on FOX and CNN) and obviously VERY unamused with what is about to happen. There is never anyone here this early, so obviously this was a planned gathering.

Considering I threw on a pair of Kuhl pants that look way too much like 5.11 and wore my Marine Corps cap today, I get a "Fail" for situational awareness.

I'm waiting for 'them" to start yelling at me.  LOL



To add -

They have the volume up on MSNBC and the TV people  keep calling him president elect Trump. 

It's going to be like Fonzi trying to say "I'm Sorry" when they have to call him President Trump.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 20, 2017)

I wonder if the whole TDS/SJW is a small fraction of the overall DNC that's getting overplayed and overblown a la the Tea Party.  Every democrat I work with, although they are bummed, are resigned to the result and ready to just press on.  A couple even said that were they not working today they would watch the inauguration.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 20, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I wonder if the whole TDS/SJW is a small fraction of the overall DNC that's getting overplayed and overblown a la the Tea Party.  Every democrat I work with, although they are bummed, are resigned to the result and ready to just press on.  A couple even said that were they not working today they would watch the inauguration.



Do you have to wonder? More than half the people who voted voted the other way. That doesn't make them all whiner bitch-boys who identify as Mx.xxxx. People can be liberal or democrats and still do working class jobs. You don't have to be some effete elite to be a liberal.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Do you have to wonder? More than half the people who voted voted the other way. That doesn't make them all whiner bitch-boys who identify as Mx.xxxx. People can be liberal or democrats and still do working class jobs. You don't have to be some effete elite to be a liberal.



When all you see on TV, regardless of the network, is demonstrations regarding the illegitimacy of the presidency, all the democrat congressmen and senators "boycotting," then yeah, I do wonder.  Equal blame shared by the media and the DNC.

Maybe the more mainstream, non-whiner bitch-boys should tell their ideological colleagues to grow a pair, stop their bitching, and move on; much like a lot of us did to the Tea Party folks who were going off the deep end four and eight years ago.

Glad to know you're not one of them; the rational democrats seem few and far between.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 20, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> When all you see on TV, regardless of the network, is demonstrations regarding the illegitimacy of the presidency, all the democrat congressmen and senators "boycotting," then yeah, I do wonder.  Equal blame shared by the media and the DNC.
> 
> Maybe the more mainstream, non-whiner bitch-boys should tell their ideological colleagues to grow a pair, stop their bitching, and move on; much like a lot of us did to the Tea Party folks who were going off the deep end four and eight years ago.
> 
> Glad to know you're not one of them; the rational democrats seem few and far between.



Everyone protesting isn't protesting the "illegitimacy of the presidency". 

I have a hard time with your second paragraph, because honestly people have the freedom to protest the President. Many conservatives protested Obama, many are going to protest Trump. It is their right. I don't get telling them to stop. 

I am actually going to D.C. tomorrow with my wife for the women's march. So I guess I am some wacko SJW.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Everyone protesting isn't protesting the "illegitimacy of the presidency".
> 
> I have a hard time with your second paragraph, because honestly people have the freedom to protest the President. Many conservatives protested Obama, many are going to protest Trump. It is their right. I don't get telling them to stop.
> 
> I am actually going to D.C. tomorrow with my wife for the women's march. So I guess I am some wacko SJW.



See my last line, post 309.  I never suggested you are a wacko SJW.

But c'mon, you are a smart man.  There is a difference between protesting and rioting.

I suggested the past couple elections to my friends who are conservatives/Republicans that the Tea Party/knee-jerk ultra-right rhetoric or actions are not helpful for the GOP or any conservative, because we all get lumped into that basket.  I don't think it too much to "police our own."

If you see Jane Fonda tell her I said "hey."


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 20, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> .
> 
> Glad to know you're not one of them; the rational democrats seem few and far between.



This is an absurd statement to me. How many people voted democrat in the last election? 66 million? They are mostly lacking rational thought? Come on man. Thinking differently doesn't make you less rational. This is what is wrong in America today.

There are going to be something like 500k-1 million people in DC tomorrow protesting. If I see 1 shitbag, I'll definitely let you know.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 20, 2017)

When it comes to protests, I usually tell whoever I am talking with to "protest away." All I ever want from them is that they actually know "why" they are protesting. There are way too many "brain dead" protestors who when asked why they are there and what they are protesting, they simply look at me and say, "Because." I then tell them, "That's what I thought." 

Protesting is our right, I just want people to be able to provide a reason for why they are doing it. I like people to independently think for themselves rather than simply follow the herd.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This is an absurd statement to me. How many people voted democrat in the last election? 66 million? They are mostly lacking rational thought? Come on man. Thinking differently doesn't make you less rational. This is what is wrong in America today.
> 
> There are going to be something like 500k-1 million people in DC tomorrow protesting. If I see 1 shitbag, I'll definitely let you know.



I stick by my verbage, "seem."  I work at a hospital, an academic medical center, at a liberal university, in a liberal town.  Sometimes I feel like Custer.  I have been spat upon at Duke--yes, really--for merely being a veteran.  So I am not apologizing for or defending my statement that "rational democrats seem few and far between."


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 20, 2017)

Back to the topic. You can PM me if you want @Devildoc, but I don't want to drag this anymore off course


----------



## AWP (Jan 20, 2017)

Does anyone see Trump surviving 4 years? I'm not wishing that it happens by any stretch, but assassination or impeachment had to have crossed a few minds here.

Obama survived 8 years and he was very polarizing, but it seems to me Trump is even more so. I view impeachment as a more likely "Trump killer" vice an actual death, but how many think these are realistic possibilities...or am I being my usual pessimistic self?


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 20, 2017)

AWP said:


> Does anyone see Trump surviving 4 years? I'm not wishing that it happens by any stretch, but assassination or impeachment had to have crossed a few minds here.
> 
> Obama survived 8 years and he was very polarizing, but it seems to me Trump is even more so. I view impeachment as a more likely "Trump killer" vice an actual death, but how many think these are realistic possibilities...or am I being my usual pessimistic self?



I see him surviving by the skin of his teeth. I just don't see the other two happening.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 20, 2017)

AWP said:


> Does anyone see Trump surviving 4 years? I'm not wishing that it happens by any stretch, but assassination or impeachment had to have crossed a few minds here.
> 
> Obama survived 8 years and he was very polarizing, but it seems to me Trump is even more so. I view impeachment as a more likely "Trump killer" vice an actual death, but how many think these are realistic possibilities...or am I being my usual pessimistic self?



I don't see him surviving four years, and to be specific, ousted by impeachment.  If he let his handlers do their job all would be well, but with his ego and his seeming insistency to venture outside the yard on his own, he is going to do something stupid and potentially illegal.

It kind of reminds me of that meme that says, "If I was a Jedi and I had the force, there would a 100% chance I would use the force inappropriately."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2017)

Just once, Mr. Trump....button your suit coat jacket.  :wall:

I like very much that Bible passages are still read at this ceremony.

From the "God I hope I'm wrong department",  but I pray that we have not just elected President Underwood...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 20, 2017)

I think all liberals are loons, especially @TLDR20.

Rational thinking and American politics do not intersect anywhere for either party. There is nothing rational coming out of DC. And yes the marches, demonstrations and protests are silly and stupid IMHO, but everyone has a right to do it, so have fun.

My biggest bitch right now, is waiting on this fucking brisket to finishing smoking. The "he's finally gone" party starts at 5pm.


----------



## Etype (Jan 20, 2017)

President Donald J. Trump!!!


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 20, 2017)

I didn't love his speech.  I get the need to highlight the separation, why he's going to be different, but man, he was belligerent.  I would have liked to have heard more "coming together".  Regardless, he is who he is, and he didn't say anything he hasn't been saying.


----------



## Etype (Jan 20, 2017)

I rather enjoyed the unapologetic, 'changes will be made,' theme.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 20, 2017)

AWP said:


> Does anyone see Trump surviving 4 years? I'm not wishing that it happens by any stretch, but assassination or impeachment had to have crossed a few minds here.
> 
> Obama survived 8 years and he was very polarizing, but it seems to me Trump is even more so. I view impeachment as a more likely "Trump killer" vice an actual death, but how many think these are realistic possibilities...or am I being my usual pessimistic self?


I've been thinking about this a lot. Pres Trump is a polarizing figure, and that's good for discourse, but I can forsee a situation where he won't back off and listen to his handler's and in the process, alienates enough Republicans to cause irreparable damage.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2017)

Huh -

I guess it's true. Siri says so!


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 20, 2017)

AWP said:


> Does anyone see Trump surviving 4 years? I'm not wishing that it happens by any stretch, but assassination or impeachment had to have crossed a few minds here.
> 
> Obama survived 8 years and he was very polarizing, but it seems to me Trump is even more so. I view impeachment as a more likely "Trump killer" vice an actual death, but how many think these are realistic possibilities...or am I being my usual pessimistic self?



I have a feeling the Secret Service will be working overtime to keep President Trump safe.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 20, 2017)

AWP said:


> Does anyone see Trump surviving 4 years? I'm not wishing that it happens by any stretch, but assassination or impeachment had to have crossed a few minds here.
> 
> Obama survived 8 years and he was very polarizing, but it seems to me Trump is even more so. I view impeachment as a more likely "Trump killer" vice an actual death, but how many think these are realistic possibilities...or am I being my usual pessimistic self?


The last time a guy was impeached it was for touching a woman in the privates with a cigar ;)  So I'd say probably not.

A friend of mine attended the inaugural today and is also attending the women's march tomorrow: Trump supporters to attend inauguration and Women's March


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 20, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> A friend of mine attended the inaugural today and is also attending the women's march tomorrow: Trump supporters to attend inauguration and Women's March


That's...kind of heartwarming, actually.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The last time a guy was impeached it was for touching a woman in the privates with a cigar ;) So I'd say probably not.



That is not why he was impeached.  He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.    That out-of-the-way, are you saying President Trump is more likely to be impeached?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 20, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That is not why he was impeached.  He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.    That out-of-the-way, are you saying President Trump is more likely to be impeached?



That's why I had the smiley (), which didn't come through.

I don't think he will be impeached or assassinated.  But there's a huge shot he's a one term President unless he makes nice with the rest of the leadership in the Republican Party.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2017)

I fucking love Bill Clinton.  Dirty ol' bastard that he is!

<Checking out the new 1st Lady>

(Wait for Hillary's reaction)





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10208618887164993


----------



## Gunz (Jan 20, 2017)

AWP said:


> Does anyone see Trump surviving 4 years? I'm not wishing that it happens by any stretch, but assassination or impeachment had to have crossed a few minds here.
> 
> Obama survived 8 years and he was very polarizing, but it seems to me Trump is even more so. I view impeachment as a more likely "Trump killer" vice an actual death, but how many think these are realistic possibilities...or am I being my usual pessimistic self?





I think the Democrats will be looking for any pretext to bring up the word "impeachment." They may _try _to impeach him for something--real or contrived--but in a GOP-controlled congress they'll need more than pretexts or rumors, they'll need real high crimes and misdemeanors to get a conviction. Whether or not Trump gives them something to latch onto remains to be seen.

As far as assassination goes, given the absolute hatred coming from the Left, I wouldn't be surprised to see a John Hinkley or Squeaky Fromm or even some whacked out, self-appointed political activist trying to be the "savior of the republic." Jesus Christ and John Wilkes Booth, they're already marketing "Sic Semper Tyrannis Trump" T-shirts,


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 20, 2017)

I greatly dislike President Trump.

That said: I think an impeachment would be bad for America. He has only been in office a few hours, I'm still playing let's wait and see.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2017)

Trump will be fine (physically).  

Now that he is no longer president I feel okay say this.  I never expected Obama to survive his first term, much less his 2nd.  Those milita's and KKK groups might have some nuts in them, but also have some very well trained shooters in them; to include long range.

I shoot with a dude twice a year who competes all over the US, he has won a lot of "stuff" for being the first to hit his the 1 Mile target with first shot. He HATED Obama and told me over beers that he fantasized that his target was the sitting Command in Chief.  

I say all that to say this, there were some very motivated and capable folks who hated Obama and would have loved to be the trigger puller. 

The folks who hate Trump?  Yep, they HATE him, but I question whether they have the same skills and abilities of those who hated Obama. 

Disclaimer - 
I'm not saying that the liberal's who dislike Trump are not former military or capable warriors who could do damage if they wanted to, I'm saying that in most cases those are not the people joining militia's and fantasying about shooting a sitting president.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 20, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The last time a guy was impeached it was for touching a woman in the privates with a cigar ;)  So I'd say probably not.
> 
> A friend of mine attended the inaugural today and is also attending the women's march tomorrow: Trump supporters to attend inauguration and Women's March



Smiley or not, your words, smug or smart ass, were reflecting an untruth. The real reason for the impeachment you chose to not mention, I wonder why you did that.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I greatly dislike President Trump.
> 
> That said: I think an impeachment would be bad for America. He has only been in office a few hours, I'm still playing let's wait and see.



It would indeed be bad, unless it was for an ironclad reason.  I also think absent such a reason, it's very short-sighted.  Waiting in the wings to sit in the Oval is someone far more conservative than Trump.  I do not think a President Pence would be very good for the DNC.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 20, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Smiley or not, your words, smug or smart ass, were reflecting an untruth. The real reason for the impeachment you chose to not mention, I wonder why you did that.


Tough crowd.  Looking at it objectively, I did not go and look it up before I wrote that post.  I was 10 when that went down, and all I recall from the news coverage was the president supposedly did something with an intern named Monica Lewinsky, who had a boyfriend, and then she got a book deal.  Looking it up I knew nothing of the rest of it.  But if you take it for than a humorous jibe, that's your business.

ETA: I'm off to the salle de musculation, I will watch the Alma Mater crossing the reviewing stand  on tape delay.  Rah Va Mil.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 20, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Trump will be fine (physically).
> 
> Now that he is no longer president I feel okay say this.  I never expected Obama to survive his first term, much less his 2nd.  Those milita's and KKK groups might have some nuts in them, but also have some very well trained shooters in them; to include long range.
> 
> ...



J., Ford was shot at, Reagan was shot at and hit. Both were GOP presidents. The former was shot at by a Manson acolyte and former drugged out hippy chick; the latter was shot by a nut job with a .22. Neither were military, militia or gun savvy and yet only random circumstances or ballistics prevented them from killing their targets. You don't need to be a marksman to assassinate a political figure, and there are plenty of crazy motherfuckers all over the political spectrum.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 20, 2017)

AWP said:


> Does anyone see Trump surviving 4 years? I'm not wishing that it happens by any stretch, but assassination or impeachment had to have crossed a few minds here.
> 
> Obama survived 8 years and he was very polarizing, but it seems to me Trump is even more so. I view impeachment as a more likely "Trump killer" vice an actual death, but how many think these are realistic possibilities...or am I being my usual pessimistic self?



I think impeachment is a danger, but I think it would come as a result of failure to follow conservative orthodoxy - not from a corruption scandal (though that might be the excuse).  I think we've largely seen over the last 16-22 years congressional oversight and investigations essentially fall into the 'can I cause you political damage with this, because I don't give a fuck if my side does exactly the same thing - my outrage is 100% fabricated.' 

I think President Trump's real danger for impeachment is if a big enough block of the Republican establishment decide he's doing more harm to their goals than not - and decide to trade him in for VP Pence.  I don't think you'll see impeachment driven by the left - because they won't be in power, but there will always be a block of votes on the Democratic side ready to vote the President into impeachment. 

Will be interesting to see from that perspective if President Trump moves to the middle or to the left on any of his policies that go against conservative orthodoxy (his stances on infrastructure, free trade, international alliances) and actually wins over a shield of Democrats unwilling to vote for impeachment as they view VP Pence as worse for their interests.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 20, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Tough crowd.  Looking at it objectively, I did not go and look it up before I wrote that post.  I was 10 when that went down, and all I recall from the news coverage was the president supposedly did something with an intern named Monica Lewinsky, who had a boyfriend, and then she got a book deal.  Looking it up I knew nothing of the rest of it.  But if you take it for than a humorous jibe, that's your business.
> 
> ETA: I'm off to the salle de musculation, I will watch the Alma Mater crossing the reviewing stand  on tape delay.  Rah Va Mil.



It has been a while since VMI marched at an Inauguration.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2017)

Watching the parade.  Thinking the Secret Service must HATE everytime Trump and his family get out of that tank they are riding in.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 20, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I think impeachment is a danger, but I think it would come as a result of failure to follow conservative orthodoxy - not from a corruption scandal (though that might be the excuse).  I think we've largely seen over the last 16-22 years congressional oversight and investigations essentially fall into the 'can I cause you political damage with this, because I don't give a fuck if my side does exactly the same thing - my outrage is 100% fabricated.'
> 
> I think President Trump's real danger for impeachment is if a big enough block of the Republican establishment decide he's doing more harm to their goals than not - and decide to trade him in for VP Pence.  I don't think you'll see impeachment driven by the left - because they won't be in power, but there will always be a block of votes on the Democratic side ready to vote the President into impeachment.
> 
> Will be interesting to see from that perspective if President Trump moves to the middle or to the left on any of his policies that go against conservative orthodoxy (his stances on infrastructure, free trade, international alliances) and actually wins over a shield of Democrats unwilling to vote for impeachment as they view VP Pence as worse for their interests.



_Very_ interesting perspective, @Il Duce . A Trump impeachment _from the right_. I might've bought that had he not done some late hour fence-mending, i.e. Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff, etc. But...you never know with Trump. There's always the unexpected. He'd really have to piss off the GOP to get them to take a drastic move like that. Certainly, he's capable of it...

But still there has to be something for a conviction. You can't impeach a guy because he cracks jokes like Joan Rivers...

Or can you???


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 20, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> J., Ford was shot at, Reagan was shot at and hit. Both were GOP presidents. The former was shot at by a Manson acolyte and former drugged out hippy chick; the latter was shot by a nut job with a .22. Neither were military, militia or gun savvy and yet only random circumstances or ballistics prevented them from killing their targets. You don't need to be a marksman to assassinate a political figure, and there are plenty of crazy motherfuckers all over the political spectrum.



Reagancarried a 1911 after he was shot.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 20, 2017)

This is going to be a long 8 years in Canada... I swear the Libtards are getting dumber by the day.  Traveling with 6 people you met online, 2 from another country using our country as a stop over, admitting your hate for the incoming President and expect to be given entry.   Being a moron must be contagious.

No offence to any of our resident Liberals, none of you have crossed the Libtarded threshold.  
'We got sent back': Montrealer denied entry into U.S. on eve of Donald Trump inauguration


----------



## CQB (Jan 20, 2017)

The right can be brutal in a brutal business, particularly in Britain when Thatcher was disposed of, and previously Churchill. It's an interesting point to come to Vis a vis Trump. There's also speculation he may quit if things don't go his way, which would be a first for the office.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 20, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> This is going to be a long 8 years in Canada... I swear the Libtards are getting dumber by the day.  Traveling with 6 people you met online, 2 from another country using our country as a stop over, admitting your hate for the incoming President and expect to be given entry.   Being a moron must be contagious.
> 
> No offence to any of our resident Liberals, none of you have crossed the Libtarded threshold.
> 'We got sent back': Montrealer denied entry into U.S. on eve of Donald Trump inauguration



So he tries to enter the US without his US passport? He's an idiot.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 20, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> This is going to be a long 8 years in Canada... I swear the Libtards are getting dumber by the day.  Traveling with 6 people you met online, 2 from another country using our country as a stop over, admitting your hate for the incoming President and expect to be given entry.   Being a moron must be contagious.
> 
> No offence to any of our resident Liberals, none of you have crossed the Libtarded threshold.
> 'We got sent back': Montrealer denied entry into U.S. on eve of Donald Trump inauguration



No offense brother, but as you well know, most Canucks have a special level of derp when it comes to US politics.

ETA: with statements only from the complaining party and a shrugging attorney, I get the sense we're not getting the complete story


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2017)

Rest of the world better get ready to "Bend and damn thrust..."

Trump's Marine Generals Mattis and Kelly confirmed | Daily Mail Online

_President Donald Trump's first two confirmed cabinet secretaries have started their new jobs mere hours after the U.S. Senate green-lighted them.

Vice President Mike Pence fetched retired Marine Generals James 'Mad Dog' Mattis and John Kelly and took them to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building so they could be 'immediately' sworn in, according to White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

That followed Trump's first two signatures in the Oval Office, officially commissioning them in their new positions.

Mattis became the U.S. secretary of Defense after he took the oath of office, which pence himself administered. Kelly has taken over the Department of Homeland Security._


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 20, 2017)

America's "Change of Command," as explained as only an NCO can.

Fun fact:  @Il Duce and I both worked overseas with the author.  Just in case, you know, anyone wants to call this a "fluff" piece.



> Our desire for a better America should always unite us, not divide us – the same way my teammates and I would simply get on with it and plan the next mission.


----------



## Dame (Jan 20, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> This is going to be a long 8 years in Canada... I swear the Libtards are getting dumber by the day.  Traveling with 6 people you met online, 2 from another country using our country as a stop over, admitting your hate for the incoming President and expect to be given entry.   Being a moron must be contagious.
> 
> No offence to any of our resident Liberals, none of you have crossed the Libtarded threshold.
> 'We got sent back': Montrealer denied entry into U.S. on eve of Donald Trump inauguration


The two French nationals did not help in the least. We've had this discussion before with almost no one believing it can be an issue, but I am not making this stuff up.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 20, 2017)

Dame said:


> The two French nationals did not help in the least. We've had this discussion before with almost no one believing it can be an issue, but I am not making this stuff up.



Oh I know they were probably the first red flag and deciding factor in sending them packing.


----------



## Etype (Jan 20, 2017)

CQB said:


> There's also speculation he may quit if things don't go his way, which would be a first for the office.


Where did this come from?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2017)

CQB said:


> There's also speculation he may quit if things don't go his way, which would be a first for the office.



Are you talking the same speculation that said he would quit prior to actually accepting the parting nomination, and then the speculation that he would quit prior to the election?

Not busting balls, just genuinely curious what you are basing this one.


ETA -

Just noticed that @Etype asked the same question.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 20, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Watching the parade.  Thinking the Secret Service must HATE everytime Trump and his family get out of that tank they are riding in.



That's why they're there and what they get paid for.

Hate it all they want, but the fact remains it's their job description.

Not to mention the fact he truly appreciates LE and regularly takes the time to show it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 21, 2017)

SNL is taking it (rightly so) on the chin for this one.  I remember the bit where they went after a very young Chelsea Clinton....Bill was NOT amused and that was the end of SNL making fun of the children of Presidents.  

One has to wonder if this writer took it upon herself to tweet this, or if the show as a whole felt they would be "safe" because it was regarding Trump.  Either way, it shows again how out of touch most Hollywood types are - Trump or not, you cannot go after kids.  It's hard enough to be that age without your peers making fun of you for being the first presidential private-school 'school shooter.'

What a dumbass.

SNL writer deletes tweet targeting Barron Trump | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 21, 2017)

> I'm here today to honor our democracy & its enduring values. I will never stop believing in our country & its future. #Inauguration



^that was Hillary Clinton's tweet yesterday while she was at the inauguration.  In case I haven't made it very clear over the many years I've been a member here, I deeply dislike the Clintons.  But what Sec. Clinton did yesterday, by not only going to the inauguration but also putting the above information out to her followers, not only shows class but is hugely important to our democratic process.   "Yeah but it was an act."  "She only did it to make it a lot less likely that Pres. Trump will prosecute her."  Maybe so.  I don't care why she did it, the fact is she did it.  This has the potential to take a lot of the steam out of the "not my president" movement, if this is an enduring attitude and not just a one-off performance.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 21, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> America's "Change of Command," as explained as only an NCO can.
> 
> Fun fact:  @Il Duce and I both worked overseas with the author.  Just in case, you know, anyone wants to call this a "fluff" piece.



Excellent article, sound and sensible attitude...and yet there is _this_ kind of shit going around, strident and prolific. If we thought our country was polarized during the Obama years, just wait...

_*"It’s time to put the safety pins away and drop the blinders and mental constructions that have shielded us from the reality of the horror befalling the nation. Instead, it’s time to roll up our sleeves and fight this bastard."*_

Sic Semper Tyrannis, Trump! - iPinion Syndicate


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 21, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> America's "Change of Command," as explained as only an NCO can.
> 
> Fun fact:  @Il Duce and I both worked overseas with the author.  Just in case, you know, anyone wants to call this a "fluff" piece.
> 
> ...



If you are into reading body language, the above is full of clues. For starters, just compare the left hands of Trump and Obama.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 21, 2017)

Posting because this is a pretty solid article on our new Secretary of Defense and is more than just a "Rah!" Piece. 

Mattis at Odds With Trump on Russia, Backs Women in Combat | Military.com


----------



## Poccington (Jan 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> SNL is taking it (rightly so) on the chin for this one.  I remember the bit where they went after a very young Chelsea Clinton....Bill was NOT amused and that was the end of SNL making fun of the children of Presidents.
> 
> One has to wonder if this writer took it upon herself to tweet this, or if the show as a whole felt they would be "safe" because it was regarding Trump.  Either way, it shows again how out of touch most Hollywood types are - Trump or not, you cannot go after kids.  It's hard enough to be that age without your peers making fun of you for being the first presidential private-school 'school shooter.'
> 
> ...



It's really shitty to go after a kid like that.

He's only 10 years old for fuck sake.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 21, 2017)

I can't read this, it's behind a pay wall...but Identity politics are why the Democrats lost.  Doubling down is how they'll continue to lose: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/...mocratic-party.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Also, the picture of a woman in an American Flag Hidjab, no thanks.

Trump, in Oval Office, signs first order on Obamacare

Weakening the ACA in regards to enforcement, I'll be honest, I'm all about that as healthcare costs in Arizona doubled for FY 17.  As far as employers offering Health Insurance, that used to be a thing called an incentive.  However, I'm for an actual system that makes coverage better and costs lower.

Trump's first executive action: Cancel Obama's mortgage premium cuts

I'm not exactly sure what this does per se, other than it makes government backed loans less competitive.   As I understand it, keeping the premiums higher puts more money into the fund that insures the FHA loans.  It's basically stopping a last minute policy change that they would have inherited and allows the Trump Administration to make it's own determination


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 21, 2017)

My wife and her girlfriends went to the Minnesota version of the march.  Told her I didn't necessarily believe Trump & Co. are truly the evil empire they are being made out to be, but that I supported her beliefs and offered to walk with her.

Thankfully she declined my offer. Said she wanted to hang with her friends and knew I would be miserable with the crowds and the "chanting". 

She just texted me, said organizers had planned on about 20k people but estimates are now about double that!  They are not so much marching as kind of shuffling!

Love you Honey Bunny, wherever you are!!!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 21, 2017)

You know, both times I voted for Obama I said they weren't coming for the guns.  That was quite true, as a California resident that was Kamala Harris and Jerry Brown.

And now they're saying Trump is coming for their rights.  So in regards to abortion rights, I think Birth Control should be provided at a cheap cost when uninsured and no out of pocket expense when insured.  I'm all about birth control, but if you willingly have sex with someone, knew you were pregnant, and all of a sudden decide to have a second trimester abortion, I have a serious problem.  Not my body, all that BS.  But if you didn't want a child, you could have exercised some serious brain power and gotten the birth control prior to engaging in intercourse. 

A lot of that happens to be supported by my faith with life beginning at conception.

Fearmongering sold a lot of rifles and created ammunition shortages, what are the fearmongers selling now?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 21, 2017)

Etype said:


> I rather enjoyed the unapologetic, 'changes will be made,' theme.



Agree, I had a Freedom boner for 8 hours, I tried calling some hotline but I was on hold forever....


----------



## Poccington (Jan 21, 2017)

Some of the garbage being spewed by female celebrities at the Womens March has been utterly hilarious.

Madonna talking about how she thought about blowing up the White House... Clown.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 21, 2017)

Poccington said:


> how she thought about blowing up the White House... Clown.



Secret Service visit in 3...2...1...


----------



## Etype (Jan 21, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Agree, I had a Freedom boner for 8 hours, I tried calling some hotline but I was on hold forever....


So it didn't give you electile dysfunction?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 21, 2017)

Get this goddamn shit show of a thread back on track. 

If I see another post about who shoots more people the person that posts it is on a week long vacation. 

If your posts are deleted get the fuck over it.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Jan 21, 2017)

Behold! The funniest thing on the internet until tomorrow:





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1813311778917601


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> My wife and her girlfriends went to the Minnesota version of the march.  Told her I didn't necessarily believe Trump & Co. are truly the evil empire they are being made out to be, but that I supported her beliefs and offered to walk with her.
> 
> Thankfully she declined my offer. Said she wanted to hang with her friends and knew I would be miserable with the crowds and the "chanting".
> 
> ...



I know several people participating in the women’s marches.  As I see the protests though I’m wondering about their efficacy.

I’ve always thought the reasons to protest (in a political sense – not a personal sense) are:

1.      Demonstrate to political leadership or other power structures the popular strength of your positions – in order to influence their votes or actions.
2.      Win public support by raising awareness of your issue(s).
3.      Increase political organization by making contacts and connections in person.
4.      Provoke a repressive response from the civil authorities – thus winning increased sympathy/awareness of your issues.
5.      Raise international awareness/concern/political action for your issues.

All those seem like they worked very well during the civil rights era, and some social issues in America.  But, I must wonder about how applicable any of that stuff really is in the current environment.

In the US number 4 and 5 are pretty much out.  You’re not going to provoke a response from the federal government – and generally not from local authorities without a fair amount of rioting.  Even in protests in the 1960s a big chunk of the US electorate wanted more crackdowns on protestors, not less – Nixon won the white house in 1968 and 1972 by huge margins and a significant shift of folks who voted the other party in 1964.  Understand the political landscape was much more complicated – just saying reasons 4 and 5 are very tough to pull off in the US and I can’t think of a modern example that has worked (I include Ferguson in that) in terms of changing public opinion or action by the government.

When we’re talking about the Presidential election it doesn’t seem to me you can really raise any more awareness, demonstrate political strength, or forge political organization in a way that outshines the most significant measurement of all those things – the Presidential election that just went to the party/candidate you oppose.

What you’re left with is the hope that someone demonstrating your numbers/strength will influence or motivate existing power structures.  But if your 65 million votes didn’t do it why would you believe even 2-5 million people in the streets across the world would have any influence?

I think very likely the most effective protests are those in the vein of the Tea Party.  They weren’t out to win over the President – they were demonstrating political power and voter anger towards their own party.  I think the same think should be taken on by the left if they really want to influence policy – target Democrats because Republicans and the President could give a shit.

Not saying anyone doesn’t have the right, or shouldn’t protest.  Just saying other than number 3 – and that’s one that won’t have much of an impact for at least 2 years – it seems very ineffectual.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 21, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Not saying anyone doesn’t have the right, or shouldn’t protest. Just saying other than number 3 – and that’s one that won’t have much of an impact for at least 2 years – it seems very ineffectual.



For my wife, and many of her girlfriends, it was an "anybody but Trump" election.  He genuinely frightens them - take the whole 'women in combat roles' discussion in the other thread.  Does anyone believe that thread would even exist if Romney had been elected?  No chance.   Gays/transgenders serving openly?  Please.  Eight years of Obama opened doors I had never expected to be seen open, and there are a lot of people who are absolutely terrified that Trump will slam those doors shut.  <pulling anything to do with LGBT, civil rights, and health care from the Whitehouse.gov website yesterday did not exactly produce a calming effect in that aspect.>

Looking at your list, I think for a lot of women (and men for that matter), it was #1 . (1. Demonstrate to political leadership or other power structures the popular strength of your positions – in order to influence their votes or actions.)  With an extra dose of feeling overall helpless.    I mean think about it....you had TV reality show guy Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, she was supposed to be the first woman president.  And she got her ass kicked, hell the Dems didn't even bother with lawsuits and challenges.


----------



## Etype (Jan 21, 2017)

ShadowSpear said:


> Behold! The funniest thing on the internet until tomorrow:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did that dork think Trump was going to be struck by lightning at the last second?


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> For my wife, and many of her girlfriends, it was an "anybody but Trump" election.  He genuinely frightens them - take the whole 'women in combat roles' discussion in the other thread.  Does anyone believe that thread would even exist if Romney had been elected?  No chance.   Gays/transgenders serving openly?  Please.  Eight years of Obama opened doors I had never expected to be seen open, and there are a lot of people who are absolutely terrified that Trump will slam those doors shut.  <pulling anything to do with LGBT, civil rights, and health care from the Whitehouse.gov website yesterday did not exactly produce a calming effect in that aspect.>
> 
> Looking at your list, I think for a lot of women (and men for that matter), it was #1 . (1. Demonstrate to political leadership or other power structures the popular strength of your positions – in order to influence their votes or actions.)  With an extra dose of feeling overall helpless.    I mean think about it....you had TV reality show guy Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, she was supposed to be the first woman president.  And she got her ass kicked, hell the Dems didn't even bother with lawsuits and challenges.



Yeah, I think that's the prevailing sentiment from those I know who are marching.  I just have to wonder if the 'show of strength' is really going to have any effect.  I mean, if you're the President why would you want to alter your actions for people who didn't vote for you - and are very unlikely to vote for you next time without you going back significantly on your campaign rhetoric?


----------



## Gunz (Jan 21, 2017)

Etype said:


> Did that dork think Trump was going to be struck by lightning at the last second?



Damn, that's one ugly broad. Or dude. Or whatever.


----------



## Poccington (Jan 21, 2017)

ShadowSpear said:


> Behold! The funniest thing on the internet until tomorrow:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love the fact that it has a sneaky look at the camera before it launches into the "Noooooooooooo" moment


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 21, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I know several people participating in the women’s marches.  As I see the protests though I’m wondering about their efficacy.
> 
> I’ve always thought the reasons to protest (in a political sense – not a personal sense) are:
> 
> ...



This was a very insightful and, I think accurate, post.

There's another reason or two left out:  
6.  Intimidate, harass, impede, and/or physically attack the opposition.
7.  ...because you were paid or otherwise incentivized to
8.  Get your fill of the"ultra-violence," just because you want to see the world burn.

Obviously I don't think the Women's March has violence as its goal, but marches like that tend to get infiltrated and used by those who do.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 21, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Yeah, I think that's the prevailing sentiment from those I know who are marching.  I just have to wonder if the 'show of strength' is really going to have any effect.  I mean, if you're the President why would you want to alter your actions for people who didn't vote for you - and are very unlikely to vote for you next time without you going back significantly on your campaign rhetoric?



I agree. It will have no effect. It's pointless. All these marches and demonstrations are just a chance for the losers to commiserate with one another and cry on each other's shoulders. It's a congregation of whiners who were shocked to the core that they didn't get their way.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Secret Service visit in 3...2...1...



And scene. 

Secret Service to investigate Madonna | Daily Mail Online


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> For my wife, and many of her girlfriends, it was an "anybody but Trump" election.  He genuinely frightens them - take the whole 'women in combat roles' discussion in the other thread.  Does anyone believe that thread would even exist if Romney had been elected?  No chance.   Gays/transgenders serving openly?  Please.  Eight years of Obama opened doors I had never expected to be seen open, and there are a lot of people who are absolutely terrified that Trump will slam those doors shut.  <pulling anything to do with LGBT, civil rights, and health care from the Whitehouse.gov website yesterday did not exactly produce a calming effect in that aspect.>
> 
> Looking at your list, I think for a lot of women (and men for that matter), it was #1 . (1. Demonstrate to political leadership or other power structures the popular strength of your positions – in order to influence their votes or actions.)  With an extra dose of feeling overall helpless.    I mean think about it....you had TV reality show guy Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, she was supposed to be the first woman president.  And she got her ass kicked, hell the Dems didn't even bother with lawsuits and challenges.



As for the Whitehouse.gov website, the concerns are pure hysterical overreacting; even CNN explained it.  This is normal and it needs to be pulled down to be updated with the new government policies. 

What happened to Obama's White House website? - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 21, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Agree, I had a Freedom boner for 8 hours, I tried calling some hotline but I was on hold forever....



Too many blue pills can do that.
Was at SHOT on Friday, small crowd with most (it seemed) glued to TV's showing the proceedings.  Huge cheer as he finished the oath.
I think the lack of violence at the Women's marches speaks volumes, and the rest of the anti-Trumper should take note.


----------



## AWP (Jan 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> And scene.
> 
> Secret Service to investigate Madonna | Daily Mail Online



As well they should.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 21, 2017)

Wife got home from the march. Had to share this, it was what was being handed out to all participants.

Now I feel I've come a long way over the years, but I'm drawing the line here. Don't recreate my flag into a symbol of your agenda.


----------



## CQB (Jan 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Are you talking the same speculation that said he would quit prior to actually accepting the parting nomination, and then the speculation that he would quit prior to the election?
> 
> Not busting balls, just genuinely curious what you are basing this one.
> 
> ...



There was an analyst who popped up with that one. I thought I'd throw it into the discussion.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 21, 2017)

I went to the march in D.C. It was a pretty cool experience. It was insanely packed, rough estimates are at least 500 thousand people there for the march. I enjoyed myself. There were some great signs. There were also the regular idiots who don't know the definitions of the words they spew. Also some Westboro Baptist action for good measure.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 21, 2017)

Another head scratcher today at the CIA.

Just, why? What am I supposed to take away from that?

ETA- sorry, I was talking about Prest Trump's speech today.


----------



## CQB (Jan 21, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> ^that was Hillary Clinton's tweet yesterday while she was at the inauguration.  In case I haven't made it very clear over the many years I've been a member here, I deeply dislike the Clintons.  But what Sec. Clinton did yesterday, by not only going to the inauguration but also putting the above information out to her followers, not only shows class but is hugely important to our democratic process.   "Yeah but it was an act."  "She only did it to make it a lot less likely that Pres. Trump will prosecute her."  Maybe so.  I don't care why she did it, the fact is she did it.  This has the potential to take a lot of the steam out of the "not my president" movement, if this is an enduring attitude and not just a one-off performance.



The trick that democracy plays is that the winner says that they will govern for all, including the people who didn't vote for the winner. In every democracy the statement "I govern for all" will appear in an acceptance speech. HRC is illustrating the point & Kudos for doing so. The NMP people, which I imaging are part of the Green/Far left, are more rabid that those on the right.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 21, 2017)

First 20 minutes of SNL was pretty good.  Good comment in the monolog about the President denouncing some of the more racist groups who claim they are doing what they are doing in the name of the new President.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 22, 2017)

Wonder how many of those women at the protest march are also greenpeace members...


----------



## CQB (Jan 22, 2017)

Lots.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 22, 2017)

One big fuckin photo op for Hollywood has-beens, John Kerry and the ME generation, reducing their womanhood to the image of their sexual organ.

Next time, get off your pussies and vote...because your voice and your insipid posters mean nothing if you didn't go to the polls on Nov 8.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 22, 2017)

Anyone have a worse first day at work than Sean Spicer? 

When Ari Fleischer goes out of his way to say, 'Man, you screwed the pooch' that's a bad sign.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 22, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> One big fuckin photo op for Hollywood has-beens, John Kerry and the ME generation, reducing their womanhood to the image of their sexual organ.
> 
> Next time, get off your pussies and vote...because your voice and your insipid posters mean nothing if you didn't go to the polls on Nov 8.


They did...and they lost; big time.  Now they're loudly crying about it publicly.

Everyone has a right to speak their mind and I wouldn't frame myself a Trump supporter but theses protestors, many/most with their misguided and childish behavior, illustrate much of what I consider to be the drag on our country.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 22, 2017)

I was thinking this morning, gee @Ooh-Rah , I wonder what our new President's response will be to the women's march yesterday. 

Relieved to see President Trump had the situational awareness to articulate a response that will acknowledge the massive multi-city turnout and calm some of those fears. *


 




* <sarcasm alert> :wall:


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 22, 2017)

They probably did vote.  Generally speaking, it takes money and means to organize and attend a protest like this.  They probably did vote, they just din't vote for President Trump.  Secretary Clinton still won the popular vote by millions, and I think it's safe to assume a significant portion of the protest marchers at least supported her, if not voted for her.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 22, 2017)

On average, will it be over or under one hour the amount of time it takes for "Trump's people" to send out a Tweet that attempts to tone down his prior tweet?

Perfect example right here. There is no-way he wrote this in his own words.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> They did...and they lost; big time.  Now they're loudly crying about it publicly.
> 
> Everyone has a right to speak their mind and I wouldn't frame myself a Trump supporter but theses protestors, many/most with their misguided and childish behavior, illustrate much of what I consider to be the drag on our country.



I bet a pretty large portion of the millions that turned out yesterday did vote, and were part of the majority of voting Americans that did  vote for Hillary.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 22, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> They probably did vote.  Generally speaking, it takes money and means to organize and attend a protest like this.  They probably did vote, they just din't vote for President Trump.  Secretary Clinton still won the popular vote by millions, and I think it's safe to assume a significant portion of the protest marchers at least supported her, if not voted for her.


I wonder how much Madonna got paid for being the keynote.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 22, 2017)

our SECED....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 22, 2017)

Two days in and between Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway both making "attendance-gate" a Sunday morning issue, I'm wishing George and Caroline were in those roles instead. At least they had the balls to call him on his bullshit.



The press may be biased dicks sometimes, but they are not stupid. If this is the game Trump wants to play, fine. I have to believe the members of the 4th Estate have a few games of their own they can play.

"Alternate facts". This administration is going to turn me into a liberal yet.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> View attachment 17817
> 
> our SECED....



They don't make a :wall: emoji big enough. 

I thought Al Franken  really had her in a corner during the confirmation hearings. 

Jesus. Now I'm saying positive things about Al Franken.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 22, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Two days in and between Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway both making "attendance-gate" a Sunday morning issue, I'm wishing George and Caroline were in those roles instead. At least they had the balls to call him on his bullshit.
> 
> View attachment 17816
> 
> ...



That was embarrassing.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 22, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The press may be biased dicks sometimes, but they are not stupid. If this is the game Trump wants to play, fine. I have to believe the members of the 4th Estate have a few games of their own they can play.
> 
> "Alternate facts". This administration is going to turn me into a liberal yet.



I definitely get the appeal for a conservative to bash the press and 'the media.'  Your base believes they're all liberal shills and it helps blunt any criticism of you - legitimate or not.  It works so well even the folks running for DNC chair have started using it.

But, I find it disturbing - and hard to fathom how it's going to help in the long term - to pick fights where you are obviously, demonstrably lying.  Crowd sizes, the popular vote, your own tweet record - none of these are open to much interpretation so when you say 'I had the largest inaugural crowds, I won the popular vote because fraud, I never criticized the IC - the lying press is making it all up.'  I understand there is a huge latitude for someone like the President from his supporters - if they didn't care about evidence on taxes, birtherism, charitable giving, vaccines - they're not going to care now.  Still, I think that's bad judgment.  Any candidate is going to get a lot more leeway during a campaign - because their supporters will have a stark choice with someone/a party espousing different views on a number of subjects.  Once you actually have to govern I would think that leeway would start to erode. 

Maybe the purposeful antagonizing of the press with such blatant lies is an effort to do just that - set himself up as the alternative to the liberal elite, as evidenced by the press, so regardless of what topic is being discussed if you're conservative you always have to defend the President - since whether facts are on their side or not it's shameful how all these condescending liberals are always out to get him.  Criticism itself becomes the way you identify liberal jerks.

The other alternative is the administration is making error after error because of the idiocy and insecurities of the President.  But, I have a hard time believing that after: 1. He won the Presidency - which is not the easiest thing to do and 2. the administration has made some very savvy political moves - even if I think they're bad for the country.  I'm surprised more people haven't talked about how effectively the President changed the entire trajectory of the ACA debate.  Before the inauguration the Republican establishment was debating between delaying repeal and repealing with a delayed execution - so they could work through the difficult political battles on a replacement.  By gutting executive execution and enforcement of the ACA by executive action on day 1 the President has essentially forced the Republican congress to come up with a replacement and execute on it very rapidly.  His executive action makes the already ineffective price controls in the healthcare marketplace worthless.  That means premiums are going to skyrocket - one of the critical factors in driving unhappiness with the ACA.  That removes the major incentive Republicans had to delay repeal and delay a replacement - the fear of being blamed for price increases and loss of coverage.  The President ensured both of those are going to happen without major action in the next 6-9 months.  All of the sudden the Republicans have got a deadline for action so debating when is off the table.


----------



## CQB (Jan 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> They did...and they lost; big time.  Now they're loudly crying about it publicly.
> 
> Everyone has a right to speak their mind and I wouldn't frame myself a Trump supporter but theses protestors, many/most with their misguided and childish behavior, illustrate much of what I consider to be the drag on our country.



For mine it's a giant display of petulance.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 22, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> They probably did vote.  Generally speaking, it takes money and means to organize and attend a protest like this.  They probably did vote, they just din't vote for President Trump.  Secretary Clinton still won the popular vote by millions, and I think it's safe to assume a significant portion of the protest marchers at least supported her, if not voted for her.


Agreed.  She won popular vote by about 3 million...or 2%.  Leaves plenty of people to bitch and moan.   But let's not act as though Trump had some illegitimate victory.  Far from it.  Simple fact is that he owned electoral 306 to 232 and obviously still had strong popular support of over 62 million voters; for all practical purposes, half the votes from those that chose to show up at the polls.

He may not have been my guy but he is our President.  Seems he should be given a chance before breaking out the skewers and jumping to a bunch of ridiculous conclusions.   It's only been 2 days for fucks sake.  I'm willing to throw him some rope to see what he does with it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> View attachment 17817
> 
> our SECED....


This is dumb, man, if you look at many of your friends, and at yourself.  (I'm looking at myself too)  We all don't necessarily write the best.  We can be a little better in our criticism of her.  But, tbh, I hope she is not confirmed and he gets me someone better.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 22, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> This is dumb, man, if you look at many of your friends, and at yourself.  (I'm looking at myself too)  We all don't necessarily write the best.  We can be a little better in our criticism of her.  But, tbh, I hope she is not confirmed and he gets me someone better.



Oh it's dumb?

It is a goddamn meme.

Look around dude, they are all over this thread. 

In defense of my meme though. The secretary of education should have her shit wired tight as fuck.

She isn't posting on Shadowspear. She isn't writing only as herself. She is representative of the administration now.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Oh it's dumb?
> 
> .
> 
> ...



Considering the abhorrent writing skills of 75% of the traditional freshmen in my lit and Comp 1/2 classes at USA, I'd say she's still above the norm. 

Face it, we're raising a nation of illiterate shits. Education is laughable, at best. 

That said, I'm not sure we deserve better.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Oh it's dumb?
> 
> It is a goddamn meme.
> 
> ...



I agree.  But as I said, I hope the Senate kicks her nomination back.

I was wondering how they paid for Madonna: Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I bet a pretty large portion of the millions that turned out yesterday did vote, and were part of the majority of voting Americans that did  vote for Hillary.



Yep.  That's why what happened was an "everything on the leftwing agenda" march and not a "Women's March."



TLDR20 said:


> View attachment 17817
> 
> our SECED....




Whoever created that created a petty, bs meme.  Can you explain to me what's wrong with it?  Because other than "historic/historical" I'm having trouble seeing it.

I think it's totally reasonable to capitalize "Inauguration in this context... especially on Twitter.

An inauguration is not necessarily redundant with a swearing-in.

"For" seems totally appropriate in this context.

AP compiles presidential inauguration style guide

Difference Between ‘Of’ and ‘For’

Definition of FOR


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 22, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Whoever created that created a petty, bs meme.  Can you explain to me what's wrong with it?  Because other than "historic/historical" I'm having trouble seeing it.
> 
> I think it's totally reasonable to capitalize "Inauguration in this context... especially on Twitter.
> 
> ...



Following the style guide you posted inauguration shouldn't be capitalized.

But again, it is a meme. She is the potential SEC ED. Her post should have been. Round reproach.



TLDR20 said:


> Following the style guide you posted inauguration shouldn't be capitalized.
> 
> But again, it is a meme. She is the potential SEC ED. Her post should have been. Round reproach.



If you want to fact check my meme. We better start fact checking every one.

Every

Single

One


----------



## Gunz (Jan 23, 2017)

Meme, schmeme. Pass the peanuts.


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> If you want to fact check my meme. We better start fact checking every one.
> 
> Every
> 
> ...









ETA: Kellyanne Conway is a fucking twit.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 23, 2017)

Don't worry about the article, just focus on the Photo: President Trump's inauguration speech, annotated

Looks like there were plenty of folks there to me!


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 23, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> First 20 minutes of SNL was pretty good.  Good comment in the monolog about the President denouncing some of the more racist groups who claim they are doing what they are doing in the name of the new President.



Like Obama decrying BLM and the New Black Panther Party, don't bitch after ignoring racism for the last 8 years.



Ocoka One said:


> One big fuckin photo op for Hollywood has-beens, John Kerry and the ME generation, reducing their womanhood to the image of their sexual organ.
> 
> Next time, get off your pussies and vote...because your voice and your insipid posters mean nothing if you didn't go to the polls on Nov 8.


While those marching probably voted, they still ignore many of the election demographics, look at the Black/Hispanic vote % for Trump.  He did pretty well for a (pretend) Republican.



AWP said:


> ETA: Kellyanne Conway is a fucking twit.



She may be a twit, but she ran a successful campaign.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 23, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Like Obama decrying BLM and the New Black Panther Party, don't bitch after ignoring racism for the last 8 years. <snip>



I was at the head of the line complaining to anyone who would listen that the Obama administration did an incredible amount of damage in regards to race-relations.  Not by what he said, but instead by what he left unsaid.  His silence (for the most part) after literal riots was seen as acceptance by those who did the damage. 

Trump is in the same place now.  There are some VERY racist groups doing/saying terrible things in his name.  The President of the United States needs to come out early and say, "Look man, what you are doing is not what I, or this administration is all about.   You are doing more damage to whatever cause you think you are supporting than you can imagine.  Your actions are causing people who may have been sympathetic to your concerns, instead see you as buffoons and savages.  Please, do this right or get off my side."

That should have been said by Obama, but it never was.   In fact I think it is even more important that Trump says it.  He is already seen by many people in this country as a xenophobic, racist, misogynist.  Someone inside that camp of his has has to make him understand that he is supposed to be EVERYBODY'S president, and that means saying things that shows he is making an effort.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 23, 2017)

Apparently the Press Corps is up in arms about how the Trump Administration wants to move briefings to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building because the White House Press Corps flooded the briefing room.  50 Seats in the briefing room and they were way beyond capacity.

http://www.usnews.com/news/national...white-house-but-says-he-will-pick-who-gets-in


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 23, 2017)

Are 'alternator facts' and 'fake news' the same thing?

ETA- alternative facts.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 23, 2017)

Trump freezes federal hiring

Mr Cox...who says you're going to have funding to hire a contractor to do your work, get more efficient bro.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 23, 2017)

Jesus.  The incoming administration continues to give me the willies.  In his first set of executive orders, Trump signed, among other things, a proclamation commemorating his inauguration day.

Now, this has been done by past presidents before.  Bill Clinton proclaimed his a "National Day of Fellowship and Hope."  Sounds fine, right?
GWB named his a "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving."  Kinda close to another holiday, but whatever.
Obama titled his "National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation."  Not terribly original, but I can deal.  Trump, what you got?

NATIONAL DAY OF PATRIOTIC DEVOTION

Well, uh...okay 
That's like some DPRK shit.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 23, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Trump freezes federal hiring
> 
> Mr Cox...who says you're going to have funding to hire a contractor to do your work, get more efficient bro.



 This single action may prevent me from realizing my dream of working law enforcement. I was just hired for VA police and now it is unsure if I will be allowed to do it. Not happy.
Reed


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 23, 2017)

reed11b said:


> This single action may prevent me from realizing my dream of working law enforcement. I was just hired for VA police and now it is unsure if I will be allowed to do it. Not happy.
> Reed


You're good. "Trump made exceptions for military, national security and public safety positions, as well as others deemed "otherwise necessary" by the Office of Personnel Management."


----------



## reed11b (Jan 23, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> You're good. "Trump made exceptions for military, national security and public safety positions, as well as others deemed "otherwise necessary" by the Office of Personnel Management."


Maybe. VA HR office is moving forward on the assumption that both the VA itself and VA law enforcement in particular fall under public safety, but the wording of the order is very vague. I think the intent is that it is better to beg forgiveness then ask permission.  
Reed


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 23, 2017)

reed11b said:


> Maybe. VA HR office is moving forward on the assumption that both the VA itself and VA law enforcement in particular fall under public safety, but the wording of the order is very vague. I think the intent is that it is better to beg forgiveness then ask permission.
> Reed


Public safety is public safety virtually everywhere. IIRC the VA cops are duly sworn and bonded federal LEOs so I am fairly sure you will be ok. One of the new administration's areas of focus is law enforcement. Let us know how it goes. Good luck!


----------



## Etype (Jan 23, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> Jesus.  The incoming administration continues to give me the willies.  In his first set of executive orders, Trump signed, among other things, a proclamation commemorating his inauguration day.
> 
> Now, this has been done by past presidents before.  Bill Clinton proclaimed his a "National Day of Fellowship and Hope."  Sounds fine, right?
> GWB named his a "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving."  Kinda close to another holiday, but whatever.
> ...



Like that one president who awarded himself a medal, you know, like any good African dictator would and has done.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 23, 2017)

Etype said:


> Like that one president who awarded himself a medal, you know, like any good African dictator would and has done.


What?

ETA: Oh, you're talking about the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service awarded to him by the Secretary of Defense.

Like it was for President George W. Bush
And President Clinton


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 23, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> If you want to fact check my meme. We better start fact checking every one.
> 
> Every
> 
> ...



Nope.  I believe in personal accountability.  The person responsible for fact-checking memes should be the person responsible for sharing them.  And it should happen BEFORE they get shared.  If you want to fact-check every post on ShadowSpear, be my guest.

I fact-check two types of posts:  ones I find interesting, and ones from people I respect.  If something doesn't interest me, or isn't posted by someone I respect, I ignore it.  Since that post both interested me (since I'm an educator and it was hard for me to see what some of the "errors" were) and it was posted by someone I respect (self-explanatory),  I decided to check it out.  And I found it didn't "check out."

I've seen that meme posted all over my FB feed, and I'm fairly certain that nearly none of the people who posted it could explain what is really wrong with it, or why.  They just saw something that reinforced their political biases and blasted it out.  That annoys me.  My request for an explanation of the grammatical errors was legitimate:  I'm confused by what was marked in the text.  

That meme made me think of the one below.  Without critical analysis and a little bit of thought, a lot of what gets put out, by all manner of people, is a whole lot of this:


----------



## compforce (Jan 23, 2017)

If he does nothing else for the rest of his administration, he's already done more for the American people on his first day than most of the Presidents we've had in the past.  This one will directly affect every single American citizen that is in the work force in a positive way, including those that simply *want* to be in the work force.  TPP was a job killer and would have contributed to salary declines as cheaper foreign workers flooded all industries similar to the way that H1-B visas have flooded the IT industry.  If he does the same for NAFTA, it will take a true disaster for me to be unhappy with his first term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/tpp-trump-trade-nafta.html


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 23, 2017)

compforce said:


> If he does nothing else for the rest of his administration, he's already done more for the American people on his first day than most of the Presidents we've had in the past.  This one will directly affect every single American citizen that is in the work force in a positive way, including those that simply *want* to be in the work force.  TPP was a job killer and would have contributed to salary declines as cheaper foreign workers flooded all industries similar to the way that H1-B visas have flooded the IT industry.  If he does the same for NAFTA, it will take a true disaster for me to be unhappy with his first term.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/tpp-trump-trade-nafta.html


It's one of the few policy decisions that I actually agree with.  I don't think it's the panacea for stagnant wages, but it's certainly a start.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 23, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Nope.  I believe in personal accountability.  The person responsible for fact-checking memes should be the person responsible for sharing them.  And it should happen BEFORE they get shared.  If you want to fact-check every post on ShadowSpear, be my guest.
> 
> I fact-check two types of posts:  ones I find interesting, and ones from people I respect.  If something doesn't interest me, or isn't posted by someone I respect, I ignore it.  Since that post both interested me (since I'm an educator and it was hard for me to see what some of the "errors" were) and it was posted by someone I respect (self-explanatory),  I decided to check it out.  And I found it didn't "check out."
> 
> ...



I love the tone of your post. I pointed out the susbstantive reason I think the meme is right though. Even the style guide you posted stated the same thing. Inauguration shouldn't be capitalized. The use of "of" or "for"  seems like a subjective bitch on the part of the memes creator, "historical" though...

Like I said in defense of it. Official tweets or posts from official people like nominees should be vetted, pretty, and right.

They should be at the very least grammatically perfect. When these posts come from a woman who considers herself an education expert, and the President seems to agree, the microscope gets extra focused.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 23, 2017)

In extreme cases, this is the kind of thing that can happen when people blindly accept what they're told.



> He said it was through word of mouth. After recently having internet service installed at his house, he was “really able to look into it.” He said that substantial evidence from a combination of sources had left him with the “impression something nefarious was happening.”



...at which point he grabbed a semi-auto and shot up a pizza joint where Hillary Clinton was supposedly running a pedophilia/child slavery ring.  Or something.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 23, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> In extreme cases, this is the kind of thing that can happen when people blindly accept what they're told.
> 
> 
> 
> ...at which point he grabbed a semi-auto and shot up a pizza joint where Hillary Clinton was supposedly running a pedophilia/child slavery ring.  Or something.



That one is actually making the FB rounds again. On the plus side, it's a good indicator of who I should "unfollow" to clean up my wall.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 23, 2017)

Obama's final "fuck you" to Benjamin Netanyahu.

_WASHINGTON (AP) — Officials say the Obama administration in its waning hours defied Republican opposition and quietly released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority that GOP members of Congress had been blocking.

A State Department official and several congressional aides said the outgoing administration formally notified Congress it would spend the money Friday morning. The official said former Secretary of State John Kerry had informed some lawmakers of the move shortly before he left the State Department for the last time Thursday. The aides said written notification dated Jan. 20 was sent to Congress just hours before Donald Trump took the oath of office._


US sent $221 million to Palestinians in Obama's last hours

Obama defied Congress to hand $220 MILLION to Palestinians | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 24, 2017)

I genuinely hope Trump has his team working a "better trade agreement" to replace the TPP. The US needs a much stronger foothold in the region what with the Philippines strongly moving away from us and China maneuvering to strengthen its influence worldwide as the main creditor nation since IMF structural adjustment loans are failing. Honestly, when I read the main highlights of the TPP as put out by the State Department, I figured we would lose the textile and apparel industry immediately. However, the vast majority of textile or apparel products that I've ever seen read "Made in (insert Asian country here)". Given that, how many jobs could we really be losing in the textile industry? Hell, I would think that the myriad small firms in the US that buy those foreign shirts and slap their logo on them would be excited to sell way more shirts at a lower price without cutting into profit margins. In fact, I would say the consumer gains, and small apparel business gains would more than makeup for that loss while some capital manufacturers would gain in productivity from selling capital equipment to those apparel exporting countries for years to come. The US also gained in the area of removed tariffs for agricultural exports, and since the US subsidizes this industry heavily, like real heavily. I live near, have worked on, and hunt on farmland from the middle of North Louisiana all the way to the Mississippi River. I have never in my life met a farmer that was hurting for money in any shape, form, or fashion so a reduction of subsidies wouldn't put much of a damper in their pockets (except for hands that barely graduated high school). Fortunately, removing tariffs, lowering prices, and increasing output should see more money flow to farmers and thus, ease the burden of the US in providing those subsidies since less subsidies would be required. Don't forget the strengthened intellectual property regulation that would likely see royalties paid to US based firms.

My thoughts were that the TPP was solely created to counter Asia. We surely aren't countering them in any way except for defense. Trade agreements don't only act to benefit the economic welfare. Looking at it from a realist perspective, maintaining influence in a specific region is another benefit. With the move from the Washington consensus to the Beijing consensus in the developing nations, the soft power influence that trade agreements bring will be of great value in the years to come. The only good thing that I see coming out of scrapping the TPP would be a capping/reducing H1B visas. H1B visas should be saved for workers that are unbelievably skilled or specialized that takes years and years of experience or education to learn. If H1B visas are being used to fill gaps in the workforce such as the IT industry, they should be scrapped and companies should be on the dole for finding incentives to entice people to train for those jobs while the government reforms high school education to include more computer science classes or certifications. Some BS class like intro to business applications like Excel or Word doesn't count.

TLDR: Trump needs to have a new TPP style trade agreement in the making with an education reform package put forth either before or during trade agreement negototiations to fill in gaps that will be left from H1B visa reduction/elimination. That education reform will need to include computer science and more job related training type skills as has been suggested elsewhere on this forum. If he doesn't do both, the US will not only cede influence to China, but see our economic productivity and GDP decline which also benefits China.


----------



## compforce (Jan 24, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> I genuinely hope Trump has his team working a "better trade agreement" to replace the TPP. The US needs a much stronger foothold in the region what with the Philippines strongly moving away from us and China maneuvering to strengthen its influence worldwide as the main creditor nation since IMF structural adjustment loans are failing. Honestly, when I read the main highlights of the TPP as put out by the State Department, I figured we would lose the textile and apparel industry immediately. However, the vast majority of textile or apparel products that I've ever seen read "Made in (insert Asian country here)". Given that, how many jobs could we really be losing in the textile industry? Hell, I would think that the myriad small firms in the US that buy those foreign shirts and slap their logo on them would be excited to sell way more shirts at a lower price without cutting into profit margins. In fact, I would say the consumer gains, and small apparel business gains would more than makeup for that loss while some capital manufacturers would gain in productivity from selling capital equipment to those apparel exporting countries for years to come. The US also gained in the area of removed tariffs for agricultural exports, and since the US subsidizes this industry heavily, like real heavily. I live near, have worked on, and hunt on farmland from the middle of North Louisiana all the way to the Mississippi River. I have never in my life met a farmer that was hurting for money in any shape, form, or fashion so a reduction of subsidies wouldn't put much of a damper in their pockets (except for hands that barely graduated high school). Fortunately, removing tariffs, lowering prices, and increasing output should see more money flow to farmers and thus, ease the burden of the US in providing those subsidies since less subsidies would be required. Don't forget the strengthened intellectual property regulation that would likely see royalties paid to US based firms.



TPP was not confined to any industry.  As far as a replacement, President Trump has stated plainly that he would pursue individual agreements that better protected our interests.  I suspect we will see agriculture subsidies being removed/replaced as well.  The intellectual property portion is a mess as it stands today.  I've seen some of the inside of that industry personally.  The wealthy buy a patented technology and then shelve it while they look for everyone they can sue for infringement.  You can become very wealthy by simply researching patent infringements without actually being the owner of the patent.  They're called patent trolls.  TPP would have opened the door for people outside the US that had competing technologies to begin lawsuits against US companies for infringement.



> My thoughts were that the TPP was solely created to counter Asia. We surely aren't countering them in any way except for defense. Trade agreements don't only act to benefit the economic welfare. Looking at it from a realist perspective, maintaining influence in a specific region is another benefit. With the move from the Washington consensus to the Beijing consensus in the developing nations, the soft power influence that trade agreements bring will be of great value in the years to come.



Asia can still be countered by trade agreements.  Replacing a blanket agreement with individual agreements does not soften our position, it makes it more flexible, directed and less prone to exploitable errors.



> The only good thing that I see coming out of scrapping the TPP would be a capping/reducing H1B visas. H1B visas should be saved for workers that are unbelievably skilled or specialized that takes years and years of experience or education to learn. If H1B visas are being used to fill gaps in the workforce such as the IT industry, they should be scrapped and companies should be on the dole for finding incentives to entice people to train for those jobs while the government reforms high school education to include more computer science classes or certifications. Some BS class like intro to business applications like Excel or Word doesn't count.



I've expounded at length in other threads about how H1-B visas have destroyed the US IT industry.  That is the primary use for them and it's keeping our own workers out of the market as well as causing massive salary stagnation in the industry.  Almost 10 times as many H1-Bs are granted for IT than any other industry and they account for very close to the combined total of ALL other industries.  They aren't being used to fill gaps in IT, they are being used as a vehicle for cheap labor in place of American workers, especially recent CS graduates.  Eliminate H1-B and the positions will be immediately filled by American workers that have been displaced by this cheap labor.

Top H1B Visa Sponsor by NAICS Industry : 2015 H1B Visa Reports | MyVisaJobs.com


----------



## Etype (Jan 24, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Palestine post.


I went in search of some unrelated Palestine news to see what they were up to lately, I soon realized that the media is spamming the interwebs with Palestine propaganda.

A particular gem from The New Yorker-
Palestine in the Age of Trump


> Whereas America’s solicitous concern for Israel and its disregard for the Palestinians were once cloaked behind evenhandedness, under Trump we are set to see a more complete convergence between America’s political leadership and the most chauvinistic, religious, and right-wing government in Israel’s history.


The chauvinistic gov't where women serve in the infantry; the government with the best treatment of gays in the middle-east.

What an example of the gross media bias against Trump. When Israel and Palestine are being brought into question by a liberal news outlet, Israel is made out to be too conservative to fit the agenda?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2017)

The TPP repeal is interesting to me.  I generally believe that as a semi-hegemon, free trade benefits us.  However, any change to the economic system creates winners and losers, and the losers get to vote too.  I think BREXIT and the election of President Trump were huge wakeup calls to world leaders.  Governing by fiat and not listening to the will of the people is a sure way to lose one's grip on power.  However, too much populism is a recipe for disaster as well.


----------



## Etype (Jan 24, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> The TPP repeal is interesting to me.


Word is he will renegotiate deals on a case-by-case basis. It's going to be interesting to see how the renegotiations are worded with the Asian countries and how they pertain to China.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2017)

I'll admit I don't follow economics like I should anymore.  After I stopped teaching International Relations I kind of began to lose interest.  Trade is enormously important though, both at home and abroad.  I hope we're making good strategic decisions and not just focusing on short term tactical gain.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 24, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> The TPP repeal is interesting to me.  I generally believe that as a semi-hegemon, free trade benefits us.  However, any change to the economic system creates winners and losers, and the losers get to vote too.  I think BREXIT and the election of President Trump were huge wakeup calls to world leaders.  Governing by fiat and not listening to the will of the people is a sure way to lose one's grip on power.  However, too much populism is a recipe for disaster as well.


What part of the TPP interests you the most?


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 24, 2017)

I thought this article had some interesting insights into the dynamics of relationships inside the Trump administration: The first days inside Trump’s White House: Fury, tumult and a reboot

I think though, you always have to take articles like this with a grain of salt.  In intelligence reporting from HUMINT sources one of the key things collectors indicate is whether the source is aware of who they are reporting to and where that information is going - it's critical for assessing why they're saying what they're saying.  Pieces of journalism like this are no different - a number of people are trying to assert positions, direct a narrative, and influence opinions at a variety of different levels - including in their own internal infighting.  I've always thought Bob Woodward books - which are a case study in the same thing - would make a great lesson for training analysts on interpreting HUMINT reports, especially from overt sources.

So, I wouldn't take everything sources are saying in the article as necessarily accurate - but I think it gives some great perspective on the dynamics taking shape influencing the internal decision-making of the President and the administration.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 24, 2017)

So Conway came up with the term: alternative facts.  The authors of that piece have come up with the term: faulty facts.

Dakota Access and Keystone Pipelines are a go!
Trump Gives Green Light To Keystone, Dakota Access Pipelines


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> What part of the TPP interests you the most?


Being able to more accurately explain the reason a quasi-hegemon like the United States actually benefits politically, culturally, and economically in the long term by protecting and promoting an open trading system, and conversely, why domestic US politicians would want to block its implementation.  I think I did  a pretty decent job this morning (I always start class off with a current events discussion) but my knowledge level on the specifics of the TPP are pretty limited.  Fortunately no one asked me any in-depth questions about it today.



Il Duce said:


> I thought this article had some interesting insights into the dynamics of relationships inside the Trump administration: The first days inside Trump’s White House: Fury, tumult and a reboot
> 
> I think though, you always have to take articles like this with a grain of salt.  In intelligence reporting from HUMINT sources one of the key things collectors indicate is whether the source is aware of who they are reporting to and where that information is going - it's critical for assessing why they're saying what they're saying.  Pieces of journalism like this are no different - a number of people are trying to assert positions, direct a narrative, and influence opinions at a variety of different levels - including in their own internal infighting.  I've always thought Bob Woodward books - which are a case study in the same thing - would make a great lesson for training analysts on interpreting HUMINT reports, especially from overt sources.
> 
> So, I wouldn't take everything sources are saying in the article as necessarily accurate - but I think it gives some great perspective on the dynamics taking shape influencing the internal decision-making of the President and the administration.



Damn dude you're on a roll with these kinds of insights lately.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 24, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Damn dude you're on a roll with these kinds of insights lately.



Thanks man.  I came out on the alternate list today so I'm building up credibility for when I launch my whisper campaign to discredit those on the primary list.

"People are saying the incoming G-2 of the 82nd runs a fight-club for homeless people out of his basement.  I'm not saying that, but people are saying it..." 

Now I just have to figure out how to get a twitter account...


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 24, 2017)

compforce said:


> Asia can still be countered by trade agreements. Replacing a blanket agreement with individual agreements does not soften our position, it makes it more flexible, directed and less prone to exploitable errors



Agreed on the fact that Asia can be countered by trade agreements in the region. However, I don't believe that 10 individual agreements has the same affect as 1 agreement to create and potentially magnify over time a free trade zone that excludes China. With 10 individual agreements that will probably need to be updated at a decade time frame, China is also free to make those same agreements. A free trade zone that excludes one of the potential regional hegemons greatly erodes regional influence and prevents future gains with the US' ability to continue China's exclusion in a free trade zone. China would probably still pursue individual trade agreements, but the collective gain of influence will be much less than it would have otherwise been. 

I'm not as well read on H1B visas and intellectual property problems so I defer that scrapping the TPP is good on those fronts, but I also agreed before that H1B visas need to be and probably will be greatly reduced under Trump if they have been manipulated to provide cheap labor rather than prevent technological loss of competitiveness.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 24, 2017)

What makes her think this was ever a good idea?  The part that I would be most concerned about, is that she felt okay openly acknowledging her violation of The Hatch Act, but does not appear to be concerned that she is also stating that if it came down to it, she'd let the President of the United States take bullet instead of her.

Disclaimer - I was not familiar with The Hatch Act, and had to look it up.  In a nutshell it states that a person in her position cannot not openly campaign for  one candidate over the other.  

Secret Service agent wrote she wouldn't take a bullet for Trump

In her post, O’Grady acknowledged that expressing her political beliefs on social media is a violation of the Hatch Act. The act prohibits executive branch members, excluding the president, vice president and other designed officials, from making partisan statements.

“As a public servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle to not violate the Hatch Act. So I keep quiet and skirt the median. To do otherwise can be a criminal offense for those in my position,” she wrote. “Despite the fact that I am expected to take a bullet for both sides. But this world has changed and I have changed. And *I would take jail time over a bullet or an endorsement for what I believe to be disaster to this country and the strong and amazing women and minorities who reside here. Hatch Act be damned. I am with Her.”*

O'Grady serves as a Secret Service agent in Denver, where she helps coordinate presidential trips to the area.


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 24, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> O'Grady soon used to be a Secret Service agent in Denver, where she helps coordinate presidential trips to the area



Likely fix


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 24, 2017)

Here's another article I saw today I found very interesting.  Rick Perlestein is an author and historian I've really enjoyed.  I think his 3-part series on the rise of the modern Republican party is phenomenal though I haven't yet finished the 3rd book (The Bridge).  He is definitely a liberal in both the political sense and the political science definition - but is also a well-regarded historian.  This essay I think is very informative in it's academic take on a clash of worldviews - but is written from a liberal perspective so if that shit is going to turn you off from the beginning don't bother.

I asked my student why he voted for Trump. The answer was thoughtful, smart, and terrifying.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 24, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Being able to more accurately explain the reason a quasi-hegemon like the United States actually benefits politically, culturally, and economically in the long term by protecting and promoting an open trading system, and conversely, why domestic US politicians would want to block its implementation.  I think I did  a pretty decent job this morning (I always start class off with a current events discussion) but my knowledge level on the specifics of the TPP are pretty limited.  Fortunately no one asked me any in-depth questions about it today.



Your knowledge is limited because we were told it had to be ratified before we could see what is in it.  That's my only reason for asking my Senators to vote no.  Let me read it, ask questions and then send you a letter.  This (to me) was no different than ACA, smoke and mirrors with quasi-apologies afterwards.



Ooh-Rah said:


> What makes her think this was ever a good idea?  The part that I would be most concerned about, is that she felt okay openly acknowledging her violation of The Hatch Act, but does not appear to be concerned that she is also stating that if it came down to it, she'd let the President of the United States take bullet instead of her.
> 
> Disclaimer - I was not familiar with The Hatch Act, and had to look it up.  In a nutshell it states that a person in her position cannot not openly campaign for  one candidate over the other.
> 
> ...



I doubt she is in her position long, losing her clearance will probably make it hard for her to stay in Government.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 24, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Here's another article I saw today I found very interesting.  Rick Perlestein is an author and historian I've really enjoyed.  I think his 3-part series on the rise of the modern Republican party is phenomenal though I haven't yet finished the 3rd book (The Bridge).  He is definitely a liberal in both the political sense and the political science definition - but is also a well-regarded historian.  This essay I think is very informative in it's academic take on a clash of worldviews - but is written from a liberal perspective so if that shit is going to turn you off from the beginning don't bother.
> 
> I asked my student why he voted for Trump. The answer was thoughtful, smart, and terrifying.


Decent article, too bad he let his political bias sneak in towards the end (he apparently doesn't think Hillary is corrupt)


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 24, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Here's another article I saw today I found very interesting.  Rick Perlestein is an author and historian I've really enjoyed.  I think his 3-part series on the rise of the modern Republican party is phenomenal though I haven't yet finished the 3rd book (The Bridge).  He is definitely a liberal in both the political sense and the political science definition - but is also a well-regarded historian.  This essay I think is very informative in it's academic take on a clash of worldviews - but is written from a liberal perspective so if that shit is going to turn you off from the beginning don't bother.
> 
> I asked my student why he voted for Trump. The answer was thoughtful, smart, and terrifying.


This story made me look up what the "Lost Cause myth" was.  Is that really still taught in the US?


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 24, 2017)

"But I recognize that the agency is the most important thing to me," Apparently not she said. "My government is the most important thing to me. No, not if you are really serving the office and not the person. I serve at the pleasure of the president, but I still have the First Amendment right to say things." but not in her postion as an USSS agent.


----------



## Raptor (Jan 24, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> This story made me look up what the "Lost Cause myth" was.  Is that really still taught in the US?


I don't recall ever hearing anything in school along the lines of what the myth states (if it was taught to me, it would have been in elementary school), but I know some members of a church I used to go to believe it. I would not be surprised if their kids/grandchildren heard if from them and started to believe in it themselves. Perhaps the schools could do a better job of dispelling the myth, but I'm not sure if that would sway the people who are picking it up from their own family.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 24, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Here's another article I saw today I found very interesting.  Rick Perlestein is an author and historian I've really enjoyed.  I think his 3-part series on the rise of the modern Republican party is phenomenal though I haven't yet finished the 3rd book (The Bridge).  He is definitely a liberal in both the political sense and the political science definition - but is also a well-regarded historian.  This essay I think is very informative in it's academic take on a clash of worldviews - but is written from a liberal perspective so if that shit is going to turn you off from the beginning don't bother.
> 
> I asked my student why he voted for Trump. The answer was thoughtful, smart, and terrifying.



I'll be honest, that guy is not cool.  It became really hard to get through in the middle when he basically claimed that the entire essay his student wrote was just wrong.  I understand all the data he threw out there to support his position, but he forgets something that is very important: perception is reality.


----------



## AWP (Jan 24, 2017)

Wiener Licker said:


> This story made me look up what the "Lost Cause myth" was.  Is that really still taught in the US?



I don't if it is still taught, but it widely accepted in some circles. One of those things passed down within families and written about by historians. People believe it because they want to, it softens the historical narrative, or it is ingrained into them by their family. I have something like 8 - 10 ancestors who fought for the CSA, another who may have participated in the Lincoln Assassination plot (he took a rope for his troubles), and a couple of straight-up slave owners. I'm all too familiar with both (flawed IMO) sides to the Lost Cause argument.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 24, 2017)

So here is one of my many issues with today's media. I've had CNN on most of the day and their primary talker has been around this stupid Trump "illegal's voting" story. Talking heads, charts, testimony, and a touch of attendance-gate mixed in for good measure. 

Meanwhile, with the stroke of a pen he's ordered a federal hiring freeze, stopped pay increases, and gave new life to the Keystone Oil fields.  These are HUGE stories and barely (if at all) got a mention today on live broadcast and small links on the website.

Hey CNN, want me to take you serious and help debunk the "media out to get Trump" story?  Cover the stuff that matters, not just the couple topics that you find sexy and might give you ratings. 

NBC News cover story is about China pushing back in regards to islands dispute.

CBS News cover story is about projected Trump Supreme Court nominees.

ABC is playing the CNN card and talking about alleged voter fraud.

I'm not saying Trump spouting off about alleged voter fraud is not important, but there are bigger and more important stories to cover.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 24, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So here is one of my many issues with today's media. I've had CNN on most of the day and their primary talker has been around this stupid Trump "illegal's voting" story. Talking heads, charts, testimony, and a touch of attendance-gate mixed in for good measure.
> 
> Meanwhile, with the stroke of a pen he's ordered a federal hiring freeze, stopped pay increases, and gave new life to the Keystone Oil fields.  These are HUGE stories and barely (if at all) got a mention today on live broadcast and small links on the website.



And placed a gag order on the EPA. I find it concerning that you think these are good things. Guess who the largest employer of Veterans is?
Reed


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 24, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'll be honest, that guy is not cool.  It became really hard to get through in the middle when he basically claimed that the entire essay his student wrote was just wrong.  I understand all the data he threw out there to support his position, but he forgets something that is very important: perception is reality.



In a graduate seminar perception is definitely not reality.  When I was getting my masters in political science I served as a teaching assistant for two semesters.  It was very common for undergraduates to think they were in high school and that whatever opinion they offered was just as valid as anything else.  Political science - like any other science - has a body of knowledge associated with it.  You have to make a case based on evidence.  There are still disagreements - but every position is most assuredly not equal.



AWP said:


> I don't if it is still taught, but it widely accepted in some circles. One of those things passed down within families and written about by historians. People believe it because they want to, it softens the historical narrative, or it is ingrained into them by their family. I have something like 8 - 10 ancestors who fought for the CSA, another who may have participated in the Lincoln Assassination plot (he took a rope for his troubles), and a couple of straight-up slave owners. I'm all too familiar with both (flawed IMO) sides to the Lost Cause argument.



I thought this was one of the great insights of the essay - that opinion and general 'feeling' often inform analysis.  This kid was 21 years old, I doubt he's had any set of facts drilled into him - instead been exposed to a modicum of social science and begun to form his worldview.  That's exactly what you're supposed to be doing in the education system - especially the liberal arts one - but it highlights the fact your own experiences, biases, and world view greatly affect the conclusions you make about the same information.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 24, 2017)

Trump signing an immigration reform Executive Order, part of that is authorization for the construction of the Wall: Trump to sign executive order on border wall plans, immigration enforcement


----------



## AWP (Jan 24, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> In a graduate seminar perception is definitely not reality.  When I was getting my masters in political science I served as a teaching assistant for two semesters.  It was very common for undergraduates to think they were in high school and that whatever opinion they offered was just as valid as anything else.  Political science - like any other science - has a body of knowledge associated with it.  You have to make a case based on evidence.  There are still disagreements - but every position is most assuredly not equal.



I disagree with this because for that person their perception is reality, fact, and belief rolled into one. Proven facts may state otherwise, but until you can convince someone of those facts' reliability, what they perceive is real to them. The realiability of stats poses problems of their own. Think of the studies that prove Item A is correct and then several years later we learn Item B is correct while Item A is wrong. There are also studies with an inherent bias or outside influence and all of these influence statistics or a narrative. One great example is the FBI's data on violent crime. We know it to be incomplete, but those are the official US Gov't numbers. Does unreported violence ( with respect to the FBI) drastically change the FBI's numbers and subsequent conclusions? We don't know and can we trust what outside agencies or studies present?

Perception also "allows" us to cherry pick studies or numbers that support our beliefs. Black people are inferior to white people? Use crime statistics or high school graduation rates (I'm spitballing, I don't know the actual numbers and this isn't a meme so fact checking isn't allowed  ) to support your beliefs. Dredge up a study from 10 or 20 years ago....any scenario we can conceive of to support our perception.

To a person what they think they see is what they see and believe. Those are the only "facts" that matter to that individual.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 24, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> In a graduate seminar perception is definitely not reality.  When I was getting my masters in political science I served as a teaching assistant for two semesters.  It was very common for undergraduates to think they were in high school and that whatever opinion they offered was just as valid as anything else.  Political science - like any other science - has a body of knowledge associated with it.  You have to make a case based on evidence.  There are still disagreements - but every position is most assuredly not equal.



Then we should be looking at it through a lens which I find extremely difficult: social history.  The worst class I ever took as a part of my history major was a Methodologically Intensive Social History course.

Perception is always the reality.  You may attempt to change the perception with data.  Back to the article, it just became very tough to read and I really didn't care at that point, because he wasn't showing he even understood where his student was coming from.  And maybe that's the point, if you've never lived poor how can you actually know.  I remember when the Enron went up, Linda Lay talked about how they were poor, yeah, they were somehow bankrupt because her husband committed serious white collar crime, but they still had 10 homes with massive acreage.  That is not poor, her perception was that she was though, tone deaf as hell.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 24, 2017)

AWP said:


> I disagree with this because for that person their perception is reality, fact, and belief rolled into one. Proven facts may state otherwise, but until you can convince someone of those facts' reliability, what they perceive is real to them. The realiability of stats poses problems of their own. Think of the studies that prove Item A is correct and then several years later we learn Item B is correct while Item A is wrong. There are also studies with an inherent bias or outside influence and all of these influence statistics or a narrative. One great example is the FBI's data on violent crime. We know it to be incomplete, but those are the official US Gov't numbers. Does unreported violence ( with respect to the FBI) drastically change the FBI's numbers and subsequent conclusions? We don't know and can we trust what outside agencies or studies present?
> 
> Perception also "allows" us to cherry pick studies or numbers that support our beliefs. Black people are inferior to white people? Use crime statistics or high school graduation rates (I'm spitballing, I don't know the actual numbers and this isn't a meme so fact checking isn't allowed  ) to support your beliefs. Dredge up a study from 10 or 20 years ago....any scenario we can conceive of to support our perception.
> 
> To a person what they think they see is what they see and believe. Those are the only "facts" that matter to that individual.



I hear you and I don't think I disagree.  The point I was trying to make is that within political science - like any topic - there are frames of reference, rules of evidence, established theory, and a canon of literature from which positions can be derived.  There is ample room for opinion and differences in interpretation - but that's still a far cry from anything goes or that all opinions and positions are equal.  My experience in the social sciences has been too many of the undereducated value opinion and interpretation without reference to any expertise in the subject.

Here is a really condescending article on being an expert I think makes the point - though as I said in an extremely douchey manner: The Death Of Expertise


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 25, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I hear you and I don't think I disagree.  The point I was trying to make is that within political science - like any topic - there are frames of reference, rules of evidence, established theory, and a canon of literature from which positions can be derived.  There is ample room for opinion and differences in interpretation - but that's still a far cry from anything goes or that all opinions and positions are equal.  My experience in the social sciences has been too many of the undereducated value opinion and interpretation without reference to any expertise in the subject.


I think you are correct within an academic or professional atmosphere. On the other hand, for the average schmo, in the absence of information, perception is quite literally reality. With no other information to go on, one must make a decision based on the available data (even if it is flawed).Excellent observation though, something to think about and consider.


----------



## Etype (Jan 25, 2017)

reed11b said:


> And placed a gag order on the EPA. I find it concerning that you think these are good things. Guess who the largest employer of Veterans is?
> Reed


The "gag order" applies to press releases and official media sites.

I'm sure you're inferring that the, "largest employer of veterans," is the federal government, and I'm sure this argument ties back in to your assumed personal afront because you were applying for a VA police job.

If you had done a bit more research, you'd see that the freeze doesn't apply to public safety of national defense hires.

Your research has been incredible weak since your 'Jeff Sessions on-the-record racist comments' posts.


----------



## compforce (Jan 25, 2017)

reed11b said:


> And placed a gag order on the EPA. I find it concerning that you think these are good things. Guess who the largest employer of Veterans is?
> Reed



Actually, I _do_ consider them good things.  Our Government is a bloated beast rife with waste in the form of non-performing employees, redundant responsibilities and a bureaucracy that slows things down to somewhere below the speed of swamp water.  Yes, it's the largest employer of Veterans, because it's the largest employer.  It also happens to be the largest employer of every minority class, the largest employer of Active Duty military and many others.  The Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world at 3.2 Million people.  And the DoD was exempted from the freeze.



What if Veteran preference was given a boost while cutting unnecessary positions filled by non-vets?  That's entirely possible given Trump's feelings about the military.  Either way something has to be done about the amount of money that is spent on Government.  The last four consecutive years we have had record tax income and yet are still further in debt and have a higher deficit than we've ever had.  A balanced budget is the place to start, and I'm not talking about passing one in Congress, I'm talking about spending cuts to get things under control.  Guess what the most expensive resource in any company is?  It's employment expense, the cost of having employees.  Trump is doing exactly what any newly hired executive does in a private company.  He's trimming the non-performers as a means of cost reduction.  I wholeheartedly support that effort.


----------



## Etype (Jan 25, 2017)

compforce said:


> What if Veteran preference was given a boost while cutting unnecessary positions filled by non-vets?


Why not just fill the positions with those most qualified?

Being a vet doesn't make you, in and of itself, some form of better or more productive worker.


----------



## compforce (Jan 25, 2017)

Etype said:


> Why not just fill the positions with those most qualified?
> 
> Being a vet doesn't make you, in and of itself, some form of better or more productive worker.



I agree, but with a preference toward Veterans when the applicants are otherwise equal.  I'm certainly not suggesting hiring a lesser qualified Veteran over a more qualified non-Veteran.


----------



## Etype (Jan 25, 2017)

compforce said:


> I agree, but with a preference toward Veterans when the applicants are otherwise equal.  I'm certainly not suggesting hiring a lesser qualified Veteran over a more qualified non-Veteran.


I see your point. 

One thing I'm weary of is the entitled vet, it is a very real monster.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 25, 2017)

Opinion | The true, correct story of what happened at Donald Trump’s inauguration

IKIS


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 25, 2017)

compforce said:


> Actually, I _do_ consider them good things.  Our Government is a bloated beast rife with waste in the form of non-performing employees, redundant responsibilities and a bureaucracy that slows things down to somewhere below the speed of swamp water.  Yes, it's the largest employer of Veterans, because it's the largest employer.  It also happens to be the largest employer of every minority class, the largest employer of Active Duty military and many others.  The Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world at 3.2 Million people.  And the DoD was exempted from the freeze.
> 
> What if Veteran preference was given a boost while cutting unnecessary positions filled by non-vets?  That's entirely possible given Trump's feelings about the military.  Either way something has to be done about the amount of money that is spent on Government.  The last four consecutive years we have had record tax income and yet are still further in debt and have a higher deficit than we've ever had.  A balanced budget is the place to start, and I'm not talking about passing one in Congress, I'm talking about spending cuts to get things under control.  Guess what the most expensive resource in any company is?  It's employment expense, the cost of having employees.  Trump is doing exactly what any newly hired executive does in a private company.  He's trimming the non-performers as a means of cost reduction.  I wholeheartedly support that effort.


These are all good points.  I ask, then, why not make cuts starting in the DoD?  Amongst discretionary spending, the DoD is the single largest part of the budget, taking up something like 55% of spending.  President Trump campaigned on a platform of general non-interventionism, yet he wants to ramp up the size of the military, which makes absolutely no sense to me.  It seems like the first place to make cuts would be to the biggest slice of the pie.  I mean, I know the reason why he won't make cuts to the military - that idea is anathema to republicans, but it also makes very little policy sense.

Here's a little infographic for all of you that lays out discretionary (not mandatory) spending:
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png

I'd also like to point out that the "balanced budget" that you proposed in an earlier post would make the President's infrastructure plan much, much more difficult to accomplish, as borrowing would be curtailed.


----------



## CDG (Jan 25, 2017)

@Salt USMC, I've been on this site for awhile, and I don't recognize your username.  Please post an intro in the proper forum before posting again.  #noob


----------



## compforce (Jan 25, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> These are all good points.  I ask, then, why not make cuts starting in the DoD?  Amongst discretionary spending, the DoD is the single largest part of the budget, taking up something like 55% of spending.  President Trump campaigned on a platform of general non-interventionism, yet he wants to ramp up the size of the military, which makes absolutely no sense to me.  It seems like the first place to make cuts would be to the biggest slice of the pie.  I mean, I know the reason why he won't make cuts to the military - that idea is anathema to republicans, but it also makes very little policy sense.



If you ramp up the military (uniformed) you can reduce the reliance on contractors, which are inherently more expensive to maintain.  It actually does cut costs to shift from a contractor model to an employment model when you have the dynamic that the employee can't quit.



> I'd also like to point out that the "balanced budget" that you proposed in an earlier post would make the President's infrastructure plan much, much more difficult to accomplish, as borrowing would be curtailed.



Borrowing doesn't have to be cut back in a balanced budget, you just have to allocate income to make the payments.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 25, 2017)

compforce said:


> If you ramp up the military (uniformed) you can reduce the reliance on contractors, which are inherently more expensive to maintain.  It actually does cut costs to shift from a contractor model to an employment model when you have the dynamic that the employee can't quit.


That's an interesting point.  But I've heard on more than one occasion that contractors less expensive than uniformed personnel in some jobs because they aren't paid other entitlements that uniformed military typically get, such as BAH, BAS, insurance, etc.


----------



## AWP (Jan 25, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> These are all good points.  I ask, then, why not make cuts starting in the DoD?



Good point, but where? SECAF James and GEN Welsh gutted the AF and all of your aircrew positions are sitting at 90% at the absolute best. I can't speak to the other branches, but cutting servicemembers poses huge issues. Contractors? Many of you know I'm a contractor and I'm onboard, but it isn't as simple as "cut x thousand contractors" because your uniformed members CANNOT pick up the slack. The AF in particular is so reliant upon contractors in certain career fields that the newly minted Airmen tech school produces, 3 Levels, are barely functional. Even a subpar contractor can outperform most E-3's and junior E-4's. With that said, contracting needs an overhaul and the blame is as much on the services as the companies themselves. That's a long post in itself, but tossing out a number against a unit (the historical model) is a bucket of fail.

Cut GS'? Good luck with that.

We can't grow servicemembers immediately, but contracting cuts tend to be immediately. That's a huge mistake. I'm all for cuts, but we need to go beyond emotion or a bottom line and step through the problem, the solutions, and those pros and cons. I do not believe for a second our organizations are capable of such thinking and discipline.

----



Salt USMC said:


> That's an interesting point.  But I've heard on more than one occasion that contractors less expensive than uniformed personnel in some jobs because they aren't paid other entitlements that uniformed military typically get, such as BAH, BAS, insurance, etc.



I've had more than one contractor-hating officer tell me the numbers are solid, but contractors are still the wrong answer. The real problem is no one envisioned the model we see today where contractors are so long term and so prevalent. The study should be revisited to find that break point in cost vs. savings, but the initial data and projections a decade ago are in favor of contractors from a cost perspective.


----------



## compforce (Jan 25, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> That's an interesting point.  But I've heard on more than one occasion that contractors less expensive than uniformed personnel in some jobs because they aren't paid other entitlements that uniformed military typically get, such as BAH, BAS, insurance, etc.



I've seen those numbers as well.  The problem with them is that they only compare what the contractor is personally receiving.  The cost to the government for that contractor is much much higher, typically 300% of what the contractor receives.  So that comparison of the $100/hour contractor against a fully loaded E-6 is misleading.  The entire perspective changes if you compare the $300/hour the general contractor (lockheed martin, et al) is receiving for that person.

I do agree with FreeAWP though.  The services have lost the institutional knowledge to say simply cut contractors.  My direct experience with the IT field tells me that it would take a decade to transition from the overly heavy IT contractor presence to the self-contained Signal Corps that I'd like to see in the Army.  Unfortunately our government doesn't do very well when it comes to identifying long term cost/benefit analysis on issues like this.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 25, 2017)

CDG said:


> @Salt USMC, I've been on this site for awhile, and I don't recognize your username.  Please post an intro in the proper forum before posting again.  #noob


I see what you did there.


----------



## AWP (Jan 25, 2017)

Another item to consider, something @Marauder06 can attest to: contractors, particularly those overseas, give a commander a MASSIVE amount of continuity in certain jobs/ areas. Contractors are a good thing, but like anything in this world they need to be monitored and tweaked accordingly...and the contracting system doesn't allow for such changes.

Contractors a major force multiplier, but they've become a crutch.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 25, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> These are all good points.  I ask, then, why not make cuts starting in the DoD?  Amongst discretionary spending, the DoD is the single largest part of the budget, taking up something like 55% of spending.  President Trump campaigned on a platform of general non-interventionism, yet he wants to ramp up the size of the military, which makes absolutely no sense to me.  It seems like the first place to make cuts would be to the biggest slice of the pie.  I mean, I know the reason why he won't make cuts to the military - that idea is anathema to republicans, but it also makes very little policy sense.
> 
> Here's a little infographic for all of you that lays out discretionary (not mandatory) spending:
> https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png
> ...


DoD took the brunt of sequestration, and why isn't welfare a discretionary item?  No one should be entitled to anything..


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 25, 2017)

And now we run into the POTUS staff still using their RNC email system: Trump White House senior staff have private RNC email accounts


----------



## Etype (Jan 25, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> And now we run into the POTUS staff still using their RNC email system: Trump White House senior staff have private RNC email accounts





> It’s not clear whether or how Trump staffers are using the RNC email addresses. If they are using them...


That is quote from the article, but I noticed you put your own personal spin on it by saying they are still using these accounts.

There is nothing that says they are using them, or using them for official business.

I bet half of them also have a private, paid email account- this fact also means nothing on its own.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 25, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> And now we run into the POTUS staff still using their RNC email system: Trump White House senior staff have private RNC email accounts



And you have a .dod email plus gmail plus hotmail plus aol plus grindr account.  Not much issue is used of it,  nor should it be, unless accounts are used for transfer of information that's outside of that mediums classification.

Which is where the primary issue was with HRC. Tertiary of it being wiping the server when there's federal mandates for office archival for public record.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 25, 2017)

I read it, I'm just bringing the news.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 25, 2017)

AWP said:


> Another item to consider, something @Marauder06 can attest to: contractors, particularly those overseas, give a commander a MASSIVE amount of continuity in certain jobs/ areas. Contractors are a good thing, but like anything in this world they need to be monitored and tweaked accordingly...and the contracting system doesn't allow for such changes.
> 
> Contractors a major force multiplier, but they've become a crutch.



Ref.  contractors (and we might need to make this a separate thread):

I don't have the data in front of me, but I distinctly remember doing some "back of the napkin" analysis on the relative cost of employing contractors vs. troops for certain functions during my last deployment to Afghanistan.  We had a LOT of contractors working for us downrange, doing a lot of highly technical and very sensitive work.  And we paid those guys a LOT of money.  In many cases, for each contractor we paid their company well over what I (senior guy) made, and in some cases it might have been twice as much.  I found that interesting.  But, instead making a meme about it or whatever, I did some actual analysis.

This is what I recall:  contractors are worth it in the long run.

With contractors, I get a fully-trained individual that I can plug-and-play as necessary.  They tended to come with deep experience (often gained during military service), maturity, and life/coping skills.  They showed up at the unit already pre-screened; we screened them again, then the ones we wanted we trained, integrated, and sent forward.  When they were done with their mission, or when I got tired of their s#!t (it happened), I sent them home.  No rehab transfers, no Congressional, no "but you're ruining their careers!"  Next thing smoking...

There were also monetary benefits:  no months-to-years-long trainup.  No pensions.  No evals, no awards, no career development.  Did I mention "no pension?"  No long-term health care costs.  "Thank you for your service" and when I'm done with you, a plane ticket home.

My unscientific study, which involved costs of training, retraining, and post-Army benefits expenses of Soldiers compared to contractors, led me to believe that in the long term contractors are worth the money *IF* you can't get enough solid Soldiers to do the job.

I liked having contractors, I thought they were value added and an important part of the team.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 25, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> DoD took the brunt of sequestration, and why isn't welfare a discretionary item?  No one should be entitled to anything..



Yepp...


----------



## reed11b (Jan 25, 2017)

Etype said:


> The "gag order" applies to press releases and official media sites.
> 
> I'm sure you're inferring that the, "largest employer of veterans," is the federal government, and I'm sure this argument ties back in to your assumed personal afront because you were applying for a VA police job.
> 
> ...


Getting a bit personal aren't ya hero?
Reed


----------



## Etype (Jan 25, 2017)

reed11b said:


> Getting a bit personal aren't ya hero?
> Reed


I wouldn't call it personal, just specific.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 25, 2017)

Etype said:


> I wouldn't call it personal, just specific.


Well, "the tone" came across as pretty pointed. I would like to think we all respect each other on this site, even if our political ideologies differ.
Reed


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 25, 2017)

Tone can be hard to convey via the Internet. I like to think we can all be respectful of each other, even in disagreement.

If we can't we have plenty of staff standing by to take your order...


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 25, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Tone can be hard to convey via the Internet. I like to think we can all be respectful of each other, even in disagreement.
> 
> If we can't we have plenty of staff standing by to take your order...


Two all beef patties, cheese, lettuce, tomato on two sesame seed buns. Hold the special sauce. :-"


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 25, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Two all beef patties, cheese, lettuce, tomato on two sesame seed buns. Hold the special sauce. :-"



No problem.  Front lean and rest and stand by.  Someone will be by to assist you.  Right after the voter fraud investigation.

I promise.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 25, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Two all beef patties, cheese, lettuce, tomato on two sesame seed buns. Hold the special sauce. :-"


You want fries with that?

I didn't see it in here, but John Kerry's special gift to the Palestinians has been frozen while it is reviewed by State: Trump reviewing Obama’s payment to Palestinians


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 25, 2017)

When it comes to international relations, I'm very consequentialist:  "What happens if we don't?" 

I deeply resent us giving any money at all to the Palestinian Authority.  I think they're corrupt, they are dishonest, and they mean to do us harm.  Their interests are fundamentally at odds with our own.

And they are better than the alternative.

If we (and numerous other countries, including Israel) were not propping up the PA, Hamas would murder them and take over the West Bank like they did in Gaza.  That would directly threaten both Israel and Jordan, both of whom are important regional allies for us.  It would spark another war with Israel, which would result in thousands of Palestinian casualties and be a propaganda nightmare for the Israelis. 

Those things are not in our national interests.  If we don't financially back the PA, they fall, and even if by some miracle they didn't, we'd lose the very limited leverage we have over them.

So, we give them money.  And from a purely consequentialist perspective, I'm OK with that.


----------



## Etype (Jan 25, 2017)

reed11b said:


> Well, "the tone" came across as pretty pointed. I would like to think we all respect each other on this site, even if our political ideologies differ.
> Reed


It was pointed, but conveyed neither respect nor disrespect.

Your deft use of the word hero leads me to believe I've triggered some sort of an emotional response through my recital of observations- don't let the interwebs get to you.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 25, 2017)

reed11b said:


> Getting a bit personal aren't ya hero?
> Reed


I was going to reply that if the EPA was the largest employer of Vets that the Vet Community should be ashamed of itself.
Details sometimes matter.


----------



## Etype (Jan 25, 2017)

reed11b said:


> And placed a gag order on the EPA. I find it concerning that you think these are good things. Guess who the largest employer of Veterans is?
> Reed





DA SWO said:


> I was going to reply that if the EPA was the largest employer of Vets that the Vet Community should be ashamed of itself.
> Details sometimes matter.


I think its also important to note that just because the fed gov't is the largest employer of vets, it doesn't mean that they have an innate requirement to maintain this position.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 25, 2017)

Interesting.  First heard for me on news about leaving the UN:

A bill has already been introduced in Congress to remove the US from the United Nations


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 25, 2017)

Good to see he was so grateful 

Manning slams  Obama he commuted her jail sentence

Chelsea Manning slams Obama for compromises | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 26, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Interesting.  First heard for me on news about leaving the UN:
> 
> A bill has already been introduced in Congress to remove the US from the United Nations


Yeah, liberal social media was all over this story last week.  This same bill has been introduced in almost every session of Congress since Bush 1, and almost always dies in committee.  This one probably will as well.  At least, I hope it will.  This is one issue where traditional conservatives and I agree: removing the US from the UN, and willingly forgoing our seat on the security council, would be a bonehead move of epic proportions.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 26, 2017)

Alright, I think everyone can appreciate the Bad Lip Reading of the inauguration.  It's not their best work, but it's still worth a laugh.






"Hadouken.  Hadouken to your face."


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 26, 2017)

Contractors are like leasing for business:  You have your base of what you need, you augment for durations as you need it, and if you have a permanent need.... then you actually purchase(hire) what you need permanently.

Leaving the UN. I support it, if it coincides with the US being capable of permanently leaving the planet.  "Fuck this, we're out" of a national, epic, proportion circa Titan AE.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Apparently many grants and other funded research was frozen yesterday by the .gov. Many of our friends at Duke had their research funding frozen.

For those of you that don't know, most Ph.D research is funded via grants from the government, while a small amount is funded in other ways. Often these grants also pay a stipend for living expenses, as a science or engineering Ph.D is a 60-80 hr/week commitment. This is from first hand reports of people who have had their funding frozen.

I haven't seen this on the news yet...


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 26, 2017)




----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 26, 2017)

Bill de Blasio defies Donald Trump on sanctuary cities | Daily Mail Online

Here is my understanding of the whole "Sanctuary City" thing:

- Local police are not expected to drive a van around neighborhoods and "ask for your papers".

- If someone is arrested, and it is found that they are illegal (can we use that word again now?), they are expected to turn that person over to ICE  

- Local mayors disagreed with this for numerous reasons.  To include:
     -  The potential of ripping families apart
     -  The potential of 'illegals' no longer willing to talk to the police or act as a witness to a crime
     -  The loss of a huge voter pool. <kinda sarcastic here, but not really>

- Obama had used an executive order giving mayor's permission to ignore that law

- Trump used an executive order to reverse Obama's order and force cities to follow  the law again

Am I missing something?

While I can see how this law could be abused, on the surface I am okay with it.  Especially since it is only logical to assume that after Obama made the law null, it became much easier for "bad dudes" to act more brazen as they were not afraid of consequences that did not include deporting them.


----------



## AWP (Jan 26, 2017)

I think it is cool they invited a pimp to the inauguration. (above and to the viewer's right from Laura Bush)


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 26, 2017)

In re: executive orders, there really needs to be some action to curb or eliminate them.  There is no explicit authorization for them in the Constitution, although it's widely assumed and accepted that the President has this privilege and courts have largely upheld this.  However, they are so widely abused.  We've reached a point where major policies are enacted via executive order.  They're not used for administrative expediency, they're used to circumvent the legislative process.  That's unsat.  At a bare minimum, all executive orders should expire with the term of the president that signed them.


----------



## Etype (Jan 26, 2017)

AWP said:


> I think it is cool they invited a pimp to the inauguration. (above and to the viewer's right from Laura Bush)


#alljobsmatter


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 26, 2017)

Well...this could get interesting: Mattis, Pompeo stunned by CIA 'black sites' report


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

This is garbage:

EPA science under scrutiny by Trump political staff


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 26, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well...this could get interesting: Mattis, Pompeo stunned by CIA 'black sites' report



In the same way that no one will ever convince me that the NSA has really done anything different since they 'turned off' their surveillance of the U.S, nobody is going to convince me that we are not still using "black sites" in some capacity and that we are not using "enhanced interrogation" as well. 

I'm just not buying it.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 26, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Bill de Blasio defies Donald Trump on sanctuary cities | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Here is my understanding of the whole "Sanctuary City" thing:
> 
> ...


The primary problem for me is that the USSC has ruled repeatedly that the Fed can not force local goverment to enforce it's laws. This is not a liberal led ruling either.
Reed


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 26, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> In the same way that no one will ever convince me that the NSA has really done anything different since they 'turned off' their surveillance of the U.S, nobody is going to convince me that we are not still using "black sites" in some capacity and that we are not using "enhanced interrogation" as well.
> 
> I'm just not buying it.



You should buy it.  The IC agencies are like any other government agencies - the lawyers have a huge say, leaders are risk averse, and the budget rules everything.  It's really, really hard to bury something illegal and expensive in a federal agency with the expectation the people running it aren't going to go states evidence on you the minute investigators start sniffing around.

Charges of incompetence, fraud-waste-abuse, parochialism, budgeting malfeasance - I expect there to be more smoke where there's fire with those.  The idea we've got all this really expensive secret awesome illegal shit on the down-low I think should require a much higher burden of proof.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This is garbage:
> 
> EPA science under scrutiny by Trump political staff



Why?

The EPA has a long history of erroneous environmental decisions.
What would they be afraid of?  Good science stands up to a second look, crappy science doesn't pass peer reviews.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Why?
> 
> The EPA has a long history of erroneous environmental decisions.
> What would they be afraid of?  Good science stands up to a second look, crappy science doesn't pass peer reviews.



The key word there is peer bud. 

Politicians are not peers.


----------



## Etype (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This is garbage:
> 
> EPA science under scrutiny by Trump political staff


Computer models aren't even science, they are programmed predictions.

Climate scientists have already shown their politicized hand by planning their march on Washington.

CO2 is one of the less potent greenhouse gases, the most potent- H2O. Additionally, oxidative stress is a leading cause of death around the world.

We need to ban water and oxygen. Science.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 26, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Why?
> 
> The EPA has a long history of erroneous environmental decisions.
> What would they be afraid of?  Good science stands up to a second look, crappy science doesn't pass peer reviews.


Environmental science shouldn't be scrutinized prior to release by politicians.  It should be scrutinized by, you know, scientists.
You know, the Soviets has a word for this kind of position: Politruk


----------



## Etype (Jan 26, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Environmental science shouldn't be scrutinized prior to release by politicians.  It should be scrutinized by, you know, scientists.
> You know, the Soviets has a word for this kind of position: Politruk


Environmental science doesn't consist of much science, it consists of predictions made by computers.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 26, 2017)

Etype said:


> Environmental science doesn't consist of much science, it consists of predictions made by computers.



Oh man, this gave me the biggest laugh I've had on this site in a long time.  You definitely can't trust those computers - what with the little demons running around in them putting whatever they want on the screen.  Can't wait to hear your summary of the other sciences. 

Also, the internet is just a series of tubes...


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Etype said:


> Computer models aren't even science, they are programmed predictions.
> 
> Climate scientists have already shown their politicized hand by planning their march on Washington.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your expert opinion. Provide your background education, peer reviewed studies, and published papers on the topic of climate science.


----------



## Etype (Jan 26, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Oh man, this gave me the biggest laugh I've had on this site in a long time.  You definitely can't trust those computers - what with the little demons running around in them putting whatever they want on the screen.  Can't wait to hear your summary of the other sciences.
> 
> Also, the internet is just a series of tubes...


Fact- climate change is occurring and has been since the dawn of time, evident by I've ages.

Assumption- man can somehow speed up this process.

Fallacy- a program I have created shows how we are causing it (if I punch in these numbers).

We've missed so many climate change predictions; the scientists are like palm readers with a horrific track record.



TLDR20 said:


> Thanks for your expert opinion. Provide your background education, peer reviewed studies, and published papers on the topic of climate science.


I present to you, empirical data showing the jackassery of climate change predictions.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Etype said:


> I present to you, empirical data showing the jackassery of climate change predictions.View attachment 17854



Not going to cut it homey.

If we know the world is heating up, causing a rise in the levels of the oceans waters, why wouldn't we make every effort to acknowledge that, and try and prevent the long term consequences?


----------



## Etype (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Not going to cut it homey.


It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that cooler heads have prevailed and climate hypotheses no longer run the government.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 26, 2017)

Etype said:


> It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that cooler heads have prevailed and climate hypotheses no longer run the government.


I disagree with you completely, but have to admit that I laughed at this little pun.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Etype said:


> It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that cooler heads have prevailed and climate hypotheses no longer run the government.



It will matter when our major cities are underwater, and we are unprepared for major weather events that will come with a warming of our oceans.


----------



## Etype (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> If we know the world is heating up, causing a rise in the levels of the oceans waters, why wouldn't we make every effort to acknowledge that, and try and prevent the long term consequences?


How many ice ages have occurred? Are you so arrogant as to think that you could influence or change a cycle that has been taking place for millions of years?  We might as well start working on stopping the rising and setting of the sun.

@TLDR20 @Salt USMC
Hey, you guys remember when that research vessel got stuck in the arctic ice? Wasn't that in 2016???  I guess their work wasn't PEER REVIEWED!!!
Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 26, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Why?
> 
> The EPA has a long history of erroneous environmental decisions.
> What would they be afraid of?  Good science stands up to a second look, crappy science doesn't pass peer reviews.


Ah yes, the EPA...let's throw a bone to someone so we get sued and ordered by a court to do something and say: hey, we were ordered to do this.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 26, 2017)

Edit: You know what?  Fuck it.  You're not going to be change your mind regardless of what anyone writes.


----------



## Etype (Jan 26, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Edit: You know what?  Fuck it.  You're not going to be change your mind regardless of what anyone writes.


I saw what you wrote; I chose to be weary of any science that ties itself so tightly to a political agenda, no matter how great of experts it's proponents claim to be.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 26, 2017)

If climate change/global warming were so cut-and-dry, there would not be any issues.  Part of the problem is, people say "but peer-reviewed articles!"  Sure, and there are scholarly peer-reviewed articles both for and against the claim of man-caused global warming.  And those computer and statistical models?  Yeah, many have been flawed, and that's been pointed out in the media.

So what there appears to be is, instead of an industry-wide, unified position, is consensus, with the pro-climate change/global warming position with a seat at the table.

I can see why people think both the ice age cometh and our seas are going to boil over.

It's like trying to define what a catch is in the NFL and the ref and ump disagreeing, and the replay not helping.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Also, this "scientists march on Washington" isn't just climate scientists. At all.

Of the now 7 people I personally know planning on attending, there are zero climate change scientists. There are however physicians(2x), Nurses(2x), Biomedical engineers (3x) Chemical Engineers, and mechanical engineers. All but me have advanced degrees in their fields, including Ph.Ds, genetics fellowships, and masters degrees.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 26, 2017)

Weather people are always right.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Weather and climate are different things.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)




----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 26, 2017)

At this point does bickering even matter? Until we figure out a way to exploit space and other natural solar resources, we need to try to conserve the resources here on earth. We need to think in the long term, I know the EPA  is unpopular, but we need to be better at resource management until we can finally exploit space.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 26, 2017)

Because escaping punishment for turning a river yellow with mining waste is supposed to convince me that people in the EPA have the environment's best interest at heart. 

Yeah, only until it's their ass.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 26, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Because escaping punishment for turning a river yellow with mining waste is supposed to convince me that people in the EPA have the environment's best interest at heart.
> 
> Yeah, only until it's their ass.


 Yep. I'm all for preserving the environment; it's one of the issues I lean left on. I have ZERO faith that the EPA is actually working toward the same end.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 26, 2017)

There are 8 billion parasitic human organisms on this speck of rock reproducing exponentially so that soon there will be 10 billion parasitic human organisms on this speck of rock killing the fuck out of each other over food, living space and potable water...and you're worried about a few fucking degrees of temperature over the decades? It ain't global warming that's going to kill us. It's the motherfucker coming to steal your food.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> There are 8 billion parasitic human organisms on this speck of rock reproducing exponentially so that soon there will be 10 billion parasitic human organisms on this speck of rock killing the fuck out of each other over food, living space and potable water...and you're worried about a few fucking degrees of temperature over the decades?



Lol they are interconnected problems. How much of the worlds population lives within areas that will be affected by sea level rise? Now imagine the refugees and immigration problems stemming from hundreds and hundreds of millions of people needing to relocate.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Lol they are interconnected problems. How much of the worlds population lives within areas that will be affected by sea level rise? Now imagine the refugees and immigration problems stemming from hundreds and hundreds of millions of people needing to relocate.



Also there's a lot of research and data that through elements of globalized trade, increased education for women, and access to birth control populations come under control with economic and social development.

Of course, it's scientists and researchers that put those studies together - and a lot of the time they're using computer modeling.  So, probably total bullshit.  Hopefully Exxon will do some research, or sponsor someone doing research enough to get to 3% of scientists agreeing on an answer.  Then we'll know it's totally legit and can move out.  Unless Exxon uses computer models, then we're fucked.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Lol they are interconnected problems. How much of the worlds population lives within areas that will be affected by sea level rise? Now imagine the refugees and immigration problems stemming from hundreds and hundreds of millions of people needing to relocate.



But overpopulation is the root of all evils, the reason why our non-renewable resources will someday be exhausted, the reason for global warming, _if, _in fact, global warming _is _caused by humans and not just cyclical climate variations. It's my belief that other issues, human issues,  will present more danger and are more imminent than melting icecaps and sea level rise.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 26, 2017)

I trust Exxon to navigate our way out of this channel.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

The way I think of it:

 Fuck what is causing it. We have objective easy to see information that says the earth is warming up. There are easy to predict problems from this. We could plan for it, using science and professional researched ideas, or we could let partisan politics determine our future. To me, the fact that the earth is warming is indisputable. No one says it isn't. Remove the cause and tell me we shouldn't prepare for it. Tell me why we shouldn't prepare for mass immigration. Explain to me why we shouldn't try and look hard at renewable energy? At some point you have to realize that fossil fuels will go away. Why not be at the cutting edge of creating and using renewable sources? Why not spend our money on ensuring that we are at the forefront of research to ensure this? Why would we rest in what is the status quo?

Think of it purely as a defense issue. If we know, for a fact, we will run out of fossil fuel. Wouldn't be in our best interest to reduce our demand for such fuels? There is a reason the DOD is putting so much money into research, turning water into jet fuel, and responsibly using nuclear power. It is in our national security interests. 

I just don't understand the push back. Because the definition is scary? Seriously, we know what is happening regardless of the cause. Why not prepare for it?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 26, 2017)

Earth is going to do it's Earth thing with or without the evil 4x4 pickup.  I'll have to go back to the Bible but I don't think the Hebrews rolled out from Egypt in Land Rovers....and it was dirty hot back then.  Here is a good pic of the cycles.  Looky looky predicted cool down due to weather pattern and lowered Solar activity.  Then WHAMO solar activity increases (sun pattern) and in 2038 it's suppose to be another Dust Bowl type great depression heat wave like you read about!



That's right Earth has gone through these cycles for 1000's of years and it is more based on weather patterns, cycles of the Sun and Volcano eruptions then anything else.  Do we hurt it?  Yes!  Is the 4x4 truck the devil?  No.  Now, I don't knock liberals if they want to drive a Prius, but I don't want them trying impose their stupid views on me by calling it science.  It's not SCIENCE, because they are stuck in Step 3 from the Scientific Method (Hypothesis).  Earth is crushing Step 4 (Experiment).  Step 5 is the future but we don't know the results until its the past so therefore it is alot like trying to predict the weather!  Build a time machine, then you'll know the 6 or 7 complete steps from the Scientific Method on Global warming, until then its voodoo at best.  If my 14 year old built a Science experiment like your "Climate Scientists", stopping at Step 3...she would fail 8th Grade Science...



Speaking of scientists, Do we really need to argue about how many times the "smart people" have been wrong?



:-"


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Earth is going to do it's Earth thing with or without the evil 4x4 pickup.  I'll have to go back to the Bible but I don't think the Hebrews rolled out from Egypt in Land Rovers....and it was dirty hot back then.  Here is a good pic of the cycles.  Looky looky predicted cool down due to weather pattern and lowered Solar activity.  Then WHAMO solar activity increases (sun pattern) and in 2038 it's suppose to be another Dust Bowl type great depression heat wave like you read about!
> 
> View attachment 17858
> 
> ...



Memes and comics are so great.

Except when they are horribly inaccurate at talking about real issues:

The earth had been suggested to be round since the ancient Greeks, and has been known to be round since the 15th century. Before there was complicated math like we have today, obviously there were different views of the world.

The heliocentric model was disproven by Copernicus in the 16th century. Again, it wasn't  science but religion that had the alternative hypothesis.

The heavier and lighter body theory boils down to surface area, rather than weight.

The atom was the smallest observable unit until new methods were developed to observe the forces of others...

Seriously man, a senior in high school should have enough scientific understanding to talk about these points.

The global warming and cooling stuff isn't really related to these, but in a way it is. As technology advances we are able to both better understand the world around us, and predict the way the world may become.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

I also think it is crazy the things we accept as factual, or scientific, and the things we do not.

999/1000 doctors say it is good to get vaccines. Most people agree and get vaccines. 999/1000 doctors say it is right to get surgery for problem appendicitis, most people get surgery for appendicitis.

The same percentage of climate experts(Ph.D level researchers) agree that the world is warming up. People tell them to fuck off.

I'm not a climate researcher. I don't know much at all about it. I do know that I trust those who have dedicated their lives to research, more than those who have an interest in keeping the status quo going.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 26, 2017)

I think most people will agree that the climate is changing:  sea levels are rising, ice is melting, there is a gradual increase in temperatures in some locations.  The differences come in the "why."  

And if 99% of scientists are agreeing on the causes of climate change, or just about anything else, that's news to me.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 26, 2017)

Have to say Trump's pace is pretty impressive, I don't like the lack of PT though: Trump sets dizzying WH pace in first days


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 26, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I think most people will agree that the climate is changing:  sea levels are rising, ice is melting, there is a gradual increase in temperatures in some locations.  The differences come in the "why."
> 
> And if 99% of scientists are agreeing on the causes of climate change, or just about anything else, that's news to me.



They aren't, its 95% or 97% depending on which site you read.

It's been proving wrong.....it's closer to 52%.  

 

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

This guy gives you a good read out!







*Alan Carlin*
Ph.D. Economics, MIT
Senior Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Retired) 
Dr. Carlin, your paper '_A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change_' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

*Is this an accurate representation of your paper?*
Carlin: "*No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.* I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:

"_The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting._"

In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.

*I would classify my paper in Cook et al's category (7): Explicit rejection with quantification.* My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.

With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2." 
*Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?* 
Carlin: "If Cook et al's paper is so far off in its classification of my paper, the next question is whether their treatment of my paper is an outlier in the quality of their analysis or is representative. Since I understand that five other skeptic paper authors whose papers were classified by Cook et al. (Idso, Morner, Scaffeta, Soon, and Shaviv) have similar concerns to date, the classification problems in Cook's paper may be more general. Further, in all six cases the effect of the misclassifications is to exaggerate Cook et al's conclusions rather than being apparently random errors due to sloppy analysis. Since their conclusions are at best no better than their data, it appears likely that Cook et al's conclusions are exaggerated as well as being unsupported by the evidence that they offer. I have not done an analysis of each of the papers Cook et al. classified, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers.

One possible explanation for this apparent pattern of misclassification into "more favorable" classifications in terms of supporting the AGW hypothesis is that Cook et al. may have reverse engineered their paper. That is, perhaps the authors started by deciding the "answer" they wanted (97 percent) based on previous alarmist studies on the subject. They certainly had strong motivation to come up with this "answer" given the huge propaganda investment by alarmists in this particular number. So in the end they may have concluded that they needed to reclassify enough skeptic papers into "more favorable" classifications in order to reach this possibly predetermined "answer" and hoped that these misclassifications would go unnoticed by the world's press and governmental officials trumpeting their scientifically irrelevant conclusions. Obviously, whether this was actually done is known only to the authors, but I offer it as a hypothesis that might explain the apparently widespread and one-directional misclassifications of skeptic papers. Mere sloppy analysis should have resulted in a random pattern of misclassifications."


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 26, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I think most people will agree that the climate is changing:  sea levels are rising, ice is melting, there is a gradual increase in temperatures in some locations.  The differences come in the "why."
> 
> And if 99% of scientists are agreeing on the causes of climate change, or just about anything else, that's news to me.



The figure I've heard cited is 97%.  I always wonder too about those who doubt scientific consensus about how much faith they put into non-scientific conjecture. 

'Scientist say this is how radio waves propagate - but, this dude on the internet says wizards are casting magic spells.  I don't know, tough call but I'm going with the wizard - he also sells some products on his website I'd like to buy, he just seems more trustworthy.' 

Experts definitely get things wrong, sometimes amateurs, skeptics and observers get things right.  But I think the ratio is probably shy of 1 out of 100 in favor of the experts - and is likely highest with hard science.

I don't think doubt on climate science is crazy - though I think it's incorrect.  I think certainty that climate science is wrong because...the internet...is fucking nuts.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I think most people will agree that the climate is changing:  sea levels are rising, ice is melting, there is a gradual increase in temperatures in some locations.  The differences come in the "why."
> 
> And if 99% of scientists are agreeing on the causes of climate change, or just about anything else, that's news to me.



I said nothing of the cause...

And I'll give you 970/1000


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I said nothing of the cause...
> 
> And I'll give you 970/1000



I didn't say you did.  I was explaining why some people are skeptical of the claimed science.

97% isn't 99%.  It's not 52% (above) or ~70% (here) either.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I didn't say you did.  I was explaining why some people are skeptical of the claimed science.
> 
> 97% isn't 99%.  It's not 52% (above) or ~70% (here) either.



That is anthropomorphic. That isn't what I am claiming. I have taken no stance on that issue.

My stance remains: the earth is clearly heating. Should we not attempt to address complications from that?


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> The key word there is peer bud.
> 
> Politicians are not peers.


There are enough scientists who question the studies for them to have a spirited peer review; bud.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> That is anthropomorphic. That isn't what I am claiming. I have taken no stance on that issue.
> 
> My stance remains: the earth is clearly heating. Should we not attempt to address complications from that?



I hate it when you make me look up words when we're debating ;)


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 26, 2017)

Climate-related conditions are a major security concern.  Famine, drought, flood, hurricane, tsunami, and others can temporary or terminal government weakness, stir unrest, drive migration, increase poverty, and spur military conflict.  The Pentagon has recognized this for a long time.   And it's smart to do so:  the element that has been and will be called in to "do something" with the fallout from these conditions is the US military.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 26, 2017)

Article from 1922 in the Washington Post...



> *The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
> Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
> Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.*



This was cited from a news article obtained here:

https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

What happened after this?  The great depression.  Then what?  The little Ice Age of the 1970's.  So fishermen went back and saw ICE way further south then 81 deg.  In fact the entire 1980's and 2000's ice can be found at that Parallel and south.

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps

So there was less ice in 1922 then in 2007....The Earth heats up and it cools down.....Why are we in crisis mode here?  This is all I am asking....


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Article from 1922 in the Washington Post...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They didn't have satellite data in 1922 to actually compare the difference.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 26, 2017)

But we are warming? Or is it cooling? Did god create the earth? Or was it The Big Bang? Puts us back to the Weather Man is always right! We can carbon date something back 1000's of years,  but we can not predict the weather the next 7 days. Not a Hard Science. Earth has been in flux since its beginning. You find one study, I find another. I don't care what either side says, I just want to know if I detail my truck will it look nice for the next 7 days, or are we going to have a deep freeze so some pipes burst and I earn some money.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2017)

Polar Bear said:


> But we are warming? Or is it cooling? Did god create the earth? Or was it The Big Bang? Puts us back to the Weather Man is always right! We can carbon date something back 1000's of years,  but we can not predict the weather the next 7 days. Not a Hard Science. Earth has been in flux since its beginning. You find one study, I find another. I don't care what either side says, I just want to know if I detail my truck will it look nice for the next 7 days, or are we going to have a deep freeze so some pipes burst and I earn some money.



Lol. 

I am sure, 100%, in fact, you cannot find one single peer reviewed scientific study saying the earth is thousands of years old.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 26, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Why are we in crisis mode here? This is all I am asking



Follow the money my boy, follow the money.

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> They didn't have satellite data in 1922 to actually compare the difference.



Bro, here you go!  These researchers went to Bear Island (yellow dot), then to Spitzbergen (yellow dot), then continued North to 81' 29" (redline) and found no ICE in 1922, didn't need satellite..had eye witness accounts....



West is Greenland, South is Norway/Finland, East is the part of Russia noone visits, North is the North Pole....:-"

Now look at this Pic from from 1979, as far as we can go back, to Mid August 2007....There has been ice at that spot for 28 years.


----------



## AWP (Jan 26, 2017)

I agree that the earth is warming, but I can't get behind a cause. I also agree that everything is cyclical and that people are divided (emotion or science is irrelevant, perception is reality) on the cause. 

What I don't understand: Regardless of the above, why aren't we working to mitigate the damage? Whether this continues as the new normal or cools off, this is a problem we'll see in the future. This is kind of like the space race or building atomic weapons: debates on the future happened, but the overriding goal was solving the problems of the present. The world is bickering over causes rather than solutions.

"Our house is burning down."
"Let's talk about that grease fire you started."
"Shouldn't we put out the fire?"
"Not until we have someone to blame."


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 26, 2017)

So, how about this wall?!

I'm no immigration expert (and agree it's a problem) but, for all practical purposes, every wall in history has really just been a challenge thrown by it's builders to see who can breach it; a challenge that was always accepted. 

Isn't a better approach to remove the incentive to be on the "other side of the wall"?  Seems that would be a more effective, and probably affordable, solution.


----------



## NomadicWriter (Jan 27, 2017)

I had a friend of mine that I've known since the 2nd grade, who is now a lawyer, text me today asking if I thought torture was useful in interrogations. I responded that I'm not an intel guy and have never conducted an interrogation, but that I think the consensus among those who are informed on the matter is that there are more effective ways to glean information from a detainee. I then thought about it more, and think that what I consider torture and what another person considers torture might be two different things.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 27, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> So, how about this wall?!
> 
> I'm no immigration expert (and agree it's a problem) but, for all practical purposes, every wall in history has really just been a challenge thrown by it's builders to see who can breach it; a challenge that was always accepted.
> 
> Isn't a better approach to remove the incentive to be on the "other side of the wall"?  Seems that would be a more effective, and probably affordable, solution.



A properly built wall will *reduce* the illegal importation of whatever into a country (somewhat) but it will never stop it since there are multiple streams.  Nice symbol though. Very DDR.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 27, 2017)

AWP said:


> I agree that the earth is warming, but I can't get behind a cause. I also agree that everything is cyclical and that people are divided (emotion or science is irrelevant, perception is reality) on the cause.
> 
> What I don't understand: Regardless of the above, why aren't we working to mitigate the damage? Whether this continues as the new normal or cools off, this is a problem we'll see in the future. This is kind of like the space race or building atomic weapons: debates on the future happened, but the overriding goal was solving the problems of the present. The world is bickering over causes rather than solutions.
> 
> ...



Yepp....but here is the problem.  A group of fire experts get together, not all the fire experts on earth, just 1821 of them.  Some specialized in grease fires, some dryer fires.  They post a study of their thoughts behind this FIRE while the fire is still going, so they really can't go running it to try to figure what caused it until its over.

Anywho..52 percent agree there was a fire and it was caused by grease, 10 percent say it was grease and the dryer that caused it, 20 say there is not enough evidence and 4 % say there was no fire.

Somehow the Liberal media spins that as 97% of fire experts agree that it was a grease fire and its on the internet that 97% of grease fire experts say this fire was caused by grease......


----------



## Etype (Jan 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> 'Scientist say this is how radio waves propagate - but, this dude on the internet says wizards are casting magic spells.  I don't know, tough call but I'm going with the wizard - he also sells some products on his website I'd like to buy, he just seems more trustworthy.'


Terrible analogy.

We can hypothesize and experiment with wave propogation with striking accuracy.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 27, 2017)

Global Warming is profitable. The fear generated by environmental groups equates to hundreds of billions of dollars in donations. Billions more to businesses that profess to be environmentally friendly or use the words "eco" or "green" in their advertising. Billions in grants to climatologists and other scientists who've hitched their wagon to this impending catastrophe; ostracization of any and all who dare to present contrary reputable evidence. It is in the best financial interests of the proponents of global warming to maintain and cultivate the level of fear while supressing any threat to the flow of money.

And, just for the record, Al Gore is a fucking Tennessee tobacco farmer and lawyer who wouldn't know science if it crawled up his ass and bit him.


----------



## CDG (Jan 27, 2017)

My thoughts on what the problem is.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 27, 2017)

CDG said:


> My thoughts on what the problem is.



If Jack Nicholson did comedy routines^^^^^^. The guy's great!!


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 27, 2017)

Etype said:


> Environmental science doesn't consist of much science, it consists of predictions made by computers.


No, oceanography and meteorology intake a lot of data so those models can work.
You then run the model too see if the predictions are correct, if not go back to the lab.



TLDR20 said:


> Thanks for your expert opinion. Provide your background education, peer reviewed studies, and published papers on the topic of climate science.


BS Aviation Science/Aeronautical Meteorology with Climatology and Statistical Climatology thrown in.
Forecast study for Soto Cano AB in Honduras, and I developed a "hip pocket" forecast technique for U-2 support in the Pacific.
Please post your scientific creds.



TLDR20 said:


> Not going to cut it homey.
> 
> If we know the world is heating up, causing a rise in the levels of the oceans waters, why wouldn't we make every effort to acknowledge that, and try and prevent the long term consequences?



Actually warming will cause the oceans to lower a bit as ice has more volume than water. 
(Expand this last section, I put my responses inside the quote box)


TLDR20 said:


> It will matter when our major cities are underwater, and we are unprepared for major weather events that will come with a warming of our oceans.



All that ice melting will cool the oceans, does adding ice to your drink make the drink warmer?



TLDR20 said:


> Memes and comics are so great.
> 
> Except when they are horribly inaccurate at talking about real issues:
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunz (Jan 27, 2017)

CDG said:


> My thoughts on what the problem is.



He's right. We need to start cappin people. Maybe...4-5 billion to start. Think about it. Off that many and you'll never get stuck in another traffic jam, they'll be plenty of food, gas, beer to go around and every leftover motherfucker gets 4000 acres. And we smoke more dudes than chicks so you get a selection.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 27, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> No, oceanography and meteorology intake a lot of data so those models can work.
> You then run the model too see if the predictions are correct, if not go back to the lab.
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, I wasn't talking to you, in any of these posts. I have made it abundantly clear I have no training or expertise in climate science. 

Adding ice cools the drink, and causes the level of the fluid to rise once it is melted...

Also, the volume argument of ice melt only applies to sea ice. The ice that is melting in Antarctica, which is vastly more, would not have a correlating volume decrease.


----------



## Etype (Jan 27, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> The heavier and lighter body theory boils down to surface area, rather than weight.
> 
> 
> Seriously man, a senior in high school should have enough scientific understanding to talk about these points.


The most obvious for us military folks-

Dive vs. box-man vs. high-lift track, all the same surface area and weight falling towards the earth at different speeds.

It doesn't have anything to do with weight, but doesn't necessarily correspond to surface area either. When talking about aerodynamics and hydrodynamics, longer vessels with MORE surface area can actually have LESS drag- that can be demonstrated using the BC formulae.

Seriously man, high school students.  If you're going to try to be psuedo-offensive, don't do it with an off the mark post.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 27, 2017)

Etype said:


> The most obvious for us military folks-
> 
> Dive vs. box-man vs. high-lift track, all the same surface area and weight falling towards the earth at different speeds.
> 
> ...



Keeping in the vein of the original context, which was a comic, I used the easiest example of something that wasn't understood.


----------



## Etype (Jan 27, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Keeping in the vein of the original context, which was a comic, I used the easiest example of something that wasn't understood.


But you displayed that you didn't understand it either.



TLDR20 said:


> First of all, I wasn't talking to you, in any of these posts. I have made it abundantly clear I have no training or expertise in climate science.
> 
> Adding ice cools the drink, and causes the level of the fluid to rise once it is melted...
> 
> Also, the volume argument of ice melt only applies to sea ice. The ice that is melting in Antarctica, which is vastly more, would not have a correlating volume decrease.


Why so testy? Is open conversation not open to everyone?

Beneficial to your argument, glacial ice is also up to twice as dense as ice frozen at atmospheric pressure.

Eta- 50% more dense, I fact checked myself.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 27, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Also, the volume argument of ice melt only applies to sea ice. The ice that is melting in Antarctica, which is vastly more, would not have a correlating volume decrease.



Antarctica is gaining ice; more than the pace in which glaciers are losing it.  In fairness to the science, in the articles I read no one is sure why, or what it means.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 27, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Antarctica is gaining ice; more than the pace in which glaciers are losing it.  In fairness to the science, in the articles I read no one is sure why, or what it means.



Possibility of a shift in the earth's axis.  It would explain the warmer temps in the Northern Hemisphere as well, more solar radiation.  And less in the South.   I haven't had to keep track of that stuff in a long time for radio propagation, so I'm not exactly sure but it would be a probable explanation.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 27, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Antarctica is gaining ice; more than the pace in which glaciers are losing it.  In fairness to the science, in the articles I read no one is sure why, or what it means.



Sea ice. Gaining sea ice while losing glacial ice. The sea ice is seasonal.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 27, 2017)

One of my favorite things, is arguing with multiple people cherry picking single sentences while not even trying to engage fairly in an argument. 

Makes shit way more exciting.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 27, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> One of my favorite things, is arguing with multiple people cherry picking single sentences while not even trying to engage fairly in an argument.
> 
> Makes shit way more exciting.



If you just came over to our side, you wouldn't have to argue.


----------



## Etype (Jan 27, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> One of my favorite things, is arguing with multiple people cherry picking single sentences while not even trying to engage fairly in an argument.
> 
> Makes shit way more exciting.


Looks like we won, boys. Let's head on home.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 27, 2017)

FYI, the Federal hiring freeze did include my VA police offer. Hopefully it is a temporary freeze and the hiring will be allowed to continue in a few months. I have not checked with CBP to see if that position is also frozen yet.
One very cranky Reed.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 27, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Makes shit way more exciting.



Wrong again!  There is nothing exciting about "shit" and I have the meme to prove it


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 27, 2017)

Trump's approval rating in his first week is 59%.  I wonder how often they do these polls.

OP-ED How Trump Reverse 8 Years of Obama in a work week: Op-Ed: Trump just reversed the last 8 years of Obama in one week. What happens now?


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 27, 2017)

reed11b said:


> FYI, the Federal hiring freeze did include my VA police offer. Hopefully it is a temporary freeze and the hiring will be allowed to continue in a few months. I have not checked with CBP to see if that position is also frozen yet.
> One very cranky Reed.



I'm sorry to hear that man.  My BDE is running into the same thing (Army MI BDE under INSCOM).  Our hiring efforts for DA civilians with an execution date before 22 FEB have all been frozen or cancelled.

However, the word we're getting through HQs is everyone is aware of the challenges with the executive order and they believe it will be lifted as congress goes back into session and some cuts start being put on the table.  It's not 100% clear how much of the freeze effecting DoD is really a part of the President's intent - and how much of it is just interpretation.

Give it a month and things might be very different for your application process.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 27, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Trump's approval rating in his first week is 59%.  I wonder how often they do these polls.
> 
> OP-ED How Trump Reverse 8 Years of Obama in a work week: Op-Ed: Trump just reversed the last 8 years of Obama in one week. What happens now?


I have not seen the 59% approval rating anywhere. In fact, I have seen very differnt numbers. What was the source?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 27, 2017)

reed11b said:


> I have not seen the 59% approval rating anywhere. In fact, I have seen very differnt numbers. What was the source?



Probably the President's Twitter page.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 27, 2017)

reed11b said:


> I have not seen the 59% approval rating anywhere. In fact, I have seen very differnt numbers. What was the source?



So Rasmussen does a daily tracking poll on approval ratings, today was 55% . Wednesday, the Washington Times quoting the Rasmussen Poll said his approval rating was at 59%

However, I see that CNN is quoting a Quinnipiac Poll saying his approval rating is at 36%.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 27, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So Rasmussen does a daily tracking poll on approval ratings, today was 55% . Wednesday, the Washington Times quoting the Rasmussen Poll said his approval rating was at 59%
> 
> However, I see that CNN is quoting a Quinnipiac Poll saying his approval rating is at 36%.



Yeah, that CNN number is what I have been seeing: Poll: Trump begins presidency with 36 percent approval rating

Maybe the difference is the Rasmussen poll you cited used the figure for 'likely voters' and the Quinnipiac cited by the Hill used 'voters' - I'm assuming they mean people of voting age, or maybe registered voters?  Still, that big of a difference makes me less confident in either number.

Also, it seems like stuff like that goes towards the narrative of the press/media being against the President.  If you're reading the Rasmussen polls you cited - then see CNN or the Hill reporting the other numbers - it definitely opens up a lot of questions.  Could certainly be other explanations - I don't know how well regarded either polling service is and I don't know enough about polling to know if 'likely voters' or 'eligible voters' is the traditional measurement of those numbers.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 27, 2017)

If this hiring freeze remains in place much longer it's likely to plummet even further, especially in some constituencies that are pretty important to the President.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 27, 2017)

reed11b said:


> I have not seen the 59% approval rating anywhere. In fact, I have seen very differnt numbers. What was the source?



Yesterday, a Rassmussen poll in the Washington Times, polling "among likely voters."

Polling about 45% in Gallup, Quinnipiac shows 36%.

Edited:  I posted then saw the replies above.  My bad.


----------



## Etype (Jan 27, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> If this hiring freeze remains in place much longer it's likely to plummet even further, especially in some constituencies that are pretty important to the President.


I hope he's working quickly to identify positions that will be cut so hiring can reopen for positions that are deemed necessary.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 27, 2017)

Scorched earth...fire the whole government. Burn it down, and start a new one.  With shit like if you ain't a citizen "fuuuuuck you" and concription into government services for 2 years prior to college.  Better yet mandatory 15 month deployment to the middle east. You don't have to fight, you can load the body bags, burn the shit, or whatever.

IRS? Burn it.
BATF? Burn it.
FBI? That's right Colmy you shit bag, burn it.
Burn them all, fire everyone!!!


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 27, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Scorched earth...fire the whole government. Burn it down, and start a new one.  With shit like if you ain't a citizen "fuuuuuck you" and concription into government services for 2 years prior to college.  Better yet mandatory 15 month deployment to the middle east. You don't have to fight, you can load the body bags, burn the shit, or whatever.
> 
> IRS? Burn it.
> BATF? Burn it.
> ...



"Liked" for the Ricky Bobby reference.  "Anarchy!  Anarchy!"


----------



## AWP (Jan 27, 2017)

We're citing polls now? Didn't polls in the run up to the election predict a Clinton victory? You know nothing, Jon Snow.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 27, 2017)

Lol.


----------



## Etype (Jan 28, 2017)

AWP said:


> We're citing polls now? Didn't polls in the run up to the election predict a Clinton victory? You know nothing, Jon Snow.


I had already made this point, but it wasn't peer reviewed.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 28, 2017)

Etype said:


> I had already made this point, but it wasn't peer reviewed.



I'm sorry, only Scientists with PhD's can make points.....


----------



## Gunz (Jan 28, 2017)

So...not to hijack the global warming debate...but I wake up this morning to glaring headlines on CNN:

"134,000,000 people banned from the US"

And I'm supposed to feel bad about this?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 28, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> And I'm supposed to feel bad about this?



Nope.  I'm with Trump 100% on this one. Turn the water faucet off and get this shit under control.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Nope.  I'm with Trump 100% on this one. Turn the water faucet off and get this shit under control.
> 
> View attachment 17876



Thanks for the visual.

I'd bet few people who are trying to make this sound like some outrage against humanity would be willing to give a spare bedroom to a refugee.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 28, 2017)

Don't worry folks, the bleeding hearts running Canada will let them all in and put them up in fancy hotels with tons of free money.


----------



## Etype (Jan 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Nope.  I'm with Trump 100% on this one. Turn the water faucet off and get this shit under control.
> 
> View attachment 17876


Public safety and national security both need to take priority over immigration.

It's very hard, if not impossible, to vet people coming from countries where we have no diplomatic presence.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

AWP said:


> We're citing polls now? Didn't polls in the run up to the election predict a Clinton victory? You know nothing, Jon Snow.


2017 has already claimed a handful of victims- polls, opinions of SME's that contradict our own uneducated opinions, actual facts, and the dude from the elephant man movie. 

Maybe they're gonna make a sequel to this one-


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

Well, pretty much worse case scenario for the anti-immigration/Muslim ban crowd. Funny aside, Iran said they'll close their borders to Americans in response to P. Trump's ban. There goes my spring Tehran getaway.

Two Iraqis detained/denied entry to the US, and one of them was a terp with a decade of service as a contractor.

ETA- the second dude, contractor guy, was released. Also, I keep seeing that the two men "Sued President Trump", leading me to believe that they actually sued the person, Donald J. Trump, and not the government. Is that a thing? I know he has outstanding suits currently, but I guess I never thought of just suing the president.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

We can split hairs over where it's a Muslim ban or just a ban from 6 countries that "sponsor terrorism", I suppose. At least we know how the VP feels on the issue!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 28, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Well, pretty much worse case scenario for the anti-immigration/Muslim ban crowd. Funny aside, Iran said they'll close their borders to Americans in response to P. Trump's ban. There goes my spring Tehran getaway.
> 
> Two Iraqis detained/denied entry to the US, and one of them was a terp with a decade of service as a contractor.
> 
> ETA- the second dude, contractor guy, was released. Also, I keep seeing that the two men "Sued President Trump", leading me to believe that they actually sued the person, Donald J. Trump, and not the government. Is that a thing? I know he has outstanding suits currently, but I guess I never thought of just suing the president.



So from what I understand in regards to suing the administration, it happens all the time, it happened a lot under Clinton, Bush, and Obama...you just never hear about it.  Like the constitutional lawsuit against Trump for divesting all of his companies, which he is not required to do.

I wonder back in the day if federal dollars went towards peanuts from Carter's peanut farm.

Becuz Memes:


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 28, 2017)

Is it a right to immigrate or get a VISA to the US?  Nope....I see no issue in stopping some immigration for a bit.  I have always thought we should stop NEW Visa's into the US, until we can get a handle on all of the Visa overstays.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> What makes her think this was ever a good idea?  The part that I would be most concerned about, is that she felt okay openly acknowledging her violation of The Hatch Act, but does not appear to be concerned that she is also stating that if it came down to it, she'd let the President of the United States take bullet instead of her.
> 
> Disclaimer - I was not familiar with The Hatch Act, and had to look it up.  In a nutshell it states that a person in her position cannot not openly campaign for  one candidate over the other.
> 
> ...




Follow up. 

Federal agent who wouldn't defend Trump placed on leave | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Grunt (Jan 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Follow up.
> 
> Federal agent who wouldn't defend Trump placed on leave | Daily Mail Online



Good! I've been on plenty of details that I didn't care for the protectee. But, I did it because it was my job and my duty. Just like when I was sent places I didn't want to go to...I went. That's what professionals do!


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

I am 100% for some sort of immigration reform. Maybe an 'all stop' is needed in the moment in order to come up with an actual plan, who knows. I certainly don't cause I'm not an international immigration reform expert. I'd like to see actual legislation and not this half assed executive order, and a way forward with this 'extreme vetting' I keep hearing so much about.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

@ThunderHorse


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 28, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Is it a right to immigrate or get a VISA to the US?  Nope....I see no issue in stopping some immigration for a bit.  I have always thought we should stop NEW Visa's into the US, until we can get a handle on all of the Visa overstays.



Agree with the first, somewhat disagree with the second.  Issuance of visas and enforcement of overstays don't really cross lanes; stopping visa processing by USCIS/DoS won't help solve the overstay problem.  Secondly, the majority of the folks affected by not having visas issued are people who (largely) haven't done anything wrong (perhaps a "yet" caveat is warranted).

I do agree that visa processing/issuance isn't a right, and I agree that we need much stricter enforcement with real consequences for those who are overstaying, or are just plain here illegally.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 28, 2017)

We are going to mess around and have an uprising in our country.  There are a lot of very, very angry people in the US right now. 

I think we'll be ok if the economy holds up but it good get very very bad if it goes south.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 28, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> We are going to mess around and have an uprising in our country.  There are a lot of very, very angry people in the US right now.
> 
> I think we'll be ok if the economy holds up but it good get very very bad if it goes south.



How so?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 28, 2017)

@ThunderHorse - you were recently expressing your frustration about not seeing enough "pro-Trump" satire.  This one is for you.

7 Cartoons That Perfectly Capture Trump’s First Week in Office


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 28, 2017)

Economy is the thing Americans really care about at the end of the day.  Bread and circuses/government handouts and solid middle class dampen enthusiasm for violence and political action. If people are angry AND broke they think they've got nothing to lose and it's game on.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 28, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> Agree with the first, somewhat disagree with the second.  Issuance of visas and enforcement of overstays don't really cross lanes; stopping visa processing by USCIS/DoS won't help solve the overstay problem.  Secondly, the majority of the folks affected by not having visas issued are people who (largely) haven't done anything wrong (perhaps a "yet" caveat is warranted).
> 
> I do agree that visa processing/issuance isn't a right, and I agree that we need much stricter enforcement with real consequences for those who are overstaying, or are just plain here illegally.



True, USCIS/DOS issues the Visas, but immigration has to enforce the overstays. Both need to work together on the issue.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 28, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> True, USCIS/DOS issues the Visas, but immigration has to enforce the overstays. Both need to work together on the issue.



One of the biggest issues we face today is that even in 2017, overstays aren't a priority from the enforcement perspective. That is one thing that needs to change.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 28, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> We are going to mess around and have an uprising in our country.  There are a lot of very, very angry people in the US right now.
> 
> I think we'll be ok if the economy holds up but it good get very very bad if it goes south.



I don't know, I kind of feel like the angriest folks are calling congress-people, going to the women's march, and posting FB memes.  Maybe I'm doing too much mirror-imaging since I'm in the angry group and that's what I see as the most predominate behavior from those who feel the way I do - even though I can't say I've done much of those things myself.  Maybe a little FB meming, but barely any...

In some ways I think the 'uprising' has been the election of President Trump.  Obviously a lot of different reasons for 62 million people to vote the way they did but there is a strong theme - in my view - of distrust of institutions, distrust of 'elites' - in whatever form that takes, and distrust/dissatisfaction with the status quo.  I listened to an Intelligence Squared debate after the election where the panel argued the rise of President Trump was the result of the failure of the elites (a broad definition the sides disagreed on).  It was interesting and really stuck with me.  I've also kept thinking about a TED talk I heard - I can't remember the name of the guy giving it - but it was on income inequality.  He essentially said any society with our level of inequality as a trendline was destined for people with pitchforks coming to burn everything down.  I didn't find it that convincing at the time but I've been thinking more about it and I wonder broadly if that's not what the rise of President Trump, BREXIT, revanchism in the EU, etc. is not about to a certain extent.  The post Breton Woods political/economic order failing to deliver, especially as we moved into a hegemonic world, and the new political order - or re-ordering - is a result.  In the same vein I had always found the argument convincing that the rise of AQ and that brand of jihadism was at least in part a reaction against globalization's destruction of patriarchic pre-feudal societies in the muslim world.

I feel like there's at least an A- paper for your class in there somewhere in the jumble of thoughts...


----------



## reed11b (Jan 28, 2017)

How many of the 9/11 hijackers and any other non-citizen terrorist attacks on US soil have come from the countries we just closed immigration from?
Reed


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 28, 2017)

reed11b said:


> How many of the 9/11 hijackers and any other non-citizen terrorist attacks on US soil have come from the countries we just closed immigration from?
> Reed



Zero... at least for 9/11.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @ThunderHorse - you were recently expressing your frustration about not seeing enough "pro-Trump" satire.  This one is for you.
> 
> 7 Cartoons That Perfectly Capture Trump’s First Week in Office



@Ooh-Rah not really Pro Trump stuff, but rather anti-Dem stuff is what I wanted to see.  Trump's now in power so attack all you want.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 28, 2017)

Kremlin 'covered up the murder of a former KGB chief' | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 28, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> @Ooh-Rah not really Pro Trump stuff, but rather anti-Dem stuff is what I wanted to see.  Trump's now in power so attack all you want.



Making me work too fucking hard today, but okay.  I started this, I'll finish it...enjoy!  

And since I took the time to find this link, I want to point out that these are from September of 2016, well before the election.  

Political Cartoons Skewering Liberals


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 28, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I don't know, I kind of feel like the angriest folks are calling congress-people, going to the women's march, and posting FB memes.  Maybe I'm doing too much mirror-imaging since I'm in the angry group and that's what I see as the most predominate behavior from those who feel the way I do - even though I can't say I've done much of those things myself.  Maybe a little FB meming, but barely any...
> 
> In some ways I think the 'uprising' has been the election of President Trump.  Obviously a lot of different reasons for 62 million people to vote the way they did but there is a strong theme - in my view - of distrust of institutions, distrust of 'elites' - in whatever form that takes, and distrust/dissatisfaction with the status quo.  I listened to an Intelligence Squared debate after the election where the panel argued the rise of President Trump was the result of the failure of the elites (a broad definition the sides disagreed on).  It was interesting and really stuck with me.  I've also kept thinking about a TED talk I heard - I can't remember the name of the guy giving it - but it was on income inequality.  He essentially said any society with our level of inequality as a trendline was destined for people with pitchforks coming to burn everything down.  I didn't find it that convincing at the time but I've been thinking more about it and I wonder broadly if that's not what the rise of President Trump, BREXIT, revanchism in the EU, etc. is not about to a certain extent.  The post Breton Woods political/economic order failing to deliver, especially as we moved into a hegemonic world, and the new political order - or re-ordering - is a result.  In the same vein I had always found the argument convincing that the rise of AQ and that brand of jihadism was at least in part a reaction against globalization's destruction of patriarchic pre-feudal societies in the muslim world.
> 
> I feel like there's at least an A- paper for your class in there somewhere in the jumble of thoughts...



In my international political economy class, we went over the concept of embedded liberalism put forth by John Ruggie in 1992. While it mainly concerns continuity of the liberal economic order and norm-governed change, the most interesting concept to me had to deal with the denouncing of the neoliberal economic order. He claimed that international trade disrupts domestic stability in the short term due to the losers of trade, and the faster globalization and liberalized trade is pushed, the more domestic stability is disrupted. The natural inclination of domestic societies in response to this disruption is push-back against the liberal international regime in the form of protectionism or nationalism which only continues to be exacerbated through expanded globalization. Given this, he suggests gradual increases in globalization and liberalized trade so as to minimize the domestic disruptions with time rather than having them compound in a short time frame. We read this about a month after the election when everyone was trying to determine how things went so wrong for Trump to win, and I was like "Holy shit this is it."

His paper is a really, really great read about the evolution of the international monetary system, post WWII international regime, and hegemony. The domestic stability stuff is in the last 1/3.

Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order- John Ruggie


----------



## Etype (Jan 28, 2017)

reed11b said:


> How many of the 9/11 hijackers and any other non-citizen terrorist attacks on US soil have come from the countries we just closed immigration from?
> Reed



Saudi Arabia should be added to the list, eh?



TLDR20 said:


> Zero... at least for 9/11.


As far as I know, we have no diplomatic presence in those countries asde from Iraq and Sudan.

In Iraq and Sudan, not even the host get governments have a good grasp of who's who within their countries.

The stats on how many prospective terrorists from these countries we are already stopping from entering the country will probably never be released public.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

reed11b said:


> How many of the 9/11 hijackers and any other non-citizen terrorist attacks on US soil have come from the countries we just closed immigration from?
> Reed


Strictly from the 9/11 attack, 15 hijackers were Saudi's, 2 from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. 

This is a major problem I have with this ban- you can ban the countries all you'd like, it's not state sponsored terrorism. The attacks aren't carried out in the name of Iran, Sudan, Yemen or Iraq. 

Pres Trump says that it's not a Muslim ban. Ok, I can only believe what he says. So why no Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emerites added to that list? Omar Mateen didn't come here from Iraq, he was born in New York- so how does the immigration ban actually effect terrorist attacks again?


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 28, 2017)

And I called it...  Our Liberal poster child of a leader welcomes all turned away from the US with open arms.

Canada's Trudeau welcomes refugees, airline rejects U.S.-bound passenger


----------



## Etype (Jan 28, 2017)

Refugees detained, legal residents blocked from entering U.S. in wake of Trump order - The Portland Press Herald


> “There is no evidence that refugees – the most thoroughly vetted of all people entering our nation – are a threat to national security,” Lena F. Masri, CAIR’s national litigation director, said in a statement. “This is an order that is based on bigotry, not reality.”


Not in the US, yet. But we'll be happy that we still have Planned Parenthood when/if they ever start raping their way across the US like they are doing in parts of Europe.


> Darweesh, 53, had worked as a contractor for the U.S. government in Iraq for about a decade, including as an interpreter for the Army. He and his wife and three children had spent more than two years securing a special immigrant visa, granted to Iraqis who assisted U.S. military forces.


This is a typical appeal to emotion, which is one of the classical logical fallacies.

We should feel bad because one guy was inconvenienced for the safety of the nation's citizens?

Additionally, we gave this guy a chance to serve his own country while we were fixing it FOR him- and now we are supposed to feel as though we owe him something? How about we tell him congratulations for doing his patriotic duty and leave it at that.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 28, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> And I called it...  Our Liberal poster child of a leader welcomes all turned away from the US with open arms.
> 
> Canada's Trudeau welcomes refugees, airline rejects U.S.-bound passenger



Is he well versed on current immigration laws to Canada...as I understand it, the process is way more stringent than ours.

CAIR...an organization that has ties to some less than reputable organizations...


----------



## Etype (Jan 28, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Strictly from the 9/11 attack, 15 hijackers were Saudi's, 2 from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon.
> 
> This is a major problem I have with this ban- you can ban the countries all you'd like, it's not state sponsored terrorism. The attacks aren't carried out in the name of Iran, Sudan, Yemen or Iraq.
> 
> Pres Trump says that it's not a Muslim ban. Ok, I can only believe what he says. So why no Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emerites added to that list? Omar Mateen didn't come here from Iraq, he was born in New York- so how does the immigration ban actually effect terrorist attacks again?


I agree with your post, with a caveat-
The 7 countries mentioned have a pretty dense population of undesirables. Enacting a blanket ban may free up some resources which can be diverted to processing applications coming from countries where vetting is more realistic.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

Etype said:


> I agree with your post, with a caveat-
> The 7 countries mentioned have a pretty dense population of undesirables. Enacting a blanket ban may free up some resources which can be diverted to processing applications coming from countries where vetting is more realistic.


Which countries would you focus on with our 90 day surge of resources- I assume it's a country where we have a diplomatic presence as you've stated before?


----------



## Etype (Jan 28, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Which countries would you focus on with our 90 day surge of resources- I assume it's a country where we have a diplomatic presence as you've stated before?


No idea, I'd be in over my head.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 28, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> In my international political economy class, we went over the concept of embedded liberalism put forth by John Ruggie in 1992. While it mainly concerns continuity of the liberal economic order and norm-governed change, the most interesting concept to me had to deal with the denouncing of the neoliberal economic order. He claimed that international trade disrupts domestic stability in the short term due to the losers of trade, and the faster globalization and liberalized trade is pushed, the more domestic stability is disrupted. The natural inclination of domestic societies in response to this disruption is push-back against the liberal international regime in the form of protectionism or nationalism which only continues to be exacerbated through expanded globalization. Given this, he suggests gradual increases in globalization and liberalized trade so as to minimize the domestic disruptions with time rather than having them compound in a short time frame. We read this about a month after the election when everyone was trying to determine how things went so wrong for Trump to win, and I was like "Holy shit this is it."
> 
> His paper is a really, really great read about the evolution of the international monetary system, post WWII international regime, and hegemony. The domestic stability stuff is in the last 1/3.
> 
> Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order- John Ruggie



That's interesting - although frankly a little dense.  I can't say that's the type of non-fiction reading I've done much of since graduate school.  It struck me Ruggie would have been a proponent of the EU expansion post cold war, yet I've read much of Europe's inability to deal effectively with the economic and refugee crises stemmed from precisely the lack of economic options EU membership left them.  I'm thinking specifically about the ability to adjust your national currency and being able to adjust domestic immigration policies without abrogating international trade agreements.  I'll be straight though - economic theory and policy is not my strong suit.  I tend to rely on what I glean from experts writing about it - I won't claim a deep understanding myself.

I was thinking when I posted earlier more of Joseph Stiglitz and 'Globalization and it's Discontents.'  His argument, if I remember correctly, was that globalization caused massive social and economic upheaval at the lowest levels of society.  The shift from agrarian to industrial economies in the modern era did raise people out of poverty, but simultaneously broke down well established social norms, put workers in relatively better - but still very difficult economic conditions, and vastly advantaged the upper class and corporations over the lower end of the economic spectrum.  Basically, globalization destroys culture, promises economic progress, but delivers diminishing returns to lower-classes while vastly increasing/creating wealth for the upper classes. 

But, it seems like the harshest reaction we're seeing is not so much from those in poverty, but from those in the middle class - especially those in the manufacturing or working class strata over those working in the information economy.  But, in a way it boils down to the same argument.  'You big-brained experts kept promising me the working man a better life, but it seems like my life is staying about the same, I am anxious it is going to get a lot worse, and you brainiacs and fat-cats keep getting richer while my future hangs in the wind.  To add insult to injury the unwashed hordes are coming across the border, they all want to murder me - or at least take my job - and you give me some technocratic song-and-dance with a little bit of holier-than-though morality sprinkled in.  Why shouldn't I turn to someone who may do a bunch of fucked up stuff but clearly isn't tied to all of your bullshit.  If he/they can't fix it maybe they'll just burn it down.  Of course you elites are sweating your future now - welcome to my world of the last 10-20 years. '


----------



## AWP (Jan 28, 2017)

As I posted months and months ago, I don't understand passing new laws until we start enforcing the existing laws. I totally support a temp ban on the ME countries listed, but how can we seriously propose long term fix actions when we don't enforce what's currently on the books? How do we explain to those who did the right thing and immigrated legally that it's okay for illegal immigrants to stay and get a pass?


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 28, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I was thinking when I posted earlier more of Joseph Stiglitz and 'Globalization and it's Discontents.' His argument, if I remember correctly, was that globalization caused massive social and economic upheaval at the lowest levels of society. The shift from agrarian to industrial economies in the modern era did raise people out of poverty, but simultaneously broke down well established social norms, put workers in relatively better - but still very difficult economic conditions, and vastly advantaged the upper class and corporations over the lower end of the economic spectrum. Basically, globalization destroys culture, promises economic progress, but delivers diminishing returns to lower-classes while vastly increasing/creating wealth for the upper classes.



I'll have to Google that paper. I'd say from your explanation of Stiglitz that Ruggie really just makes the broad claim of domestic instability through increased globalization while Stiglitz provides the details. In a way they seem to complement each other in that Stiglitz seems find the trees in Ruggie's forest. And I agree, Ruggie is stupid dense.



Il Duce said:


> But, it seems like the harshest reaction we're seeing is not so much from those in poverty, but from those in the middle class - especially those in the manufacturing or working class strata over those working in the information economy. But, in a way it boils down to the same argument. 'You big-brained experts kept promising me the working man a better life, but it seems like my life is staying about the same, I am anxious it is going to get a lot worse, and you brainiacs and fat-cats keep getting richer while my future hangs in the wind. To add insult to injury the unwashed hordes are coming across the border, they all want to murder me - or at least take my job - and you give me some technocratic song-and-dance with a little bit of holier-than-though morality sprinkled in. Why shouldn't I turn to someone who may do a bunch of fucked up stuff but clearly isn't tied to all of your bullshit. If he/they can't fix it maybe they'll just burn it down. Of course you elites are sweating your future now - welcome to my world of the last 10-20 years. '



I really like your explanation. I'd say the effect that the move from the industrial age to the information age is affecting the middle class similar to how the transition from the agrarian age to the industrial age affected the lower class as the move to the information age has placed industrial age winners into the line of fire as losers from globalization. What used to be regarded as high-skilled labor is less so now given the rise of technology, yet the returns from trade still benefit the "higher-skilled" a la Stolper-Samuelson theorem. Low-skilled labor is falling increasingly by the wayside while what I'll call medium-skilled labor (predominantly manufacturing and on-the-floor workers) is fighting to maintain relevancy. Sure, a rising tide raises all boats, but if you're rocking Huck Finn's raft or a 35 Johnson, you're gonna have trouble going upstream on a strong river.

I think both articles still point to the problem of the neoliberal international economic order. Forcing free trade and globalization as fast as you can has proven problems and pushback in the face of those problems. This is evident in the recent presidential election and Brexit for advanced-industrialized countries. For the developing countries we have the WTO's Doha Round pushback from the developing countries and proof everywhere of the failure of IMF structural adjustment loans to stimulate economic growth in developing countries. I predict that we will see global pushback from the developing countries with regards to the current international economic regime and increased protectionism from them as the neoliberal economic order is rolled back past equilibrium* toward relative isolationism from the West or international markets.  Trump will have a serious problem within the next five years to a decade as developing nations close their markets to protect infant industries and rejecting IMF loans with China sweeping in to extend its influence as a creditor to these nations which will not only affect US export potential but increased costs to consumers will follow. I know we were talking about angry US voters, but in my view, the anger of those voters can find its origins in rapid globalization and the 30-40 years of neoliberal international economics, and that anger can be found worldwide.

*Equilibrium as I see it regarding international trade would be a balance of trade that invokes gradual movements toward globalization to minimize domestic instability and therefore increasingly liberalizing trade overtime as Ruggie suggests.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 28, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> I'll have to Google that paper. I'd say from your explanation of Stiglitz that Ruggie really just makes the broad claim of domestic instability through increased globalization while Stiglitz provides the details. In a way they seem to complement each other in that Stiglitz seems find the trees in Ruggie's forest. And I agree, Ruggie is stupid dense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I think those are great points.  What's really sticking with me is the Trump administration - in 8 days no less! - has made some pretty bedrock principles of the liberal world order in geopolitics seem not so fucking bedrock after all.  I think when foundational theories demonstrate fragility like this it should call a lot of things into question.  Will be very interesting what happens in the field - much less of course what happens in real life :).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 28, 2017)

Supposedly, the immigration executive order delayed the entry of the Vancouver Castaway Wanderers, an amateur Division II Rugby Football Club.  They eventually got through and played the Seattle Saracens much later than originally planned. The visiting side eked out a victory 21-20.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 28, 2017)

Shit just got real for President Trump.

Trump’s immigration ban HALTED by Federal court | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Shit just got real for President Trump.
> 
> Trump’s immigration ban HALTED by Federal court | Daily Mail Online



I had a feeling this would happen and it will happen again. President Trump will find out sooner rather than later he's the President and not a/the CEO.

We have a serious illegal immigration problem and something needs to be done however.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Shit just got real for President Trump.
> 
> Trump’s immigration ban HALTED by Federal court | Daily Mail Online


Lawsuits are the norm for the executive branch.  What I don't understand is why this crap was worded to the effect of stopping people with visas and green cards from entering the US.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 28, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> What I don't understand is why this crap was worded to the effect of stopping people with visas and green cards from entering the US.


Because he's a political amateur that will continue to make these mistakes because he's learning as he goes.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 29, 2017)

I hope those tears don't get in the drinking water.....


----------



## Etype (Jan 29, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> What I don't understand is why this crap was worded to the effect of stopping people with visas and green cards from entering the US.


Haven't the bulk of non-citizen terrorists been legal travelers?


----------



## compforce (Jan 29, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Lawsuits are the norm for the executive branch.  What I don't understand is why this crap was worded to the effect of stopping people with visas and green cards from entering the US.



The ruling was NOT halting the immigration ban, only preventing the detainment of people already on US soil if they have a visa/green card. The ban stands for now.

Personally, I find it hilarious that there are people who are so used to Presidents not realizing their campaign promises that they believed that he wouldn't do any of this stuff.  He comes from the business world.  You don't just say you're going to do something and then not execute if you want to stay in business.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Shit just got real for President Trump.
> 
> Trump’s immigration ban HALTED by Federal court | Daily Mail Online



EDIT: you beat me to it compforce

Not quite Halted.

"The stay will prevent the government from deporting citizens from the affected countries that had already arrived in the U.S.The ACLU estimated that around 200 people would be affected by the ruling."

Trumps order will remain in full effect:

In a statement issued in the early hours of Sunday, the Department said: "President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety."

It added that the department will "continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people."

DHS issues statement on Trump immigration ban


----------



## Etype (Jan 29, 2017)

Catholics Oppose Border Wall


> "Pope Francis proclaimed that 'refugees are not pawns on the chessboard of humanity. They are children, women, and men who leave or who are forced to leave their homes ... the flesh of Christ is in the flesh of the refugees.' The faithful response is not to build a wall or to discriminate against Muslims, but to open our hearts and our homes to refugees of all faiths in recognition of our sacred call to protect and nourish life. If we refuse to welcome refugees in urgent need, we risk becoming like those we claim to deplore," Lee said.


The Pope has a pretty solid wall around his city. I don't think he's let any Muslims in either.

The Pope might lose his head if he had to deal with Muslims in Vatican City, literally.

This may be one of the best ivory tower analogies to date.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 29, 2017)

Says the same pope that was sad Fidel Castro died....:wall:


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 29, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Says the same pope that was sad Fidel Castro died....:wall:



There are some reports that put as many as 82% Cubans are Catholic. Other numbers are lower;  Cubans love the pope and the Catholic Church, but they’re just not that into religion

Whatever the number is, the Catholic Church wants as many people as they can get. It is akin to a politician kissing babies for votes. Bishops and Popes do it with the collection basket in mind.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 29, 2017)

So there is this awesome law that passed Congress that is foundation of this executive order: Text - H.R.158 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 29, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So there is this awesome law that passed Congress that is foundation of this executive order: Text - H.R.158 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015



There is already a law:

8 USC §1182

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 29, 2017)

I am confused on what the status of this is now? Are people being allowed in or not?


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 29, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> I am confused on what the status of this is now? Are people being allowed in or not?



No unless they were in transit with a visa or green card when the EO was signed.  


The hypocrisy is killing me.  The list of nations was drawn up by the Obama administration's State Department and even banned all immigration from Iraq for 6 months.   Let's also not forget Carter and Iran.  The pushback by Globalist open border types is getting out of hand.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> No unless they were in transit with a visa or green card when the EO was signed.
> 
> 
> The hypocrisy is killing me.  *The list of nations was drawn up by the Obama administration's State Department and even banned all immigration from Iraq for 6 months*.   Let's also not forget Carter and Iran.  The pushback by Globalist open border types is getting out of hand.


So you're saying Obama's administration did a great thing and Pres Trump is just taking credit? 

I heard a term the other day that I like more and more. "Recreational Anger". Fits a lot of this stuff pretty well.


----------



## Poccington (Jan 29, 2017)

With National Security Council Shakeup, Steve Bannon Gets A Seat At The Table

So the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence get a demotion, while Steve Bannon gets a seat at the table of the National Security Council.

Anyone else think Bannon getting a seat at the table is a bit nuts? Can't really offer an opinion on the two demotions, as I don't really know how that'll actually work in reality.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 29, 2017)

This move is really interesting to me.  I thought the Chairman and DNI were natural parts of the NSC.  I can kind of see the Chairman getting relegated to the kids' table if the SECDEF is still on the NSC, but the DNI?  Wow.  The DNI's power over important parts of the IC comes solely from access to the President.  DNI has all of the responsibility and none of the real authority to run the IC.  And now the position has even less.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Anyone else think *Bannon getting a seat at the table is a bit nuts*? Can't really offer an opinion on the two demotions, as I don't really know how that'll actually work in reality.


Understatement of the young year.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> So you're saying Obama's administration did a great thing and Pres Trump is just taking credit?
> 
> I heard a term the other day that I like more and more. "Recreational Anger". Fits a lot of this stuff pretty well.



Taking credit or perhaps improving an already good thing.  :-"

I like that, I'll have to use it on some of my relatives that seem to have taken up the hobby of being "Recreational Angry" lately; no matter the topic.  Canada is a mess right now and no one cares; kind of the same situation that led to Trump.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 29, 2017)

AWP said:


> As I posted months and months ago, I don't understand passing new laws until we start enforcing the existing laws. I totally support a temp ban on the ME countries listed, but how can we seriously propose long term fix actions when we don't enforce what's currently on the books? How do we explain to those who did the right thing and immigrated legally that it's okay for illegal immigrants to stay and get a pass?



Tango actual already told ICE etc to fully enforce everything on the books and has got to have people looking at what is there that can be modified thru congress for a permanent positive law solution.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 29, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> This move is really interesting to me.  I thought the Chairman and DNI were natural parts of the NSC.  I can kind of see the Chairman getting relegated to the kids' table if the SECDEF is still on the NSC, but the DNI?  Wow.  The DNI's power over important parts of the IC comes solely from access to the President.  DNI has all of the responsibility and none of the real authority to run the IC.  And now the position has even less.



I thought the same thing, will be interesting to see how things shake out as organizations vie for influence.  Although this, like most of the administration's moves, is not good government in my opinion I think in some ways it's better than the alternative.

I mean, I don't like those moves because I don't think these are the people that should be running the government - but we had an election that decided things and it didn't go my way, so that part is done.  My understanding is the NSC is a filter to recommend national security action to the President.  I think it's good to have the people in the NSC the President is actually going to listen to.  In some ways it almost makes the government more transparent.  The President is essentially saying 'look, here are the people I trust to look at national security information from across the spectrum and recommend policy to me.'  I contrast that with the GW Bush administration where there was rampant speculation - in and out of government - that the NSC was not where he was going for his most influential policy recommendations.  Instead, they were coming from meetings outside the NSC with the VP, the SECDEF, and Karl Rove as the most influential members of that cabal.

I think Steve Bannon seems like a super-smart dude who believes a bunch of shit that's anathema to what I believe.  But, at least the President will be straight up about the fact that he's listening to him on national security and whatever else.  I always thought it was fucked up in the GW Bush administration how Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz and others would take the position after things went to shit that they were just a part of ongoing Pentagon planning and it was a team effort and they were just as surprised as everybody else - when they had been driving the process, then hid behind the institutions when it was convenient.

For the same reason I actually support President Trump's family getting security clearances and jobs in the white house regardless of nepotism charges.  If that's who the President is going to listen to I'd rather them be able to have access to as much classified as possible - and to protect that classified to the best of our ability.  The alternative is he's hitting them up on the landline or family dinner for the same thing.  One thing I would think both sides would agree on President Trump isn't going to do something just because people told him 'those are the rules.'

I wish President Trump hadn't gotten elected, I think he's doing a terrible job, but I'd like him to have as many tools as possible to do as good a job as can be done.  I'd much rather begrudgingly watch him go from success to success for the country than watch the place burn to the ground and be able to say 'I told you so.'


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> I like that, I'll have to use it on some of my relatives that seem to have taken up the hobby of being "Recreational Angry" lately; no matter the topic.  Canada is a mess right now and no one cares; kind of the same situation that led to Trump.


Yeah, fake outrage and recreational anger, on a short ass cycle, repeating every day. 

"I am infuriated! This can't stand! I'll post about it! Glad I got that off my chest. How is my farm in farmville doing?"


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Yeah, fake outrage and recreational anger, on a short ass cycle, repeating every day.
> 
> "I am infuriated! This can't stand! I'll post about it! Glad I got that off my chest. How is my farm in farmville doing?"



Your farm is still growing?  Mine got hit by global warming and is now a dustbowl covered in ice.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 29, 2017)

I like Apple and I like Starbucks.

But one of these days their shareholders are going to tell the CEO's to shut the fuck up and just sell coffee/phones. 

STARBUCKS CEO: We're going to hire 10,000 refugees


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I like Apple and I like Starbucks.
> 
> But one of these days their shareholders are going to tell the CEO's to shut the fuck up and just sell coffee/phones.
> 
> STARBUCKS CEO: We're going to hire 10,000 refugees


Just a guess here- but probably not man.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Your farm is still growing?  Mine got hit by global warming and is now a dustbowl covered in ice.


Well, listen man. I know it seems like you know more than me on this, and logic dictates that my uneducated opinion has no place arguing with you- but I don't believe you. 

I don't give a shit if you get ALL your friends together, each of them smarter than the next, with all of your evidence, I am gonna go ahead and ignore that. I have a high school education, and I will believe what I think is facts, as told to me by my like minded friends, thank you very much. Your farm is probably iced over due to global warming cause you're stupid and I have google, and although I don't have any business commenting, I will anyway. Farmville global ice warming isn't a real thing.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 30, 2017)

So, we're actually going to start enforcing some of our laws... Hmmm.  What a novel idea!

If nothing else, perhaps this represents a new era in Washington where we have someone that says what he means and does what he says (more so than not).   Regardless of a persons view on the guy in office, he is making decisions and forcing positions; ie breaking log jams.  If that's not change, I don't know what is (whether that's good or not is another question).

If people are really as upset as they claim, then they actually need to do something constructive to change laws and policies through their elected officials.  If their elected officials can't figure out a way to be effective, then they need to be replaced by those that can.   That's how our system works.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 30, 2017)

New climatologist research shows New York to be under water in less then 90 days....other coastal cities too.  The cause, surprisingly not melting polar ice caps but Liberal tears........:blkeye:


----------



## Etype (Jan 30, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> New climatologist research shows New York to be under water in less then 90 days....other coastal cities too.  The cause, surprisingly not melting polar ice caps but Liberal tears........:blkeye:
> 
> View attachment 17893


You hear that @amlove21 ?

Stop crying so much!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 30, 2017)

I was thinking about this the other day, but I wonder if Trump anticipated how incredibly unpopular he would become with the Hollywood crowd he used to rub elbows with.  It took Mel Gibson a decade to be brought back into the fold after his many recorded rants.  Assuming Trump does not run/win reelection, he may find himself awful lonely if he attempts to connect with his former "friends".

SAG Awards turn into protest against Trump immigration ban | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Gunz (Jan 30, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> We are going to mess around and have an uprising in our country.  There are a lot of very, very angry people in the US right now.
> 
> I think we'll be ok if the economy holds up but it good get very very bad if it goes south.




I think we can at least expect mass demonstrations that turn into riots. And if anybody here thinks liberals or leftists don't have the potential for violence, see the race riots, anti-draft riots, anti-war riots in the late 60's and early 70's...and the murders and bombings by the Black Panthers, the SDS and other ultra-leftist radical groups of that era. The hate and anger are just simmering now...where will we be a year down the road?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2017)

I got to say, I just don't give a fuck about this ban. 

I think protesting every little thing POTUS does is not a recipe for a good future. Some things are just not as good of a platform. IMHO this is one of those things. If he had said Muslim, ok. If he had said Islam, ok. All this is doing is distracting from the other stupid shit he did, like demote his DNI and CJCOS from the NSC, while promoting a political ideologue.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I got to say, I just don't give a fuck about this ban.
> 
> *I think protesting every little thing POTUS does is not a recipe for a good future*. Some things are just not as good of a platform. IMHO this is one of those things. If he had said Muslim, ok. If he had said Islam, ok. All this is doing is distracting from the other stupid shit he did, like demote his DNI and CJCOS from the NSC, while promoting a political ideologue.



I was trying to agree and expand on the part I 'bolded' and then I saw this morning's Star Tribune editorial.  This is what I was trying to say:

_"And yet, if we are to avoid a national nervous breakdown — and, more importantly, if we hope to retain the clarity to distinguish the daily displeasures likely to accompany having this boor in the White House from genuinely threatening excesses that can’t be tolerated — we need just a little perspective.

Should Trump prove as dangerous as some fear, the whole people, his current admirers included, will need to be rallied to oppose him.

*But if every oafish remark and ill-mannered antic is treated as a crisis, folks may grow numb and unprepared for real trouble if it comes."*

If we're lucky, Trump may follow the Ventura model


._


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I was trying to agree and expand on the part I 'bolded' and then I saw this morning's Star Tribune editorial.  This is what I was trying to say:
> 
> _"And yet, if we are to avoid a national nervous breakdown — and, more importantly, if we hope to retain the clarity to distinguish the daily displeasures likely to accompany having this boor in the White House from genuinely threatening excesses that can’t be tolerated — we need just a little perspective.
> 
> ...



That is a great quote. It does sum up how I feel. I am upset about a great many things he has done. 

But I want to hold back my genuine disdain for a time he genuinely deserves nothing else. The thing is, as much as I want him to be a great president, and succeed for the betterment of our nation, I think it is a matter of time before he does something too fucked up.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 30, 2017)

The stylistic comparisons between Ventura and Trump are probably pretty fair.  I also agree they both seem to bring a different, more workman type style to the role; that's not a bad thing.  Let's just hope that's where the similarities end.  Jesse was and remains an asshat.  To me, in many respects, he was a terrible governor and that's how I'll recall him overall.  Hoping for better from Trump.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> The thing is, as much as I want him to be a great president, and succeed for the betterment of our nation, I think it is a matter of time before he does something too fucked up.



As polar opposite as you and I are on some things, I totally agree.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I got to say, I just don't give a fuck about this ban.
> 
> I think protesting every little thing POTUS does is not a recipe for a good future. Some things are just not as good of a platform. IMHO this is one of those things. If he had said Muslim, ok. If he had said Islam, ok. All this is doing is distracting from the other stupid shit he did, like demote his DNI and CJCOS from the NSC, while promoting a political ideologue.



I agree wholeheartedly.  However I also worry that this administration is going to engage in the kind of IDGAF overreach and agenda-pushing that the last one did.  This is going to alienate supporters and empower and embolden the opposition, and make the pendulum once again swing to the far left.  No need to give the other side points through an own-goal, which to me is what this ban was.  The optics were poor, the implementation rushed and confused, the unintended consequences many.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> As polar opposite as you and I are on some things, I totally agree.



I still love America. We just see it differently. That is ok. 

I want him to succeed for all our sake. My concern is that he will not, and it will be in all of our worst interest...


----------



## Etype (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think protesting every little thing POTUS does is not a recipe for a good future.


I recently wrote a paper on the overuse of sensational language and mass outrage in culture today.

In summary, fighting everything/being outraged by everything/everything being sensational leaves you with nowhere to go when something actually meets the criteria.


----------



## CDG (Jan 30, 2017)

compforce said:


> Personally, I find it hilarious that there are people who are so used to Presidents not realizing their campaign promises that they believed that he wouldn't do any of this stuff.  He comes from the business world.  You don't just say you're going to do something and then not execute if you want to stay in business.



This.  People came out and voted for President Trump because he promised to be different.  Every politician who has ever run promises all kinds of things.  However, his brashness and IDGAF attitude about playing the normal political game turned out enough "deplorables" to put him in office.  Likely even many of those who are ardent Trump supporters did not see him following through so quickly and decisively.  There are pros and cons to it, and I am not saying I agree with everything he has done.  BUT, goddamn if he isn't the first President to come in and get immediately to work on doing exactly what he said he would do.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 30, 2017)

Did anyone actually read the executive order in the media?  For everyone else, here you go: Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

Here is the Obama Travel Ban from 2011 Presidential Proclamation--Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions

Apparently there is a cable floating around state about an official protest...I foresee a lot of careerists getting canned: State Department Expected to Issue Cable Protesting Trump Immigration Ban

In regards to the Trump Executive Order versus the Obama Proclamation- the Obama proclamation is a lot clearer with linked references to the UN and the references to previous executive orders at the bottom.  I suppose when this his there was no forewarning at State and DHS to reference everything.  Or that some of these folks at State are executing political activism in the work place.


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 30, 2017)

This is probably a pipe dream, but I would love to see this BS actually turn into a massive reform of the party system. Two parties simply don't have the necessary scope or ability to encompass the entire political spectrum with which people (even-relatively under-informed people) think about politics or government and it's role in society. Failing that, I would love to see the Republican party look at its young people more or even society as a whole and accept some social progress as concrete and not going away. For example, I'm from the Deep South, and while being gay around here isn't exactly en vogue, most young people and a growing number of middle-aged people staunchly Christian people, simply don't give a flying fuck if you are or not. The prevailing opinion is "they're American give them their rights and let's move on to why I'm getting laid off because of a poor economy". The Republican party has remained entrenched in a social platform that just doesn't fit the worldview of a growing number of their constituency any more, and in my opinion, the only reason the Republicans did so well in the overall elections nationwide was the anti-establishment view put forth by Trump. All anyone had to say was that they support Trump as the Republican nominee and boom, you're anti-establishment in a lot of people's books which got you elected much easier.

The pipe dream is 
1. To see a viable third party emerge that is progressive or liberal on some matters and staunchly conservative on others so that our government can be governed more effectively by compromise rather than who happens to have the most control at the moment. 
or
2. See the Republican party shift to better encompass the ideology of its constituency because frankly at this point, a lot of people are only Republican because they don't like the Democratic party, and they have no other option. 

Of course the odds that either one comes to fruition peacefully in the next five years are slim to none, but one can still dream.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 30, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> This is probably a pipe dream, but I would love to see this BS actually turn into a massive reform of the party system. Two parties simply don't have the necessary scope or ability to encompass the entire political spectrum with which people (even-relatively under-informed people) think about politics or government and it's role in society....



I wonder if that would actually create more problems than it would solve.  It would also probably take Constitutional amendments to make that happen.  See also:  Duverger's Law.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I got to say, I just don't give a fuck about this ban.
> 
> I think protesting every little thing POTUS does is not a recipe for a good future. Some things are just not as good of a platform. IMHO this is one of those things. If he had said Muslim, ok. If he had said Islam, ok. All this is doing is distracting from the other stupid shit he did, like demote his DNI and CJCOS from the NSC, while promoting a political ideologue.


The only reason I actually care at all is the world's reaction. Like, if we could piss off just a few people here and there, that would be great. But everyone all at once is sort of a hard thing to get over. We aren't even two weeks in to this bad boy yet.

100% agree on freaking out every time the POTUS does something. We just have to get to a spot like we did with the second Bush- we know POTUS is going to say some ridiculous crap. He's bound to screw up. We all know it. Just accept that and let's see if we can get to a place where we can move this ship forward, regardless of the idiot captain.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 30, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> This is probably a pipe dream, but I would love to see this BS actually turn into a massive reform of the party system. Two parties simply don't have the necessary scope or ability to encompass the entire political spectrum with which people (even-relatively under-informed people) think about politics or government and it's role in society. Failing that, I would love to see the Republican party look at its young people more or even society as a whole and accept some social progress as concrete and not going away. For example, I'm from the Deep South, and while being gay around here isn't exactly en vogue, most young people and a growing number of middle-aged people staunchly Christian people, simply don't give a flying fuck if you are or not. The prevailing opinion is "they're American give them their rights and let's move on to why I'm getting laid off because of a poor economy". The Republican party has remained entrenched in a social platform that just doesn't fit the worldview of a growing number of their constituency any more, and in my opinion, the only reason the Republicans did so well in the overall elections nationwide was the anti-establishment view put forth by Trump. All anyone had to say was that they support Trump as the Republican nominee and boom, you're anti-establishment in a lot of people's books which got you elected much easier.
> 
> The pipe dream is
> 1. To see a viable third party emerge that is progressive or liberal on some matters and staunchly conservative on others so that our government can be governed more effectively by compromise rather than who happens to have the most control at the moment.
> ...



There are 5 "major" parties, and like 30-something "minor" parties.  Many states have multi-party representation.  Part of the problem is the winners make the rules, and the GOP and DNC have made it so very difficult for any third party to get any kind of foothold.

The Libertarians sound like what you are looking for:  socially liberal, fiscally and foreign policy conservative.

Part of the problem is that the parties, at least the GOP and DNC, morph and change every generation.  So your father's Democrat party ain't the same one you see today.  If I told you we'd have a president who was pro-Israel, pro-military, pro-CIA, pro-life, supports federal money for parochial schools, anti-Cuban, who would you guess?  That was John Kennedy.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 30, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> The Libertarians sound like what you are looking for:  socially liberal, fiscally and foreign policy conservative.



Now if only they'd put forward a decent candidate...


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 30, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> There are 5 "major" parties, and like 30-something "minor" parties.  Many states have multi-party representation.  Part of the problem is the winners make the rules, and the GOP and DNC have made it so very difficult for any third party to get any kind of foothold.
> 
> The Libertarians sound like what you are looking for:  socially liberal, fiscally and foreign policy conservative.
> 
> Part of the problem is that the parties, at least the GOP and DNC, morph and change every generation.  So your father's Democrat party ain't the same one you see today.  If I told you we'd have a president who was pro-Israel, pro-military, pro-CIA, pro-life, supports federal money for parochial schools, anti-Cuban, who would you guess?  That was John Kennedy.



Sure, other parties technically exist and have a small amount of card-carrying members, but what parties genuinely affect national policy other than Democrats and Republicans? There are some independents in office but even they are independent rather than subscribing to an alternate party. Personally, I want there to be a genuine plurality of ideas that leads to the most effective governance for society as whole rather than a have party whip whose primary job is to "whip the votes" for whatever the leadership decides to care about or what is politically feasible at that moment. Looking further into Mara's post on Duverger's law though, it seems even more gigantic a leap.

Ex: The Libertarian party, which I admire, is the most likely candidate as the next major party for what I described, but who really believes that they currently wield any real power in crafting major policy or will in the near future?

I realize I'm discussing an "in the perfect world scenario" which exists purely in discussion, and I didn't mean to track off the 100 days theme.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 30, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> Sure, other parties technically exist and have a small amount of card-carrying members, but what parties genuinely affect national policy other than Democrats and Republicans? There are some independents in office but even they are independent rather than subscribing to an alternate party. Personally, I want there to be a genuine plurality of ideas that leads to the most effective governance for society as whole rather than a have party whip whose primary job is to "whip the votes" for whatever the leadership decides to care about or what is politically feasible at that moment. Looking further into Mara's post on Duverger's law though, it seems even more gigantic a leap.
> 
> Ex: The Libertarian party, which I admire, is the most likely candidate as the next major party for what I described, but who really believes that they currently wield any real power in crafting major policy or will in the near future?
> 
> I realize I'm discussing an "in the perfect world scenario" which exists purely in discussion, and I didn't mean to track off the 100 days theme.



All of your points are valid.  It used to be the GOP and DNC were a bell curve; most in the center, the further left/right you go, the more extreme, the fewer the numbers.  Now it seems like it is a fishbowl-curve with fewer in the middle and more to the extremes. 

Like him or lump him, I am hopeful that Trump's presidency will get EVERYONE engaged and we get back to the middle; or, create enough momentum in other parties that although they may not be in the majority, have enough sway to make a difference.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 30, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> Now if only they'd put forward a decent candidate...



Gary Johnson was better than the Cheeto in Chief and the snarling alcoholic misandrist thundercunt.

Then again, Pookie was a better candidate than those two.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 30, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Gary Johnson was better than the Cheeto in Chief and the snarling alcoholic misandrist thundercunt.
> 
> Then again, Pookie was a better candidate than those two.



Your mean Gary "Aleppo" Johnson?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 30, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Your mean Gary "Aleppo" Johnson?



Yup. The majority of the voting public couldn't find Aleppo on a map if you marked it in fluorescent paint and told them there were enough hookers there to literally fuck them to death. He had more in common with America than the cunt, the Cheeto, and the "I'm all for the proletariat but still own three houses worth more than you scum will make in your lifetime" fuckwit from Vermont.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 30, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Yup. The majority of the voting public couldn't find Aleppo on a map if you marked it in fluorescent paint and told them there were enough hookers there to literally fuck them to death. He had more in common with America than the cunt, the Cheeto, and the "I'm all for the proletariat but still own three houses worth more than you scum will make in your lifetime" fuckwit from Vermont.


I don't think Johnson had anywhere NEAR the competence required to run the executive branch; I honestly don't think HE knew WTF he'd do if he took charge.

Not knowing the significant of Aleppo was an artifact of him not taking the campaign at all seriously, not some kind of identification with the common man.  There are plenty of other example of him demonstrating that he was far less than serious about his campaign.  It's sad; I wanted to like him, but he bore more resemblance to a rodeo clown trying not to get run over than a serious candidate, and he blew the Libertarian Party's best shot to put them on the map.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 30, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> I don't think Johnson had anywhere NEAR the competence required to run the executive branch; I honestly don't think HE knew WTF he'd do if he took charge.
> 
> Not knowing the significant of Aleppo was an artifact of him not taking the campaign at all seriously, not some kind of identification with the common man.  There are plenty of other example of him demonstrating that he was far less than serious about his campaign.  It's sad; I wanted to like him, but he bore more resemblance to a rodeo clown trying not to get run over than a serious candidate, and he blew the Libertarian Party's best shot to put them on the map.



I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean I thought he was worse than these two main contenders.  He was, to me, the best choice despite that. 

He didn't do enough to win. Instead, we have what we have. America will get the government it deserves.


----------



## NomadicWriter (Jan 30, 2017)

I like Evan McMullin. If the GOP decided to have a mutiny and support him instead of Trump in 2020, I'd be all for that.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 30, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> The only reason I actually care at all is the world's reaction. Like, if we could piss off just a few people here and there, that would be great. But everyone all at once is sort of a hard thing to get over. We aren't even two weeks in to this bad boy yet.
> 
> 100% agree on freaking out every time the POTUS does something. We just have to get to a spot like we did with the second Bush- we know POTUS is going to say some ridiculous crap. He's bound to screw up. We all know it. Just accept that and let's see if we can get to a place where we can move this ship forward, regardless of the idiot captain.



I care about the impact this has on largely innocent people - refugees, greencard holders, asylum seekers, and general participants in our immigration process.  A lot of really sad stories - to me similar to the stuff with the global gag rule - ideologically motivated moves with almost entirely negative consequences from a policy standpoint, and almost all for show.

But I agree with your and @TLDR20 point that it's not really a huge deal from a future of the country standpoint.  We're talking about a negligible amount of people when you look at the entire spectrum of our immigration policy and as sad as many of the stories are it's not enough people to have any impact on economic growth or international agreements.  Similarly that protests are affecting jack and shit - and are going to burn out very quickly at this stage.

As I look at it if I take the assumption it's not just full-speed incompetence maybe that's the point.  The President is able to continue to fire up his core supporters by showing he's serious in his anti-immigrant, anti-trade, anti-Islam positions from the campaign trail - without seriously impacting any real substantive policy changes, which he'll need congress to enact.  Simultaneously the opposition gets further into protest fatigue - it's been 10 days, no way this level of outrage can be maintained no matter what the President does - and the President is very rapidly able to essentially do a loyalty test inside the government.  Actions like this, his position on Russian hacking, and his climate change denial have pretty quickly identified for the incoming administration exactly where the institutional resistance to his policy will manifest - regulatory agencies, science-based agencies, the IC, and state dept.  In that sense it makes even more sense the moves he's making with who he is appointing by-and-large (outsiders who have expressed disdain or a desire to abolish the agencies they're taking over) and the shifts he's making in the NSC and executive decision-making apparatus.

Still, as effective as those tactical moves might be in getting an administration-friendly executive branch lined up there's a huge cost.  The President might not have to run for re-election for 4 more years but congress and one third of the senate do.  All the President's actions so far have really hardened opposition to him in the Democratic party - which could have been motivated to work with him in some of his stated infrastructure and anti-corruption efforts at the least.  It's also going to further alienate/scare any vulnerable Republicans in the same vein.

I guess though on the other side of that calculus there is an argument to be made the level of anger and protests on the left make it very difficult for any Democrats to reach across the isle - regardless of the merits of specific legislation.  Further, the midterm map is generically very solid for the Republican party - and they've traditionally done very well by counting on core constituency turn-out for Republicans.  President Trump got solid support from that constituency during the Presidential election (evangelicals, traditional conservative voters, older voters).  Further, the evidence is mixed that a strong protest movement on the left actually translates to success at the ballot box - it certainly didn't in the 60s and 70s in the protests and riots mentioned earlier, although granted there were a variety of factors at that time.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 30, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Gary Johnson was better than the Cheeto in Chief and the snarling alcoholic misandrist thundercunt.
> 
> Then again, Pookie was a better candidate than those two.


Crap... I miss your razor sharp tongue, Friend request inbound.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 30, 2017)

Cripes...this I did not see coming.

Trump fires acting attorney general who refused to defend immigration bann


----------



## AWP (Jan 30, 2017)

Right, wrong, or "other", Trump's going to do what he thinks is best and damn the torpedoes of public opinion. If we fight everything then the world will become numb to any real challenges. I think a third party is needed except it won't happen. The two existing parties will unite to marginalize that third party's influence...and none of that matters as long as the Libertarians put forth clownshoes.

The Republicans should be scared shitless. People will see Trump as a Republican and the way things are going, the GOP's chances of a re-election are dimming. Facts won't matter, perception will.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 30, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Cripes...this I did not see coming.
> 
> Trump fires acting attorney general who refused to defend immigration bann


I actually thought this immediately when seeing what Yates had said. I think my exact thoughts are, "No way he actually let's this slide, let's open up the twitter feed."

It's Pres Trump's authoritarian schtick to the extreme. He fired her for about 12 hours (Jeff Sessions is set for his hearing tomorrow).


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 30, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Cripes...this I did not see coming.
> 
> Trump fires acting attorney general who refused to defend immigration bann


This story is being a bit sensationalized; mountains and molehills kind of thing.  She was an Obama holdover.  She's not working for the new administration. 

Is this really a surprise or that big a deal?  I don't think so.  As amlove1 says, Sessions is just around the corner.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 30, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> This story is being a bit sensationalized; mountains and molehills kind of thing.  She was an Obama holdover.  She's not working for the new administration.
> 
> Is this really a surprise or that big a deal?  I don't think so.  As amlove1 says, Sessions is just around the corner.


Well it's being sensationalized for the timing (why fire her now? What do you gain?) and for the frequency that it happens- how many Attorney Generals have been fired throughout history?

In the end, it doesn't really do anything either way. Yates gets to look like the principled martyr, Pres Trump gets to look like the hardass authoritarian. Great.

ETA- I get that the AG gets replaced with different administrations; I am asking how many had been unceremoniously/immediately fired in the way Yates was. Via letter- classy move, Mr. Pres.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 30, 2017)

Why was she fired...idk, because she's an idiot.  That statement was a letter of resignation, a bit like MacArthur ordering troops to burn the hovels of the Bonus Army, not firing him then gave way to him going head to head with Truman.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 30, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Well it's being sensationalized for the timing (why fire her now? What do you gain?) and for the frequency that it happens- how many Attorney Generals have been fired throughout history?


Fire her now because she's not his AG, she's Obama's, and she's not supportive of his policy.  He's clearly in GSD mode and if she's just playing figure head, well, he doesn't need that.  Dropping her is not at all an unreasonable approach.

It would be a different story if it was his selection and he bounced her already.


----------



## CQB (Jan 31, 2017)

The policy as a whole needs to be a bit finer grained. Everyone I'm sure gets the basic premise, but there are nuances within that, that need to be addressed.


----------



## Etype (Jan 31, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> He didn't do enough to win. Instead, we have what we have. America will get the government it deserves.


I don't think there was anything Johnson could have done to win. The more he put himself in the public eye, the more he exposed himself as a bumbling stoner idiot.

Thank God for your second sentence.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 31, 2017)

CNN is breathless everyday with yet another "outrage" piled on top of the daily slew of outrages. If the intensity keeps up, Blitzer's gonna end up in a straight jacket.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 31, 2017)

Oh look, a politician who does what he says: Trump will continue Obama order protecting LGBTQ federal workers - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 31, 2017)

This article is probably in the 'too long, don't read' category for most - especially if you're an administration loyalist as it progresses some pretty anti-Trump assumptions: How to Build an Autocracy

But, nestled in the very long article are some interesting observations and insights.  I thought this one neatly summarized some things that have been discussed on this board:

"Trump has scant interest in congressional Republicans’ ideas, does not share their ideology, and cares little for their fate. He can—and would—break faith with them in an instant to further his own interests. Yet here they are, on the verge of achieving everything they have hoped to achieve for years, if not decades. They owe this chance solely to Trump’s ability to deliver a crucial margin of votes in a handful of states—Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—which has provided a party that cannot win the national popular vote a fleeting opportunity to act as a decisive national majority. The greatest risk to all their projects and plans is the very same X factor that gave them their opportunity: Donald Trump, and his famously erratic personality. What excites Trump is his approval rating, his wealth, his power. The day could come when those ends would be better served by jettisoning the institutional Republican Party in favor of an ad hoc populist coalition, joining nationalism to generous social spending—a mix that’s worked well for authoritarians in places like Poland. Who doubts Trump would do it? Not Paul Ryan. Not Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader. For the first time since the administration of John Tyler in the 1840s, a majority in Congress must worry about their president defecting from _them_ rather than the other way around."

The author, David Frum, is a speechwriter from the G.W. Bush administration and pretty strong proponent of Rove-era Republican policy.  He's got solid anti-Obama credentials but is also from the never-Trump portion of the Republican party from the get-go.  I won't claim comprehensive knowledge of conservative opinion writers by any stretch of the imagination but I think of him as much more Ross Duthat vs David Brooks on the spectrum if that makes sense.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 31, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> This article is probably in the 'too long, don't read' category for most - especially if you're an administration loyalist as it progresses some pretty anti-Trump assumptions: How to Build an Autocracy.



Good article.  A few thoughts:

1)  Frum is just as scared as any never-Trumper or Democrat.  His party has been usurped by Trump, Inc., and his old Bush-Rove ideology lost its luster.  Because at the end of the day his brand of Republicanism isn't too different that HRC's brand of Democratism, so he waving bye-bye to the status quo.
2)  Frum is right; no one knows which way Trump (and his administration) will go.  Will it go crazy right, crazy left, or back and forth like a ping pong ball?  No one knows because this has never happened before; there is no precedent.
3)  Frum is right, Trump, Inc., is largely about a populist message.  He won, right?  He heard the cries of the people: tax cuts, jobs, illegal immigration, security.  He plays on it.
4)  The journalist Frum quotes about the media, his quote is right, and wrong.  The media _is_ biased, Trump has called them out on it.  That said, look to Trump to maintain that divide and craft the 'news.'

This is unchartered territory, no one knows where the hell Trump is taking us.  Frum is right, though:  if you are at all concerned, you need to be working your representatives and senators to affect change in 4 years.  The problem with Trumps populism is that populism is largely a fleeting feeling, and it can be bought by others.  I have no doubt that the (mainstream) GOP and (mainstream) DNC will get their act together over the next four years.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 31, 2017)

Well that didn't take long....

Breaking silence, Obama speaks out on Trump immigrants order


----------



## compforce (Jan 31, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Well that didn't take long....
> 
> Breaking silence, Obama speaks out on Trump immigrants order



I have a real problem with that.  You know, prior to Obama, there was an implicit agreement not to directly criticize previous and later holders of the office (after the election, the debates were fair game).  It was Obama that started it with his blaming of Bush for everything.  Before that, a newly elected President might say "the economy needs to be fixed" but they wouldn't say "Bush wrecked the economy".  They were also expected to avoid criticism of those Presidents that came after them.  Rarely would a former President make a direct statement about the current President.  Again, they might make a general statement, but they would not come right out and blame the person.  Although they didn't agree with pretty much any of Obama's agenda, how many times did either Bush publically make a statement about it?  Did Reagan ever make any damning statements about Bill Clinton?  How about Carter about Reagan?

It sullies the dignity of the office and only adds to the Nation's divisiveness for former Presidents to make direct statements about the policies of the current President.  Honestly, I don't care whether the office holder is a Democrat or Republican, they all need to keep their traps shut.  Former Presidents had their chance to do things and they need to stay out of the mix of criticism of current office holders.  If they don't, an inflamatory President like Trump could very well respond starting a war of words.  That just cheapens our country in the eyes of the rest of the world.  Think about it, two people who were/are the leaders of the free world arguing about how it should be run.  That's just childish.  There are enough people out there to argue the two sides without the former President getting up on a soap box.

I would feel exactly the same way if Trump made statements about whoever comes next.  This is _not_ a Trump/Obama thing.  This is about having some class.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 31, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> This article is probably in the 'too long, don't read' category for most - especially if you're an administration loyalist as it progresses some pretty anti-Trump assumptions: How to Build an Autocracy
> 
> But, nestled in the very long article are some interesting observations and insights.  I thought this one neatly summarized some things that have been discussed on this board:
> 
> ...



This is one of those way too early Top 25 type predictions following the national championship game.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 31, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> This is one of those way too early Top 25 type predictions following the national championship game.



Agree on the start of the article - but if you can get past that I think there are some pretty readable concerns, expressed in a way that's not coming from the left.  But I get it, it's a long read and I would probably be too turned off to continue after the dystopian-future presented at the beginning if it was describing an administration I admired.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 31, 2017)

reed11b said:


> Crap... I miss your razor sharp tongue, Friend request inbound.



(Someday we need to publish the @racing_kitty 's legendary rants.)


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 31, 2017)

The City of San Francisco is suing Trump, or the Office of the President...San Francisco sues Trump over executive order targeting 'sanctuary cities'

I'm honestly confused, we used to say: suing the administration.  They can't exactly sue the individual over something like this.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 31, 2017)

Because Outrage, Because Muslim Ban...oh wait: Syrian Christian immigrants turned back at airport - CNN.com


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 31, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Because Outrage, Because Muslim Ban...oh wait: Syrian Christian immigrants turned back at airport - CNN.com



 
Is your point here, "We aren't _only _turning Muslims away, fleeing a 'horror', it's Christians too." ? Maybe I am missing a tongue in cheek part or something. 

The irony of President Trump's claim that "large numbers of Christians executed" and his own feeling that the ban (which puts more of those Middle Eastern Christians at risk because they can no longer seek refuge here) is going "very, very nicely" should be noted. He's patted himself on the back for perpetuating his own self-admitted horror.

I think we need enhanced vetting to ensure that terrorists aren't hiding in the refugees entering the country. We may need an all stop in order to make that happen, but I feel this ban is the lesser of two evils. Deny refuge to people that need it in order to give us the sense of security and clean up our immigration process, or let everyone in and risk terror attack. The false dichotomy we've been force fed aside, that's where this one lies and we chose the former.

When we look back on this ban, I am going to need to see some sort of proof that it really did make America safer, as we've constantly been told it will.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 31, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> View attachment 17907
> Is your point here, "We aren't _only _turning Muslims away, fleeing a 'horror', it's Christians too." ? Maybe I am missing a tongue in cheek part or something.
> 
> The irony of President Trump's claim that "large numbers of Christians executed" and his own feeling that the ban (which puts more of those Middle Eastern Christians at risk because they can no longer seek refuge here) is going "very, very nicely" should be noted. He's patted himself on the back for perpetuating his own self-admitted horror.
> ...




Is "enhanced vetting" even possible? What I mean is, have the countries these refugees are fleeing kept adequate records that can be checked by our DHS people?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 31, 2017)

There's no tongue in cheek.  It is not a Muslim Ban, construing it as such because your feelings are hurt is not how this works.  

The other day I thought to myself, I'm a poor Christian for not wanting to give these folks a home.  But then I think to myself what is going on in Europe and how that has had an effect upon them.  I guess this is where we gave up our liberty for Security.  But I'm not going to allow some rando into my house for fear of getting murdered in my sleep, just like I'm not going to do this.

We should admit people for refugee status and immigration under normal circumstances to those who have a possibility of assimilating into our culture.  How you define that is up to you.  But the Czechs and the Slovaks have already set a precedent in Europe on who they would accept as refugees in their country.  

BTW, on the AP twitter:" 872 refugees to be admitted despite new restrictions. "  Or you could say in accordance with new restrictions as it gives the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security override power IOT allow refugees in.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 31, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> There's no tongue in cheek.  It is not a Muslim Ban, construing it as such because your feelings are hurt is not how this works.
> 
> The other day I thought to myself, I'm a poor Christian for not wanting to give these folks a home.  But then I think to myself what is going on in Europe and how that has had an effect upon them.  I guess this is where we gave up our liberty for Security.  But I'm not going to allow some rando into my house for fear of getting murdered in my sleep, just like I'm not going to do this.
> 
> ...


Well, you've beaten me to the "your feelings are hurt" argument. Dammit, guess you win this round, Sir. 

In my post in response to your "appeal to emotion" recreational anger CNN news story (I believe Pres Trump has labeled that fake news and 'the opposition party') post, I asked you to clarify your point and highlighted the disconnect in President Trump's actions (the ban) and a tweet. That's all. Not attacking- I asked you a question. And you felt so defensive you needed to resort to the common song of your sect, "You're feelings are hurt." 

You immediately went to appeal to emotion (again), even invoking being murdered in your sleep by a refugee. Do you really feel that you'll have to take a refugee into your house and risk being murdered by them? Is that what you think the process is?

I am glad we got the 872 refugees in. I am really hopeful that we find a process to balance the need to allow refugees into our country and proper screening for people meaning to do this country harm. Until we do, I am holding the administration accountable for those that are seeking asylum, do not mean to do this country harm, and are turned away to go back to a hell on earth scenario (like Syria right now) for no other reason than that's where their house is located.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 31, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Is "enhanced vetting" even possible? What I mean is, have the countries these refugees are fleeing kept adequate records that can be checked by our DHS people?


Man I have no clue. If there's no diplomatic presence, and people don't have any sort of indicator (explosive powders? uhhhhhh no clue what else) at the border- no idea. 

We can't even detect/stop homegrown lone wolf type attacks or foresee them, and these are people that live in America in close contact with other Americans. How are we supposed to "extreme vet" someone in real time that has lived in a place where it's perfectly normal to say, "Death to the West"?

I am very anxious to hear the administration's plan on extreme vetting and what that process looks like. I think the visa application process needs an overhaul, and I think we would have more control over that process. As for people from the 7 countries listed in the ban? I don't think I am smart enough for that one.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 31, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Is "enhanced vetting" even possible? What I mean is, have the countries these refugees are fleeing kept adequate records that can be checked by our DHS people?



No...not at all. But at this time we do not know what "enhanced vetting" is going to include...any increase in scrutiny is on the right track.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 31, 2017)

Enhanced vetting would be very difficult - because vetting is already incredibly advanced on refugees: Top 5 Fallacies About Syrian Refugees To The US, Debunked


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 31, 2017)

This is an interesting incite into Bannon and why the NSC change up.  It also explains the appearance of things being slow in the previous administration; allowing everyone and anyone their voice as long as they had clearance, not necessarily need to know.  It's also concerning that these leaks think that the press is their only choice.

Former Breitbart News head pulling the strings on White House national security — and erasing the paper trail


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 31, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Well, you've beaten me to the "your feelings are hurt" argument. Dammit, guess you win this round, Sir.



In response to only this, it's not your feelings I'm specifically talking about.  But rather the appeal to emotions being played up on the MSM, SM, and Print Media.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 31, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> This is an interesting incite into Bannon and why the NSC change up.  It also explains the appearance of things being slow in the previous administration; allowing everyone and anyone their voice as long as they had clearance, not necessarily need to know.  It's also concerning that these leaks think that the press is their only choice.
> 
> Former Breitbart News head pulling the strings on White House national security — and erasing the paper trail



I saw a very similar report in another paper - likely using exactly the same source.  Interesting to say the least. 

To me it highlights the difficulties in national security issues with trust.  If you trust the President and his advisors making decisions with smaller groups, cutting out opportunities for leaks, and making decisions faster looks decisive and direct.  If you mistrust the same people it looks like a nefarious power grab, lack of transparency, and cutting key institutions and processes out to further your political ends. 

I think that reliance on trust is one of the reasons political capital through adherence to norms is important in a national security context - even if you want to go scorched earth in other political arenas.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 31, 2017)

Some asshole in the California State House filed for the release of Melania's immigration records: Senator from Berkeley demands release of Melania Trump's immigration documents


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 31, 2017)

Rather odd, the above. I don't recall seeing anyone named Trump but Donld being on the ballot I saw.

Why would the California Senator be looking into the life of a private individual who lives in the City and State of NY? Seems excessive and abusive to me.

Strange times. I hate politics.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 31, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Some asshole in the California State House filed for the release of Melania's immigration records: Senator from Berkeley demands release of Melania Trump's immigration documents



Lol some asshole? I think her papers are relevant. 

We had people calling for Obama's real birth certificate years after it was provided, and people still call him Kenyan. POTUS wife is an immigrant. A legal one most likely, but why not show the documents and stop any searching.


*****this whole post used not my own reasoning, but that which was provided by those seeking a Obama birth certificate******


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 31, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Man I have no clue. If there's no diplomatic presence, and people don't have any sort of indicator (explosive powders? uhhhhhh no clue what else) at the border- no idea.
> 
> We can't even detect/stop homegrown lone wolf type attacks or foresee them, and these are people that live in America in close contact with other Americans. How are we supposed to "extreme vet" someone in real time that has lived in a place where it's perfectly normal to say, "Death to the West"?
> 
> I am very anxious to hear the administration's plan on extreme vetting and what that process looks like. I think the visa application process needs an overhaul, and I think we would have more control over that process. As for people from the 7 countries listed in the ban? I don't think I am smart enough for that one.



I would have no problem with leaving the door shut on the basis of having no way to verify someone's background.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 31, 2017)

Leave Melania alone. Who cares if she has papers? She's hot.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 31, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> ...
> 
> Until we do, *I am holding the administration accountable for those that are seeking asylum*, do not mean to do this country harm, and are turned away to go back to a hell on earth scenario (like Syria right now) for no other reason than that's where their house is located.



Why are you holding this (or any) administration accountable for something that is not their responsibility?


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 31, 2017)

This is a little over the top in writing but it's not off the mark and puts into words some of what I've been thinking the last few days.

The soft coup – US Establishment goes to war with President Trump


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 31, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Why are you holding this (or any) administration accountable for something that is not their responsibility?


Well, I suppose it's a completely idealist and solely personal opinion, but I would like to think a we are a nation that helps those weaker/smaller/poorer than us.

Is it legally our administration's responsibility to do right by the downtrodden of the world? Nope, I accept that. We could simply shut down the border and call it good.

But as a citizen/constituent, it's important for me to vote for/support administrations that share or represent my values, and to oppose those that don't  in my personal life and through my vote/discourse. 

ETA- spelling cause phone and stupid.


----------



## CQB (Jan 31, 2017)

CQB said:


> The policy as a whole needs to be a bit finer grained. Everyone I'm sure gets the basic premise, but there are nuances within that, that need to be addressed.


To add, it must be frustrating for the interpreters, drivers & others who assisted the US & now find themselves on the receiving end of a blunt policy. It sends the wrong message.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 31, 2017)

Neil Gorsuch is an awesome choice for the Supreme Court.  Neil Gorsuch & Supreme Court --Antonin Scalia’s Textualist & Originalist | National Review



amlove21 said:


> Well, I suppose it's a completely idealist and solely personal opinion, but I would like to think a we are a nation that helps those weaker/smaller/poorer than us.
> 
> Is it legally our administration's responsibility to do right by the downtrodden of the world? Nope, I accept that. We could simply shut down the border and call it good.
> 
> ...


If the previous administration didn't provide material aid to rebel groups in Syria we may have just not been in this situation!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 31, 2017)

re:  Neil Gorsuch


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 31, 2017)

I am of the opinion that America should be a beacon of light against the darkness in this world.

Do I think we should take everyone? No. Luckily our geographic boundaries prevent that for the most part. Do I think we should have a modicum of openness to the worst of the oppressed in this world? Yes.

Today there are plenty of people that need an escape. My motto was/is "to free the oppressed". If that freedom is here then so be it: I don't think we should be ok with people living in the state they are living in simply because it is more comfortable to us.

I can empathize with these people. The ones who want to escape for their families. Who want to approach that shining beacon of freedom in the darkness they inhabit.

I try and help those in need. It is why I joined the military, and why I do what I do now . I dedicate my life to caring for those in need. There are millions of those in need around the world. I don't advocate for taking all of them, the majority of them, or even a large amount of them. We should take the amount dictated by congressionally passed laws. Anything else to me is wrong.

Allowing open borders is wrong, having closed borders is wrong. Closing our borders to the worst places imaginable is wrong..


----------



## AWP (Jan 31, 2017)

Enhanced vetting of immigrants calls for waterboarding them until their paperwork's correct.


----------



## compforce (Feb 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> My motto was/is "to fee the oppressed".



How much do you charge them?  

Seriously though, I would be OK with any process that included a "we can't find enough information so we're not letting you in" clause.  I also think that people that immigrate to the US should assimilate into US culture, not band into communities where they enforce/embrace the same culture they are *fleeing* from.

Want to move here from a country that is predominantly Muslim?  Fine, as long as you pass the vetting and leave sharia law behind...   And the same for any other race, religon or creed, not just Muslim/Islam.  One standard for everyone.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> My motto was/is "to fee the oppressed".


That's savage.  Not afraid to kick a person when they're down...do you take Visa?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 1, 2017)

Let's do a little intellectual exercise.  I think it'll warm up the creative thinking muscles a little bit.

The rules are simple: if you are a *Trump opposer*, then you must post something that you _like_ about the current administration.  If you are a *Trump supporter*, then you must post something that you _dislike_ about the current administration.  Try to refrain from backhanded compliments, qualifiers, or any weasel words.  I want posters to exert some contrarian thinking.

I'll start: We all know that the economic recovery isn't going so well, and a lot of people in middle America have been left out.  One thing for which I give Trump credit are these stories about retaining jobs in the United States.  A few hundred here, a thousand there, they start to add up, and when people see stuff like "Ford plant will stay in America" I think that it gives them a little bit of hope, which is sorely needed.

I also support the choice of Mattis for SecDef.  Great decision.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Let's do a little intellectual exercise.  I think it'll warm up the creative thinking muscles a little bit.
> 
> The rules are simple: if you are a *Trump opposer*, then you must post something that you _like_ about the current administration.  If you are a *Trump supporter*, then you must post something that you _dislike_ about the current administration.  Try to refrain from backhanded compliments, qualifiers, or any weasel words.  I want posters to exert some contrarian thinking.
> 
> ...


See this: 3-Up, 3-Down: Donald Trump


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2017)

Something I've found interesting is the "lack of Clinton" in critiques of Trump and his policies. I'm sure part of that is maybe a reluctance to speculate on WWHRCD during her first 100 days, but I only see the barest of references to the election/ popular vote anymore.

It is probably nothing, but it is like she disappeared from the face of the earth. I also don't see many, if any, counterproposals from Democrats. It seems the entire narrative is "Trump's evil" or some variation. He's rolled a 20 for initiative and no one else knows what to do.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 1, 2017)

AWP said:


> Something I've found interesting is the "lack of Clinton" in critiques of Trump and his policies. I'm sure part of that is maybe a reluctance to speculate on WWHRCD during her first 100 days, but I only see the barest of references to the election/ popular vote anymore.
> 
> It is probably nothing, but it is like she disappeared from the face of the earth. I also don't see many, if any, counterproposals from Democrats. It seems the entire narrative is "Trump's evil" or some variation. He's rolled a 20 for initiative and no one else knows what to do.



I don't feel like the candidate that loses is normally referenced all that much. I don't think I remember many comparisons to Kerry, McCain or Romney during the first 100 days of any of those presidencies.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Let's do a little intellectual exercise.  I think it'll warm up the creative thinking muscles a little bit.
> 
> The rules are simple: if you are a *Trump opposer*, then you must post something that you _like_ about the current administration.  If you are a *Trump supporter*, then you must post something that you _dislike_ about the current administration.  Try to refrain from backhanded compliments, qualifiers, or any weasel words.  I want posters to exert some contrarian thinking.
> 
> ...




I like this idea, but I think it might get buried in the myriad discussions in this thread.  Maybe split this one out and start another one?


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I am of the opinion that America should be a beacon of light against the darkness in this world.
> 
> Do I think we should take everyone? No. Luckily our geographic boundaries prevent that for the most part. Do I think we should have a modicum of openness to the worst of the oppressed in this world? Yes.
> 
> ...



Agreed.  I am pro-immigration; hell, we all have ancestors that came from _somewhere_.  But I don't have an issue with an operational pause, a safety stand-down so to speak, to ensure we are, in fact, doing everything we can vis-a-vis security.  If we are, resume the program and drive on.  If we aren't, then implement a patch and drive on.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Let's do a little intellectual exercise.  I think it'll warm up the creative thinking muscles a little bit.
> 
> The rules are simple: if you are a *Trump opposer*, then you must post something that you _like_ about the current administration.  If you are a *Trump supporter*, then you must post something that you _dislike_ about the current administration.  Try to refrain from backhanded compliments, qualifiers, or any weasel words.  I want posters to exert some contrarian thinking.
> 
> ...



I dislike his war with the press/media.  I don't think his assertion that they are biased is necessarily wrong, but it is what it is and he and his administration need to be more carrot and less stick.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 1, 2017)

I like that he is keeping some of his promises. Whether or not I agree with them, he is following through on some of what he said he would do.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't feel like the candidate that loses is normally referenced all that much. I don't think I remember many comparisons to Kerry, McCain or Romney during the first 100 days of any of those presidencies.



True, but I should have clarified: her supporters/ rabid anti-Trump crowd aren't throwing her in everyone's face. Given the election and the emotion involved, that surprises me.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Let's do a little intellectual exercise.  I think it'll warm up the creative thinking muscles a little bit.
> 
> The rules are simple: if you are a *Trump opposer*, then you must post something that you _like_ about the current administration.  If you are a *Trump supporter*, then you must post something that you _dislike_ about the current administration.  Try to refrain from backhanded compliments, qualifiers, or any weasel words.  I want posters to exert some contrarian thinking.
> 
> ...



How long do we have to play?

Betsey Devos getting confirmed pisses me off.  Why was she the one he chose for SecEd?

I dislike that he doesn't PT.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 1, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I dislike his war with the press/media.  I don't think his assertion that they are biased is necessarily wrong, but it is what it is and he and his administration need to be more carrot and less stick.


Disagree because the more carrot, less stick bit has been done repeatedly and gets nowhere with the media. You give an inch and they take a mile. Right now I believe he is making them work for it and shaming them as they should be. Journalism has become a joke over the last several decades. I find it quite refreshing that he is giving them their own medicine. They deserve it. This bullshit about it being below the prestige of the office makes me roll my eyes. Much like when someone is offended when they hear someone curse. Grow up. The media is getting treat as what they are, a petulant child that has been caught in many lies. It is about time someone stood up to them and made them work and reevaluate their values. Just my take on the matter. YMMV.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 1, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Disagree because the more carrot, less stick bit has been done repeatedly and gets nowhere with the media. You give an inch and they take a mile. Right now I believe he is making them work for it and shaming them as they should be. Journalism has become a joke over the last several decades. I find it quite refreshing that he is giving them their own medicine. They deserve it. This bullshit about it being below the prestige of the office makes me roll my eyes. Much like when someone is offended when they hear someone curse. Grow up. The media is getting treat as what they are, a petulant child that has been caught in many lies. It is about time someone stood up to them and made them work and reevaluate their values. Just my take on the matter. YMMV.



Ha.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.  Just trying to play the game.

In all seriousness, the media are idiots, but can be useful idiots.  Spicer is weak sauce as press sec.  he needs a better press sec who can really use the media to the administration's advantage.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Let's do a little intellectual exercise.  I think it'll warm up the creative thinking muscles a little bit.
> 
> The rules are simple: if you are a *Trump opposer*, then you must post something that you _like_ about the current administration.  If you are a *Trump supporter*, then you must post something that you _dislike_ about the current administration.  Try to refrain from backhanded compliments, qualifiers, or any weasel words.  I want posters to exert some contrarian thinking.


Wonderful idea. IF I had to find a complaint, it would be his position on abortion. I am ok with de-funding abortion overseas. However, I think it is wrong to defund it here at home. Matter of fact, his whole position on abortion bothers me. Up until 21-25 weeks it should be alright to get an abortion (even with tax payer assistance). Once the fetus has developed the necessary brain parts for sentience (fore mentioned time frame), then the clock runs out and it has become human and not a collection of cells.

Also, the conservative argument that "I don't want my tax dollars paying for you to fuck" is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard form the conservative party. Conservatives want to stop welfare queens from popping out babies and paying for social services for said babies, but don't want to be proactive in helping to stop it before it becomes a problem. Spend fifty bucks once, now, or spend hundreds every month. Simple fiscal reasoning should win the day here. Conservatives need to realize that poor people have few choices to pass the time when you're poor and can't afford to do anything. Usually the choices are drugs, booze, or screwing to pass the time. Another example for tax money going towards everyone's benefit is tax funding for schools. Some single folks wonder why should their taxes pay for a school system they don't believe they will use? Because you don't want to live in a society with a bunch of illiterate dumbasses surrounding you 24/7. You expect a certain level of intelligence when you deal with people. The same applies with basic contraceptive and pregnancy avoidance services.

This is one of the rare places where true fiscal responsibility is in their hands.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 1, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Ha.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.  Just trying to play the game.
> 
> In all seriousness, the media are idiots, but can be useful idiots.  Spicer is weak sauce as press sec.  he needs a better press sec who can really use the media to the administration's advantage.


The problem is that this game is controlled by the media. All too often I have seen the media force an agency in improper and dangerous ways.

I totally agree on Spicer. Listening to him speak is painful, and it is obvious he is not a good public speaker. Personally, I really wanted to see Milo as press secretary. I think it would have revolutionized that game.

ETA: I am all for the concept behind the media being a check and balance for the government. However, that is no longer the case.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 1, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Wonderful idea. IF I had to find a complaint, it would for certain be his position on abortion. I am ok with de-funding abortion overseas. However, I think it is wrong to defund it here at home. Matter of fact, his whole position on abortion bothers me. Up until 21-25 weeks it should be alright to get an abortion (even with tax payer assistance). Once the fetus has developed the necessary brain parts for sentience (fore mentioned time frame), then the clock runs out and it has become human and not a collection of cells.
> 
> Also, the conservative argument that "I don't want my tax dollars paying for you to fuck" is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard form the conservative party. Conservatives want to stop welfare queens from popping out babies and paying for social services for said babies, but don't want to be proactive in helping to stop it before it becomes a problem. Spend fifty bucks once, now, or spend hundreds every month. Simple fiscal reasoning should win the day here. Conservatives need to realize that poor people have few choices to pass the time when you're poor and can't afford to do anything. Usually the choices are drugs, booze, or screwing to pass the time. Another example for tax money going towards everyone's benefit is tax funding for schools. Some single folks wonder why should their taxes pay for a school system they don't believe they will use? Because you don't want to live in a society with a bunch of illiterate dumbasses surrounding you 24/7. You expect a certain level of intelligence when you deal with people. The same applies with basic contraceptive and pregnancy avoidance services.
> 
> This is one of the rare places where true fiscal responsibility is in their hands.



Federal funds can't be used to fund abortions; Medicaid can, but only in very specific circumstances.


----------



## Dienekes (Feb 1, 2017)

Voted for Trump

I dislike his lack of class. I don't mind the tweeting and fully support providing your message to the people unfiltered by outside sources, but don't take every mean word someone with a keyboard/camera says about you personally and then attack them right back. The office of the president should be above petty BS like that, and if not, there is way to disparage the media to invoke change with an elegant rather than boisterous touch.

And yea, he could have done way better than Betsy DeVos.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 1, 2017)

And so it begins:  Republicans change rules during Democrats' boycott to push through cabinet nominees:

Republicans vote to suspend committee rules, advance Mnuchin, Price nominations - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 1, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> And so it begins:  Republicans change rules during Democrats' boycott to push through cabinet nominees:
> 
> Republicans vote to suspend committee rules, advance Mnuchin, Price nominations - CNNPolitics.com


As policy I think this is a terrible abuse of power and does zero to mend fences.  But...the Dems made the decision to have a temper-tantrum and boycott the hearings.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 1, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> And so it begins:  Republicans change rules during Democrats' boycott to push through cabinet nominees:
> 
> Republicans vote to suspend committee rules, advance Mnuchin, Price nominations - CNNPolitics.com




I don't have a problem with it. The Dems aren't showing up. Is everybody supposed to wait until they do? And how long does the boycott go on, a week, a month, the next 4 years? WTF.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Let's do a little intellectual exercise.  I think it'll warm up the creative thinking muscles a little bit.
> 
> The rules are simple: if you are a *Trump opposer*, then you must post something that you _like_ about the current administration.  If you are a *Trump supporter*, then you must post something that you _dislike_ about the current administration.  Try to refrain from backhanded compliments, qualifiers, or any weasel words.  I want posters to exert some contrarian thinking.
> 
> ...




I'll buy in. I voted for Trump and there's a lot I don't like. Most of my dislike centers around his personality and his frag-the-room approach to just about everything. I like the fact that he has balls...but holy hell, there are times when a little tact, a little finesse would work better. He had the chance to do some unifying post-election through tweets and statements etc that might've smoothed the transition...but he went full-bore right out the gate like some badass alpha rodeo bull....


----------



## Gunz (Feb 1, 2017)

AWP said:


> Something I've found interesting is the "lack of Clinton" in critiques of Trump and his policies. I'm sure part of that is maybe a reluctance to speculate on WWHRCD during her first 100 days, but I only see the barest of references to the election/ popular vote anymore.
> 
> *It is probably nothing, but it is like she disappeared from the face of the earth.* I also don't see many, if any, counterproposals from Democrats. It seems the entire narrative is "Trump's evil" or some variation. He's rolled a 20 for initiative and no one else knows what to do.



I hear she's planning a comeback. The CDC is stocking up on penicillin.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 1, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> I like the fact that he has balls...but holy hell, there are times when a little tact, a little finesse would work better.....



Not every fly needs a sledgehammer....


----------



## Etype (Feb 1, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> ... we all have ancestors that came from _somewhere_.


I think this is a ridiculous quote that is often thrown around.  The same can be said for most of the world, it is a self-evident truth.

The difference lies in the intentions of the individuals. A lot of ancestors arrived here to give themselves to America, I would argue that many of the Middle-Eastern immigrants would like to come here to take from America.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 1, 2017)

Etype said:


> I think this is a ridiculous quote that is often thrown around.  The same can be said for most of the world, it is a self-evident truth.
> 
> The difference lies in the intentions of the individuals. A lot of ancestors arrived here to give themselves to America, I would argue that many of the Middle-Eastern immigrants would like to come here to take from America.



Ridiculous, but true.  But we are a nation of (immigration) laws, every generation a little more complex than the previous.  I agree regarding the intentions, and if you read my quote in context of my entire post I was merely saying I am pro-immigration, but within the confines of the laws.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 1, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> As policy I think this is a terrible abuse of power and does zero to mend fences.  But...the Dems made the decision to have a temper-tantrum and boycott the hearings.


It's not really an abuse of power, voting to suspend the rules happens all the time, even before the Democrats changed the rules on the number of votes required to confirm someone.  If the Democrats don't want to do their job, I'd vote to suspend their pay while we're at it.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 1, 2017)

I would have voted for Trump if I was a citizen.   I dislike his cards close to the chest approach to everything.   National Security and Foreign Policy, completely understand but a little transparency goes a long way.  I think the Temp "pause" could have been implemented a lot better.  Inform departments ahead of time and more detailed information on implementation.  It may have prevented some of the backlash.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 1, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Wonderful idea. IF I had to find a complaint, it would be his position on abortion. I am ok with de-funding abortion overseas. However, I think it is wrong to defund it here at home. Matter of fact, his whole position on abortion bothers me. Up until 21-25 weeks it should be alright to get an abortion (even with tax payer assistance). Once the fetus has developed the necessary brain parts for sentience (fore mentioned time frame), then the clock runs out and it has become human and not a collection of cells.
> 
> Also, the conservative argument that "I don't want my tax dollars paying for you to fuck" is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard form the conservative party. Conservatives want to stop welfare queens from popping out babies and paying for social services for said babies, but don't want to be proactive in helping to stop it before it becomes a problem. Spend fifty bucks once, now, or spend hundreds every month. Simple fiscal reasoning should win the day here. Conservatives need to realize that poor people have few choices to pass the time when you're poor and can't afford to do anything. Usually the choices are drugs, booze, or screwing to pass the time. Another example for tax money going towards everyone's benefit is tax funding for schools. Some single folks wonder why should their taxes pay for a school system they don't believe they will use? Because you don't want to live in a society with a bunch of illiterate dumbasses surrounding you 24/7. You expect a certain level of intelligence when you deal with people. The same applies with basic contraceptive and pregnancy avoidance services.
> 
> This is one of the rare places where true fiscal responsibility is in their hands.



quoted to use in the future.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 1, 2017)

Etype said:


> I think this is a ridiculous quote that is often thrown around.  The same can be said for most of the world, it is a self-evident truth.
> 
> The difference lies in the intentions of the individuals. A lot of ancestors arrived here to give themselves to America, I would argue that many of the Middle-Eastern immigrants would like to come here to take from America.




Too many arrive here with an attitude. They hate America but they love it's money and the advantages they'd never get at home.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 1, 2017)

Etype said:


> A lot of ancestors arrived here to give themselves to America, I would argue that many of the Middle-Eastern immigrants would like to come here to take from America.


What makes you think this?  Legitimately curious.


----------



## Etype (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> What makes you think this?  Legitimately curious.


Specifically speaking to Muslim immigration and refugees- the loudest voice I hear from them is a demand to stop profiling, a cry for human rights, and cries of racism and biggotry. These usually go hand-in-hand with a socialized endstate and haven't been legitimate in the US for decades.

It may be a case of the screaming minority vs. the silent majority, but comparable to Islamic extremism, the silent majority is largely irrelevant.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 1, 2017)

The left has progress all wrong.......:wall:


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 1, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Betsey Devos getting confirmed pisses me off.  Why was she the one he chose for SecEd?


She may not.  A couple Republican Senators have come out and stated they will vote against her.  To me, denying her nomination would be a big, and much needed win, by Republicans in Congress; it would show they're not puppets and that they still have a set of keys to the ship.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 2, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> If you are a *Trump supporter*, then you must post something that you _dislike_ about the current administration.  Try to refrain from backhanded compliments, qualifiers, or any weasel words.  I want posters to exert some contrarian thinking.



Dislike:  ISIL hasn't been the recipient of any MOABs yet.  I'll give him another week to work out the deets!!!!


#moabforthewin


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 2, 2017)

Time to shut Berkeley down.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 2, 2017)

I don't think anyone would argue that Trump has put a lot balls in the air during his first couple weeks.  There's enough action that I'm sure anyone could find something he's done that they can disagree with.

The way he reportedly talked to the Australian Prime Minister, as an example.  Obama's treatment of some of our long standing allies was poor but if the way Trump reportedly engaged the PM, that's despicable as well.  He doesn't have to like the deal but he does need tact.

That aside, as was stated earlier in this thread, if the press is going to harp on every comment and leftists are going to protest each action, we're going to go numb pretty quickly.  It's already starting for me.  As an ex.  this was a "front page" story on ABC:
Military Convoy Flying Trump Flag Belonged to SEAL Unit

Really?  We're writing stories about a flag for our President flying on a military vehicle as though it's some great mystery and offense?  Who gives a shit?!


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 2, 2017)

Some of you may have heard of the Chapo Trap House podcast, and some of you may not.  It's somewhere between center-left and far-left, but they're perfectly at home with absolutely excoriating the democrats and leftists in general.

Their most recent podcast would probably be a great listen for even the staunchest conservatives.  They take the media to task and highlight the failures of the DNC and the political class in general.  They're anti-Trump, for sure, but this episode in particular is less about the man and more about his movement (and counter-movements).  Some of the stuff that they've talked about could have been directly lifted from this board.  It helps that they're pretty funny too.

Give it a listen: Episode 77 - No Country For Gorilla Men feat. Matt Taibbi (1/29/17)


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 2, 2017)

Man, all sort of whoonya going down:

U.S. makes limited exceptions to sanctions on Russian spy agency

Draft executive order will allow Trump to deport poor immigrants


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 2, 2017)

Punxsutawney Phil predicts 6 more weeks of Winter.  As of right now, that furry little devil has been right 39% of the time.  Quick math...in the last 120 years, he has been right 47 times, that makes him 47 times more accurate then Climatologists.......

#becausemath


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> What makes you think this?  Legitimately curious.



One thing that has struck me time and time again when asking immigrants, or descendants of  immigrants what their experience was like and how their whole process went coming to this country of ours, was that earlier generations of immigrants often refused to speak their native tongue around their children, and sometimes refused to even teach their children their native tongue out of  loyalty and gratitude to their adopted country. 
That has been drastically reversed in later current waves or immigrants. 
I always thought it was a great shame, but I respected and understood the reasons why they made that choice.
Food for thought.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 3, 2017)

I like POTUS's pick for the Supreme Court. 

I don't like that he got one. But I like his pick nonetheless.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 3, 2017)

pardus said:


> One thing that has struck me time and time again when asking immigrants, or descendants of  immigrants what their experience was like and how their whole process went coming to this country of ours, was that earlier generations of immigrants often refused to speak their native tongue around their children, and sometimes refused to even teach their children their native tongue out of  loyalty and gratitude to their adopted country.
> That has been drastically reversed in later current waves or immigrants.
> I always thought it was a great shame, but I respected and understood the reasons why they made that choice.
> Food for thought.



I'm sure that happened but I wonder how common it was - and what the results good or bad were towards 'assimilation.'  I think when you look at the history of America the culture adapted as much as a result of what immigrants brought with them as what they experienced and adapted to here.  I wonder too at the strengths heritage speakers might bring.  I'm thinking specifically of the significantly higher density of Soldiers with language skills in the European Theater of Operations in WWII.  Our military today is less than 1/10th the size of the WWII force and we wouldn't dream of being able to supply one or more person who is conversant in the language of any theater in the world we deployed to.  In the ETO in WWII I've read there was that level of language density or possibly more of Soldiers who spoke Italian, French, or German - thanks to the previous 50 years of immigration.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 3, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I'm sure that happened but I wonder how common it was - and what the results good or bad were towards 'assimilation.'  I think when you look at the history of America the culture adapted as much as a result of what immigrants brought with them as what they experienced and adapted to here.  I wonder too at the strengths heritage speakers might bring.  I'm thinking specifically of the significantly higher density of Soldiers with language skills in the European Theater of Operations in WWII.  Our military today is less than 1/10th the size of the WWII force and we wouldn't dream of being able to supply one or more person who is conversant in the language of any theater in the world we deployed to.  In the ETO in WWII I've read there was that level of language density or possibly more of Soldiers who spoke Italian, French, or German - thanks to the previous 50 years of immigration.



I'm pretty sure we could deploy to South America with no issues inthr language department.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 3, 2017)

pardus said:


> One thing that has struck me time and time again when asking immigrants, or descendants of  immigrants what their experience was like and how their whole process went coming to this country of ours, was that earlier generations of immigrants often refused to speak their native tongue around their children, and sometimes refused to even teach their children their native tongue out of  loyalty and gratitude to their adopted country.
> That has been drastically reversed in later current waves or immigrants.
> I always thought it was a great shame, but I respected and understood the reasons why they made that choice.
> Food for thought.



Case in point, my Great Great Grandpa who came here from Germany with wife and kids. When war broke out he enlisted in the 27th Connecticut infantry and fought at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and was captured during the latter. His children learned English early on and his daughter translated his war diary from the German.

Many immigrants have shown their gratitude by serving in our military.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 3, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I'm sure that happened but I wonder how common it was - and what the results good or bad were towards 'assimilation.'  I think when you look at the history of America the culture adapted as much as a result of what immigrants brought with them as what they experienced and adapted to here.  I wonder too at the strengths heritage speakers might bring.  I'm thinking specifically of the significantly higher density of Soldiers with language skills in the European Theater of Operations in WWII.  Our military today is less than 1/10th the size of the WWII force and we wouldn't dream of being able to supply one or more person who is conversant in the language of any theater in the world we deployed to.  In the ETO in WWII I've read there was that level of language density or possibly more of Soldiers who spoke Italian, French, or German - thanks to the previous 50 years of immigration.



The reason there were so many people with those kinds of language skills in the military is because there was a draft.  Those were also common/popular foreign languages.  There are hundreds of thousands of people who are fluent in important languages, and if we used a draft, we'd get plenty.  It would never be "enough," but it would be plenty.  Additionally, there are so many niche dialects and languages out there that unless we fling the doors wide open we'd never get enough of those languages.  Somali dialects... Urdu... the list goes on.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 3, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Give it a listen: Episode 77 - No Country For Gorilla Men feat. Matt Taibbi (1/29/17)



Thank you for this!  I've added to my regular subscriptions.  To add - yes I listened, thoughts to follow.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 3, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm pretty sure we could deploy to South America with no issues inthr language department.





Marauder06 said:


> The reason there were so many people with those kinds of language skills in the military is because there was a draft.  Those were also common/popular foreign languages.  There are hundreds of thousands of people who are fluent in important languages, and if we used a draft, we'd get plenty.  It would never be "enough," but it would be plenty.  Additionally, there are so many niche dialects and languages out there that unless we fling the doors wide open we'd never get enough of those languages.  Somali dialects... Urdu... the list goes on.



Good points, I agree with you both.


----------



## reed11b (Feb 3, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> The rules are simple: if you are a *Trump opposer*, then you must post something that you _like_ about the current administration.



Mattis
TTP
Vocal Support for Troops and LEOs (man that's been missing the past 8 years)
Looks like we have a good chance of deployments (war) so I can top off my post 9.11 GI Bill (That one is only half sarcasm)

Reed


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 3, 2017)

The Border Patrol morale has just soared with Trump as POTUS. I was reading an article about the Head of the Border Patrol and his comments about the last eight years of duty. The "Catch and Release" program was driving the Agency bonkers. I'll see if I can find the article for reference.

ETA: I got it wrong, it was an agent speaking, not the boss. At Border Patrol, Trump lifts morale that was at an all-time low.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 3, 2017)

That sanctuary city banner be flying really high in SF: SF temporarily suspends ties to FBI joint terrorism task force

They're only on edge? Liberals On the Edge of a Nervous Breakdown


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 3, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The Border Patrol morale has just soared with Trump as POTUS. I was reading an article about the Head of the Border Patrol and his comments about the last eight years of duty. The "Catch and Release" program was driving the Agency bonkers. I'll see if I can find the article for reference.
> 
> ETA: I got it wrong, it was an agent speaking, not the boss. At Border Patrol, Trump lifts morale that was at an all-time low.


Right.  The boss just resigned (or was forced out, depending on who you ask) Border Patrol chief departs agency - CNNPolitics.com
Funny enough, CNN's headline used the most neutral language out of all the news sources I looked at.
For example, WaPo says that he was "Removed"
Right-leaning Gateway Pundit has him "Resigning"


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 3, 2017)

Confirmation Hearings.....


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 3, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> ...wonderful pic.../QUOTE]
> I mean, that's about right- no one is there. No work getting done.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 3, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I mean, that's about right-no one is there.No work getting done



I believe baby's getting diaper change....maybe nap time....


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 3, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I believe baby's getting diaper change....maybe nap time....


Speaking of children...


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 3, 2017)

Yepp...kids....they are so weird.....:blkeye:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 4, 2017)

Weird, because I'm pretty sure after Pulse, the Donald was clear LGBTs wouldn't have to live in fear...but some folks in the White House and RNC weren't about that life.  Better be some kowtowing to the hotness of Ivanka!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/...-jared-kushner.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

ETA: CJCS remains on the NSC, so, again, much a do about nothing-https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1064325/no-change-to-chairmans-status-as-senior-military-adviser-officials-say


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 4, 2017)

:wall:

So done with this woman.  I don't care if she 'misspoke" or if she used "alternate facts'.  The #1 advisor to the President of the United States used the term "haters".

_In an interview airing Sunday on “Media Buzz,” President Trump’s counselor called some of her critics “haters” and said she corrected her error as soon as she learned about it. The misstatement has drawn substantial media attention, given Conway’s high profile._

Conway says she misspoke on Iraqi terrorists, calls some critics ‘haters’

Wake me when the impeachment hearings are over.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 4, 2017)

Really happy to see the nom for the SECARMY step down (I thought he was a good candidate, I am happy because he was transparent and didn't take the appointment for solid ethical reasons IMO) and really happy to see there are still federal judges that have the cojones to step up and utilize our checks and balances. 

I don't like Peaident Trumps immediate action drill of ad-hominem (the tweet calling the judge a 'so called judge' is the latest eyebrow raiser), but I'm hoping that calms down once he and his handlers settle in. I feel like he stokes/drives more of the fake divisive outrage when he does stuff like that. 

#RememberBowlingGreen

Been a fun week!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 4, 2017)

Why are you happy he stepped down?  I thought Viola would be a great SecArmy.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 4, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Really happy to see the nom for the SECARMY step down (I thought he was a good candidate, I am happy because he was transparent and didn't take the appointment for solid ethical reasons IMO)
> ...


I liked him too; I think it's a testament to the fact that he was probably the right choice that he stepped down when there was no way to dissassociate himself from his businesses and he had to turn down the nom.

Thought it was a class act.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 4, 2017)

Based on everything my girl tells me...she would know better as she's an assistant AG in her state.  Guys who issue injunctions and do arraignments aren't the best judges and getting a stay is a very easy process as they are meaningless, they do have an effect, but it's not to say something is illegal.

Your arraignment judge will never be the judge on your case and the judge to issue a stay is never the judge when it gets argued in court.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 5, 2017)

So, I am gonna go ahead and disagree with President Trump on this one.

Trump, challenged about Putin, says 'our country's so innocent?'


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2017)

He could say that crap before the inauguration...now...he needs to tighten up.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> He could say that crap before the inauguration...now...he needs to tighten up.


Yep, agreed.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 5, 2017)

I know we all feel like SNL hasn't been funny, but boy, it's getting there.

Thanks, Mr. Spicer!






ETA- I laughed like an idiot at radical "moose-lambs"


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Feb 5, 2017)

Not trying to derail the thread, but whoever can figure out how to cash in on this Trump outrage will make a fortune. I mean if I had a nickel for every anti-trump sign/button/shirt/whatever, I'd make a killing.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I know we all feel like SNL hasn't been funny, but boy, it's getting there.
> 
> Thanks, Mr. Spicer!
> 
> ...


The problem with SNL right now is that it is creating an echo chamber and will further shrink it's live audience.  Melissa McCarthy drop 100lbs?


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The problem with SNL right now is that it is creating an echo chamber and will further shrink it's live audience.


How so? 

They did it for 8 years with Bush and another 8 with Obama...


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 5, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Let's do a little intellectual exercise.  I think it'll warm up the creative thinking muscles a little bit.
> 
> The rules are simple: if you are a *Trump opposer*, then you must post something that you _like_ about the current administration.  If you are a *Trump supporter*, then you must post something that you _dislike_ about the current administration.  Try to refrain from backhanded compliments, qualifiers, or any weasel words.  I want posters to exert some contrarian thinking.
> 
> ...



I liked that the President called out the cost overruns on the new Air Force One and the Joint Strike Fighter.  I feel like there are a number of processes in government that never get challenged – the waste and bad planning in defense procurement being a great example.  Not sure if anything will come of it but I liked that those massive defense contractors and Pentagon lackeys had their sphincters tighten up, I wish it would happen more often.

Similarly – and not sure this is within the bounds of the game – even though I’m not a voter/supporter of the President I do have one ‘be an agent of change’ fantasy for the new administration.

The Distributed Common Ground System Army (DCGS-A) is the Army intelligence family of software and hardware/equipment.  It’s the amalgamation of about a dozen Army procurement efforts from the 1990s and early 2000s.  It’s a nightmare – and has been for my entire career.  It’s essentially a renaming of an earlier system (ASAS) that was so disastrous (it was a paperweight in almost every unit) during the invasion of Iraq and early Afghanistan the Army had to re-name it in order to avoid the axe.

Since then we’ve spent several Billion dollars on the system and it’s deeply entrenched in the procurement complex and the careers of senior MI folks.  Congressman Duncan Hunter and a software application called Palantir have made some noise in years past over how shitty DCGS-A is – probably in hopes of opening bidding for Palantir on the project.  But, it never went anywhere.

But, Congressman Hunter was a reasonably early supporter of President Trump.  Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire who’s been an outspoken proponent of President Trump from early on, owns a very large stake in Palantir.  LTG(R) Flynn, the new national security advisor, is one of the few MI leaders to be openly critical towards DCGS-A during his career.

I don’t know if that adds up to anything – and I’m sure Hunter, Flynn, and Thiel have bigger fish to fry with the administration.  But, it’s natural to imagine a new administration fixing a bunch of issues they didn’t mention on the campaign trail (a lot of people did it with the Obama administration) so who knows.

I have no idea what replaces DCGS-A, I’m sure all the costs and programs are incredibly complicated and there are tons of 2nd and 3rd order effects.  Still, I think in the aggregate if something is terrible anything is better.  I guess feel about DCGS-A the way a lot of people feel about the ACA.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> How so?
> 
> They did it for 8 years with Bush and another 8 with *Obama.*..


Uh...no, they did not.



Il Duce said:


> Similarly – and not sure this is within the bounds of the game – even though I’m not a voter/supporter of the President I do have one ‘be an agent of change’ fantasy for the new administration.
> 
> Since then we’ve spent several Billion dollars on the system and it’s deeply entrenched in the procurement complex and the careers of senior MI folks.  Congressman Duncan Hunter and a software application called Palantir have made some noise in years past over how shitty DCGS-A is – probably in hopes of opening bidding for *Palantir *on the project.  But, it never went anywhere.
> 
> ...



When the DCGS-A test got re-opened there were some data-collectors running around saying how awesome Palantir was...I just know DCGS-A takes a lot of love to work.

Both SAMS MI Planners I worked and everyone in the data collection shop I spoke with about the issue much later on said Palantir was even worse than DCGS-A based on their experience.   Take that for what it's worth...but acquisition wise, we spent way too much money on the pistol program.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Uh...no, they did not.


Dude. It's already been posted here. 

SNL, Key and Peele, numerous crappy non-famous people.

Yes, they did. They did it so much he _self deprecatingly referenced it, _laughing off the fact that he got his ass handed to him by the right for 4/5 of a decade.

You must remember the anti-Obama 8 years right? The "you're not actually and American", "you're a Muslim" 8 years?

I mean, we aren't saying things like, "Pres Trump isn't American" or anything. It's not like anyone is accusing Pres Trump of his "questionable religious affiliation" like they did Obama. We are saying. "Pres Trump and his administration are laughable". Which they are. That's why so much material is available. Cause it's funny, and don't get your feelings hurt. It's a joke. 

Wait, does that make me alt-right?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2017)

One Skit


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> One Skit


Lol. Well, if you feel like you're being unfairly targeted, or if this make you feel sad, that's ok. 

But it doesn't change reality. Pres Trump is going to be the butt of these jokes as long as his behavior warrants it. And if you/his supporters/he can't take the jokes, maybe Pres Trump is the Snowflake in Chief the right has needed all along.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2017)

The only thing I'm sad about is that there's only one side of satirical commentary, just like how the media is treating every fart as an emergency.  But as Mark Twain said: "If you don't read the papers you're uninformed, if you read the papers you're misinformed."


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The only thing I'm sad about is *that there's only one side of satirical commentary*, just like how the media is treating every fart as an emergency.  But as Mark Twain said: "If you don't read the papers you're uninformed, if you read the papers you're misinformed."


You're sad cause it's not your side. Get over it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2017)

What's there to get over?  The death of comedy and journalism?


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> What's there to get over?  The death of comedy and journalism?


Nah, the criticism of comedy and journalism when things don't go your way.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Nah, the criticism of comedy and journalism when things don't go your way.


Whatever man.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 5, 2017)

SNL isn't journalism. It is comedy. If you cannot see the hilarity of the shit Spicer says, and the way he says it, I don't know what to say. POTUS sets himself up to be satirized. He just says too much off the wall bullshit to not be. 

They made fun of Obama, and Pelosi, Harry Reid, and even Hillary, maybe you just weren't watching.

The way they made fun of Hillary was almost exactly in line with what people here were saying. She is out of touch. She would do or say anything to get votes.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> SNL isn't journalism. It is comedy. If you cannot see the hilarity of the shit Spicer says, and the way he says it, I don't know what to say. POTUS sets himself up to be satirized. He just says too much off the wall bullshit to not be.
> 
> They made fun of Obama, and Pelosi, Harry Reid, and even Hillary, maybe you just weren't watching.
> 
> The way they made fun of Hillary was almost exactly in line with what people here were saying. She is out of touch. She would do or say anything to get votes.


As I said: Whatever Man.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Whatever man.


u mad bro?

@Etype 
did I do that right?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> As I said: Whatever Man.



Dude,

Scroll to the bottom of this thread and watch the Amy Schumer video. 

United States & Gun Control discussion.

Then see my 'outraged' comments and the discussion that takes place in the next few pages.  Bottom line, in many cases we make the decision about what is funny based on whether we agree with the topic being made fun of.  Once I got that thru my skull, I've enjoyed life a tad more, and can appreciate that humor being poked at things I may not like humor being poked at....because I know there is probably just a little bit of truth in it.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Uh...no, they did not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not much but I am a USMC SAMS equivalent and I thought Palantir was great when I was in Afghanistan. Granted I was only  there in 2008-2009, and 2010-2011 so you may have more current and relevant experience. What was your operational combat experience using Palantir? I used it to find and apprehend a suicide bomber before he killed our provincial governor (and Teufel the battle space owner and company commander).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2017)

Teufel said:


> I'm not much but I am a USMC SAMS equivalent and I thought Palantir was great when I was in Afghanistan. Granted I was only  there in 2008-2009, and 2010-2011 so you may have more current and relevant experience. What was your operational combat experience using Palantir? I used it to find and apprehend a suicide bomber before he killed our provincial governor (and Teufel the battle space owner and company commander).


I have legit zero experience with Palantir to compare to the reports generated by our S-2 when we used DCGS-A.  As a reconnaissance platoon leader I provided raw intelligence reports to our S-2 shop that was then fed into DCG-S either direct from our O&I chat rooms via JBC-P and JCR or during debriefings following each mission when we operated out of FOBs.

To be clear, I was providing anecdotal evidence based on discussions I had with both of the MI Planners I worked with during my year in the DIV Plans section.  The overarching opinion was that both systems were not user friendly.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 6, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I know we all feel like SNL hasn't been funny, but boy, it's getting there.
> 
> Thanks, Mr. Spicer!
> 
> ...


That's awesome !


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 6, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> That's awesome !


I generally don't like her but that was a good 8 minutes.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 6, 2017)

It's not that I don't find the skits funny in a vacuum, because they are.  It's that comedians who are satirists especially Stewart when he was still on and his replacement who is a pure shill aren't treating both sides the same.  As has been said before: I get it, they have their own slant...but let's get a 60/40.

Now that the super bowl is not on...the shout out to Kirk Cousins in that skit is hilarious.

So AirBnB is coming out against Trump.  Which I find pretty hilarious because the cities that are trying to push AirBnB out happen to be democratically controlled.  So the hotel lobby's in those cities tend to be stronger it appears.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 6, 2017)

It looks like President Trump may not be allowed to address Parliament during his visit to the UK

Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit, Speaker says


> Donald Trump will not be welcome to address Parliament on his state visit to the UK because of his racist and sexist attitudes, the Speaker of the House of Commons has said in a major snub to the American President.
> 
> In a dramatic intervention, John Bercow, the Speaker, said he was “strongly opposed” to Mr Trump speaking in the Commons as he stressed that being invited to address Parliament was “not an automatic right” but “an earned honour”.



I'm conflicted.  You all know my views on the President, but the (apparent) refusal of the House of Commons to allow Trump to speak seems like a huge slap in the face.  I'll have to look and see if there's any precedent for this refusal, but if not then it may signal a serious degrading in relations between us and the UK.  Well, the President's relationship with Theresa May is unaffected, but other legislators may not be as warm to him as the PM.  

I forsee a big rally-style press conference coming instead of a Parliamentary address.  Hell, the President would probably prefer that anyway!


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 6, 2017)

The British are bonkers.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 6, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> It looks like President Trump may not be allowed to address Parliament during his visit to the UK
> 
> Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit, Speaker says
> 
> ...



Sitting US Presidents who addressed  England's Parliment in recent history, since 1939:

Reagan- 1982
Clinton- 1995
Obama- 2011

It is a bit presumptuous for Trump, or any sitting POTUS, to expect the privilege of speaking to Parliment so early in his term of office. He does not get to do so because he wants to. He may request such a speech, but he must await the invitation. Great Britain is not his to do with as he likes. Trump should bide both his time and his tongue. While it could happen, I rather doubt it will take place this soon in his administration. He has yet to establish a comfortable relationship with Great Britain.


----------



## Poccington (Feb 6, 2017)

It should also be noted that with the current fallout within British politics after the whole "Brexit" carry on, a whole lot of politicians who voted for Britain to remain in the EU, are gonna be super salty over Trumps relationsip with Nigel Farage.

Then add in the general outrage from people over his very existence, he was always gonna face this kind of reception. A heap of British politicians are gonna be falling over each to be seen as the "one who stood upto Trump" or some such nonsense.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 6, 2017)

Poccington said:


> It should also be noted that with the current fallout within British politics after the whole "Brexit" carry on, a whole lot of politicians who voted for Britain to remain in the EU, are gonna be super salty over Trumps relationsip with Nigel Farage.
> 
> Then add in the general outrage from people over his very existence, he was always gonna face this kind of reception. A heap of British politicians are gonna be falling over each to be seen as the "one who stood upto Trump" or some such nonsense.



Well said!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 6, 2017)

This is sort of a dumb article: Legal Scholars: Why Congress Should Impeach Donald Trump

He's not in control of the Trump Organization anymore...but would the Nobel Peace Prize be an emolument?


----------



## CQB (Feb 6, 2017)

Another irony is the 'Muslim Ban' being criticised by Google, Netflix & others is that it's costing them foreign workers in Silicon Valley. Surely that's the point.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> It's not that I don't find the skits funny in a vacuum, because they are.  It's that comedians who are satirists especially Stewart when he was still on and his replacement who is a pure shill aren't treating both sides the same.  As has been said before: I get it, they have their own slant...but let's get a 60/40.
> 
> Now that the super bowl is not on...the shout out to Kirk Cousins in that skit is hilarious.
> 
> So AirBnB is coming out against Trump.  Which I find pretty hilarious because the cities that are trying to push AirBnB out happen to be democratically controlled.  So the hotel lobby's in those cities tend to be stronger it appears.



Right well one thing you're way overlooking is that Bush II and Trump give/gave them *tons* of material through their behaviour and mannerisms that Obama just did not have to give. Regardless of what you might think of his Presidency, he was an eloquent speaker who rarely tripped up verbally (Bush) or had exaggerated behaviour (Trump) that could themselves be exaggerated for comedic effect.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 7, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> It looks like President Trump may not be allowed to address Parliament during his visit to the UK
> 
> Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit, Speaker says
> 
> ...



Maybe Bercow needs a reminder of that Junk Punch in 1781. _Get some, 'Merica! _


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 7, 2017)

Maybe you guys need a reminder of how the White House looks with fire damage ;)


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 7, 2017)

*<delete>

I was gonna post something that was relevant several posts ago.  I will post again if it bubbles to the surface.*


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 7, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Right well one thing you're way overlooking is that Bush II and Trump give/gave them *tons* of material through their behaviour and mannerisms that Obama just did not have to give. Regardless of what you might think of his Presidency, he was an eloquent speaker who rarely tripped up verbally (Bush) or had exaggerated behaviour (Trump) that could themselves be exaggerated for comedic effect.



He was eloquent until he had to shoot from the hip.  The "ummmm's" and "aaaaaaah's" made him unbearable for me to listen to, content be damned.  I got to the point where if I wanted to find out anything he said that wasn't on a teleprompter, I just found the transcript and read it for myself.  All the mmmmm's and aaaaaaah's did not make it to print.  Much easier on my inner grammar Nazi's blood pressure that way.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 7, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Right well one thing you're way overlooking is that Bush II and Trump give/gave them *tons* of material through their behaviour and mannerisms that Obama just did not have to give. Regardless of what you might think of his Presidency, he was an eloquent speaker who rarely tripped up verbally (Bush) or had exaggerated behaviour (Trump) that could themselves be exaggerated for comedic effect.


He was good on teleprompter and nothing else.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 7, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Maybe you guys need a reminder of how the White House looks with fire damage ;)



If the White House burns, the World burns and frankly it's already burning enough.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2017)

Not that I wanted DeVos in...we're reminded of why this happened:
Senator Harry Reid on Twitter

Anyone know how to embed tweets?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2017)

Because we've already talked Climate stuff in this thread...World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 7, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> He was eloquent until he had to shoot from the hip.  The "ummmm's" and "aaaaaaah's" made him unbearable for me to listen to, content be damned.  I got to the point where if I wanted to find out anything he said that wasn't on a teleprompter, I just found the transcript and read it for myself.  All the mmmmm's and aaaaaaah's did not make it to print.  Much easier on my inner grammar Nazi's blood pressure that way.



Which is all well and good but it doesn't detract from my point about giving SNL material through them exaggerating behaviour.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 7, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Which is all well and good but it doesn't detract from my point about giving SNL material through them exaggerating behaviour.




Trump is an easy target for parody.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Because we've already talked Climate stuff in this thread...World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online


NOAA researchers respond to Bates' accusations
Here's another view by a policy guy, not a scientist, which points out some of the factual errors in the Daily Mail's article.  It should be noted that this contributor works out of a climate research center out of LSE.

To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this issue.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2017)

@Salt USMC  I really enjoy their second paragraph attacking the Daily Mail, it really helps them a lot .  Belovedly, the Daily Fail is a newspaper, not a tabloid.  A Shitty paper, but not remotely along the lines of Der Spiegel.  It's interesting, could be the source from the Daily Mail is just a lover scorn, or their could be more to it.

Interesting stuff out of Austin: 'Sanctuary cities' bill advances in Texas, despite outcry

And this one is sort of weird: House Republicans Just Voted to Eliminate the Only Federal Agency That Makes Sure Voting Machines Can’t Be Hacked

The Nation seems to be the only good source on that, but they really loved their sensationalist headline.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 7, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> NOAA researchers respond to Bates' accusations
> Here's another view by a policy guy, not a scientist, which points out some of the factual errors in the Daily Mail's article.  It should be noted that this contributor works out of a climate research center out of LSE.
> 
> *To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this issue*.



Me neither. But since so many trillions of dollars are at stake it wouldn't surprise me if data is being manipulated by_ everybody, _both pro and con.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 7, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Trump is an easy target for parody.



That's what I'm saying. So was Bush and the internet wasn't then like it is now so I never got to see anything but I suspect that Clinton got the same treat for his womanising/manner of speech.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 7, 2017)

I fully support the Commander in Chief's desire to Make Afghanistan Great Again by putting everyone on three-year, accompanied tours.  #MAGA #IKIS



> “It will require only minimal upgrades to match comparable housing at traditional US Army posts, such as those at Fort Polk (Louisiana), or Camp Hovey (Korea)” he added.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 7, 2017)

Dedication....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2017)

Interesting ruling from the 9th Circuit which will rule on the Trump Administration EO: Appeals Court Rejects Immigrants’ Right to a Lawyer in Expedited Cases


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 8, 2017)

In the aftermath of the botched raid in Yemen, the country has withdrawn permission to conduct counterterror ground missions
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/...nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0


> WASHINGTON — Angry at the civilian casualties incurred last month in the first commando raid authorized by President Trump, Yemen has withdrawn permission for the United States to run Special Operations ground missions against suspected terrorist groups in the country, according to American officials.
> 
> Grisly photographs of children apparently killed in the crossfire of a 50-minute firefight during the raid caused outrage in Yemen. A member of the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, Chief Petty Officer William Owens, was also killed in the operation.
> 
> While the White House continues to insist that the attack was a “success” — a characterization it repeated on Tuesday — the suspension of commando operations is a setback for Mr. Trump, who has made it clear he plans to take a far more aggressive approach against Islamic militants.



Well, here's your first tangible foreign policy fuckup.  It only took two weeks.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 8, 2017)

Arguably hanging up on the Aussie PM would be the first.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 8, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Arguably hanging up on the Aussie PM would be the first.


Right, that was a poor move, but so far we haven't seen any real-world effects.  Yemen shutting down CT operations is something that you can point to and say "Look, here's where your decisions had significant implications."


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 8, 2017)

That's fair.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 8, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Which is all well and good but it doesn't detract from my point about giving SNL material through them exaggerating behaviour.



Had SNL been cast with anything other than a bunch of choad licking, toady fucking cowards, the opportunity for jokes just based on that would've been endless.  Had it been anyone other than Obama, the mockery would've flowed like lava from Kilauea, and rightfully so.  As such, the observation that there was not the first fucking joke to be written by the so-called big time, prime time players could easily lead to the assumption that these fuck heads were so scared of being called a racist that they forgot what their balls looked like on stage.  They were in the tank, and that's it.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 8, 2017)

SNL played softball with Obama. Their satires of him never really hit too hard and usually had Joe Biden or some other notable as the real target
of the skit, often one of BHO's opponents.



SpitfireV said:


> That's what I'm saying. So was Bush and the internet wasn't then like it is now so I never got to see anything but I suspect that Clinton got the same treat for his womanising/manner of speech.



This is also true. Darryl Hammond's portrayals of Clinton were hilarious. 

But as the nation has become more polarized into opposing camps, SNL has become more stridently liberal.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 8, 2017)

I don't watch SNL regularly, but I thought their "I'm only a bill" skit (parody of Pres. Obama) was hilarious.  "Oh no they didn't go there."


----------



## AWP (Feb 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Well, here's your first tangible foreign policy fuckup.  It only took two weeks.



How is this a foreign policy fuckup? Trump wasn't behind the trigger. He approved a raid and it went south. He doesn't control the actions on the objective.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> In the aftermath of the botched raid in Yemen, the country has withdrawn permission to conduct counterterror ground missions
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/...nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0
> 
> 
> Well, here's your first tangible foreign policy fuckup.  It only took two weeks.



I'm not sure I agree this is the President's fuckup.  I'm as skeptical as anyone that the Trump administration is prepared to make high-level national security decisions but in this case the administration made a policy change already being contemplated by the previous administration (escalating from drone strikes to cordon/search and lowering the administrative approval level for quicker decisions) - then a raid went bad on the ground.

I think it's very tricky to try and hold an administration accountable for tactical success/failure at such a low level.  I think it's more useful to hold them accountable for broad strategic decisions - then those decisions' consequences. 

In this specific case I think the broad decision is a good one - though certainly fraught with danger.  The problem - in my view - with drone strikes is despite their deterrent effect through killing and disrupting C2 networks they inevitably allowed the enemy to get stronger while we get weaker.  If only through attrition the enemy is able to learn the proper countermeasures to avoid being targeted - while we still suffer the diplomatic and public relations blowback of the operations (even when behind the scenes the host governments are enthusiastic supporters of the program).

By shifting to ground operations to capture/kill HVTs we do increase the risk of that blowback - as we're seeing in Yemen.  But, we now have the ability to gain valuable intelligence into the networks themselves, and increase the disruption and countermeasures organizations have to take when they are forced to consider what a detainee might be giving up during interrogation - something they did not have to consider when the person was in little pieces from a hellfire.

I think this is one of those situations where it's easy to hold the administration to a different standard than you would another.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this issue.



I hear you.  Sometimes I feel like the kid with divorcing parents, each side accusing the other of atrocities.  I am not sure who to believe.  But I saw these quotes from a Senate hearing transcript.  I mean, seriously, if there is this much dissention I would think it's not 100% nailed down as fact:

*“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. 

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” 

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. 

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. 

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico 

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. 

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. 

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. 

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # # *


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> In the aftermath of the botched raid in Yemen, the country has withdrawn permission to conduct counterterror ground missions
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/...nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0
> 
> 
> Well, here's your first tangible foreign policy fuckup.  It only took two weeks.


I didn't know we had permission...and it's not like it matters, as you know, ask forgiveness not permission.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I didn't know we had permission...and it's not like it matters, as you know, ask forgiveness not permission.



Right, because international borders and sovereignty are dated concepts.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 8, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> Right, because international borders and sovreignty are dated concepts.


I've got a bridge to sell you if you think every operation we've ever done has been with permission of the host nation.

Only knowing the location based on what is available via the google, the raid location appears to be in rebel held territory.  So when it comes to permission, not sure we were going to ask for it anyways.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I didn't know we had permission...and it's not like it matters, as you know, ask forgiveness not permission.



There are lots of grey in the world. Your absoluteness is not typical of that.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 8, 2017)

AWP said:


> How is this a foreign policy fuckup? Trump wasn't behind the trigger. He approved a raid and it went south. He doesn't control the actions on the objective.





Il Duce said:


> I'm not sure I agree this is the President's fuckup.  I'm as skeptical as anyone that the Trump administration is prepared to make high-level national security decisions but in this case the administration made a policy change already being contemplated by the previous administration (escalating from drone strikes to cordon/search and lowering the administrative approval level for quicker decisions) - then a raid went bad on the ground.


You're both right - in purely rational foreign policy, all blame would go to the planners and on-scene commander who messed up the intel, logistics, and actions on the objective.  That's definitely how it SHOULD work, but as the guy who signed off on the raid, blame is assigned to the guy who signed off on the mission.  The host country doesn't see LTCDR Sealguy who ordered the Osprey right on top of a strongly-defended position.  They see President Trump, the guy who okay-ed the raid that not only failed to get their target, but resulted in a bunch of dead civilians.  That's not how it _should_ work, but that's how it works.

There's also an unsubstantiated rumor from our good friend "Unnamed source" (he really gets around these days, doesn't he?) that says Trump was convinced to sign off on the raid because the planners told him that Obama wouldn't do it.  I think that there's probably some truth to this, but not in the way the article characterizes it.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 8, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I hear you.  Sometimes I feel like the kid with divorcing parents, each side accusing the other of atrocities.  I am not sure who to believe.  But I saw these quotes from a Senate hearing transcript.  I mean, seriously, if there is this much dissention I would think it's not 100% nailed down as fact:
> 
> *“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
> 
> ...



For me personally, this is the strongest anti-climate change post I've seen on the board.  Definitely affects my thinking on the issue.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> You're both right - in purely rational foreign policy, all blame would go to the planners and on-scene commander who messed up the intel, logistics, and actions on the objective.  That's definitely how it SHOULD work, but as the guy who signed off on the raid, blame is assigned to the guy who signed off on the mission.  The host country doesn't see LTCDR Sealguy who ordered the Osprey right on top of a strongly-defended position.  They see President Trump, the guy who okay-ed the raid that not only failed to get their target, but resulted in a bunch of dead civilians.  That's not how it _should_ work, but that's how it works.
> 
> There's also an unsubstantiated rumor from our good friend "Unnamed source" (he really gets around these days, doesn't he?) that says Trump was convinced to sign off on the raid because the planners told him that Obama wouldn't do it.  I think that there's probably some truth to this, but not in the way the article characterizes it.



I get that this is how blame gets assigned a lot of times - but I think it's a really bad way to do it.  This to me in a general sense is how organizations become risk-averse.  The idea becomes you need to have so many checks in place that nothing can possibly go wrong - or at least be reported to go wrong.  You end up stifling any ability to be creative - and/or you create the conditions that encourage leaders at every level to lie/put the best face on everything they do - which again impedes learning.  My opinion is this is one of the worst through-lines of our COIN efforts in IZ and AF - CDRs constantly talking about how well we're doing with constantly shifting metrics 'we're winning by spending more money - we're winning by spending less money; we're winning by all the TICs we're getting into - we're winning because TICs have gone down; SIGACTS are going up/down/sideways/etc. - we're doing an awesome job.'

I think holding the administration to a standard like that is not only unfair - it's counterproductive.  Hopefully one thing that unites people on any side of the spectrum is the desire for a successful foreign policy and terrorists that can't strike in the US.

As far as anonymous sources about how President Trump is manipulated into decisions by his advisors.  I think psychoanalysis is tough when done in person by a trained professional - doing it at a distance through sources with varying degrees of credibility is an impossible task.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 8, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I'm not sure I agree this is the President's ...




I agree.  I don't know anything more about this situation that what has been discussed online, but generally speaking the President green lights the mission when the unit requests a "go."  If that happened in this case, then it is likely not a Presidential failure, not an intel failure, but an operational failure.

-OR-

It's warfare, and sometimes things like this happen.  The American people have gotten so used to perfection from its military, especially SOF, that whenever the slightest bit of Clauswitzian "friction" gets involved they start losing their minds.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 8, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I hear you. ...



Very interesting.  Sourcing?


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 8, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Very interesting.  Sourcing?



2008 Senate hearing. 

U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 (Previously 650) International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 8, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> 2008 Senate hearing.
> 
> U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 (Previously 650) International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims



Anyone have the time to read the report for the context behind every one of those quotes?

I have seen many quotes like these that sound really bad, but they normally pertain almost wholly to the human impact of climate change, not that the world isn't warming at a rate we haven't seen before, which is difficult to find causation.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Anyone have the time to read the report for the context behind every one of those quotes?
> 
> I have seen many quotes like these that sound really bad, but they normally pertain almost wholly to the human impact of climate change, not that the world isn't warming at a rate we haven't seen before, which is difficult to find causation.



I don't have a dog in the whole pro/con argument, and what I think is or isn't happening is irrelevant (just as what color I think the sun is, is irrelevant).  But what I DO think is that the enormous consensus ain't as enormous as it has been, or as it has been thought to be.  The other thing I find interesting is that a lot of scientists who speak out against global warming are marginalized and made pariahs, their perspectives  belittled, irrespective of the science.


----------



## CQB (Feb 8, 2017)

Let the parody roll on. The Donalds' latest gaff regarding the non-reporting of terror attacks is interesting. Some is inaccurate but most have been reported, particularly the larger ones. It's a demonising of the press which is plain silly. How much publicity is an attack worth? The difference in reporting in France & in Germany is a contrast. French press get Gaullic and


Il Duce said:


> For me personally, this is the strongest anti-climate change post I've seen on the board.  Definitely affects my thinking on the issue.


I'm prepared to hear both sides of a complex argument, and remain open minded. Two issues stand out for me however: as a surfer since Adam was in short pants, I have noticed the sea temperature change since the '7o's, not by much but there has been a change. The fundamental issue for governments is for consumers to have affordable base load power, which currently ( here anyway) is still rocky and expensive.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I've got a bridge to sell you if you think every operation we've ever done has been with permission of the host nation.
> 
> Only knowing the location based on what is available via the google, the raid location appears to be in rebel held territory.  So when it comes to permission, not sure we were going to ask for it anyways.



Right - there's a time and place for that.  

When it's a government that's been aiding and abetting our enemies, and is giving shelter to public enemy number one, game fucking on.  When it's a government that's been rendering whatever assistance it can come up with to our SOF elements, it's time to back the fuck off and figure out just how far you want to piss them off.  And that's before considering what end state you want for a place like Yemen, who you might want to be seen as legitimate, and the effect that saying "fuck your borders" has on that goal.

And that's not counting logistical and operational concerns like basing and overflight.

If you're going to allow your statements to be completely devoid of anything resembling intelligent analysis, it's probably time to stop typing.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 8, 2017)

CQB said:


> Let the parody roll on. The Donalds' latest gaff regarding the non-reporting of terror attacks is interesting. Some is inaccurate but most have been reported, particularly the larger ones. It's a demonising of the press which is plain silly. How much publicity is an attack worth? The difference in reporting in France & in Germany is a contrast. French press get Gaullic and
> 
> I'm prepared to hear both sides of a complex argument, and remain open minded. Two issues stand out for me however: as a surfer since Adam was in short pants, I have noticed the sea temperature change since the '7o's, not by much but there has been a change. The fundamental issue for governments is for consumers to have affordable base load power, which currently ( here anyway) is still rocky and expensive.



Yeah, I'm a lot more sympathetic to arguments by experts saying they're not sure of the consensus, are skeptical of aspects of an argument, and are uncomfortable with any 'unassailable' scientific position.  I'm less sympathetic to arguments that use doubt or questioning to say - see, that proves nothing/this counter-hypothesis from experts/my counter-hypothesis using shit I downloaded from the internets is thus 100% correct.

The quotes though do highlight the danger of politicizing any question of analysis - scientific or other.  If questions about a conclusion are used to push an agenda - then it runs the risk of questions/dissent being suppressed - which I think is almost always bad, even if the consensus is correct.  On the other side if a conclusion is promulgated as unassailable in order to avoid a political agenda - that's a political agenda itself.

I tend to think politicians on the right - maybe not citizens or scientists - use doubt about climate change as a wedge to push pro-fossil fuel industry policies.  Not because of their deep respect for scientific process, dissent, and analysis.  Maybe others feel the same about pro-climate change politicians, citizens and scientists - that they don't care about the science, only about getting loans for Solyndra or whoever.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 8, 2017)

Ladies and Gentlemen, your next AG: Amid deep partisan rancor, Senate confirms Sessions for attorney general

If they couldn't stop the confirmation of DeVos, how were they going to stop this one?

ETA-
Marco is a great Senator:


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 8, 2017)

Always liked Morgan Freeman. 

Morgan Freeman Tells Hollywood “Shut The Hell Up About Trump”


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Right, that was a poor move, but so far we haven't seen any real-world effects.  Yemen shutting down CT operations is something that you can point to and say "Look, here's where your decisions had significant implications."


Mission was planned under Obama, so why blame Trump (other than you being a Liberal)


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 8, 2017)

I suppose there's that whole "leadership" thing and that the buck stops at the top.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 9, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> If they couldn't stop the confirmation of DeVos...


Her confirmation was really an embarrassment.  The only way it makes sense is if they plan to eliminate the Department of Education at the Federal level; a concept that is occasionally thrown out and one to which I'm not entirely opposed; the argument is this is primarily a States issue.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 9, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Her confirmation was really an embarrassment.  The only way it makes sense is if they plan to eliminate the Department of Education at the Federal level; a concept that is occasionally thrown out and one to which I'm not entirely opposed; the argument is this is primarily a States issue.



The Department of Education was created in 1979.  Now if education outcomes across the country had been rising since then, sure, there's a strong case to keep it.  But why do the states want to relinquish their rights (education is a states-level mandate) to the feds?  It's a cash cow for sure, but if it was a business entity it would be out of business.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 9, 2017)

Even Rahm Emanuel is over the pissing and moaning....

Rahm Emanuel tells Democrats: ‘It ain’t gonna happen in 2018’


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Her confirmation was really an embarrassment.  The only way it makes sense is if they plan to eliminate the Department of Education at the Federal level; a concept that is occasionally thrown out and one to which I'm not entirely opposed; the argument is this is primarily a States issue.


The problem I have with doing away with the Department of Education is the likelihood of differing standards and concepts being taught by different states. Each state would prioritize what was important based on their demographics, politics, religious beliefs, or whatever social craze is popular. Instead of teaching basic subjects we all need to know. Wait till one state prioritizes religion over science, or arts over math. Think college is a joke now? How many of us that are recent college grads or students, have come across fellow students that write as they speak? Or have abysmal communication and writing skills? I am willing to bet a lot.

Personally, living in part of the Bible belt, I do not want my child growing up being taught creationist theory as the only theory in the land (preferably not at all but that is for another thread). Or if we were living out on the west coast and being taught revisionist history. Putting education standards and criteria into the hands of states would likely hasten the fracturing of our country. A bit dramatic, but a very likely possibility. Given how the states have been shown in the past to be unable to handle some responsibilities. Just look at slavery, civil rights, commerce, firearms, marriage licenses and drivers licenses (their acceptance across the nation), marriage equality, and more. Otherwise, why have a union of states at all instead of fifty individual nations? The balance between states rights, and the rights of the union is a very delicate and careful process. I am for a Dept. of Ed, it just needs to be gutted and reformed into something useful and practical. Give the states a set of standards they all must meet, but let them figure out how best to get there.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 9, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Given how the states have been shown in the past to be unable to handle some responsibilities. Just look at slavery, civil rights, commerce, firearms, marriage licenses and drivers licenses (their acceptance across the nation), marriage equality, and more. Otherwise, why have a union of states at all instead of fifty individual nations?


But if that's the argument, why have states at all if the Federal government knows best?

As Devildoc pointed out earlier, Dept of Education wasn't formed until 1979.  How did we possibly progress prior to that?!   We certainly weren't faltering as a nation.

So, disbanding it is not something that will lead to a cataclysmic event for the nation.  Standardization is only good to a point; sometimes the bureaucracy stifles innovation.  We still need to be competitive at a global level, that helps serve as a free market check.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 9, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> The problem I have with doing away with the Department of Education is the likelihood of differing standards and concepts being taught by different states. Each state would prioritize what was important based on their demographics, politics, religious beliefs, or whatever social craze is popular. Instead of teaching basic subjects we all need to know. Wait till one state prioritizes religion over science, or arts over math. Think college is a joke now? How many of us that are recent college grads or students, have come across fellow students that write as they speak? Or have abysmal communication and writing skills? I am willing to bet a lot.
> 
> Personally, living in part of the Bible belt, I do not want my child growing up being taught creationist theory as the only theory in the land (preferably not at all but that is for another thread). Or if we were living out on the west coast and being taught revisionist history. Putting education standards and criteria into the hands of states would likely hasten the fracturing of our country. A bit dramatic, but a very likely possibility. Given how the states have been shown in the past to be unable to handle some responsibilities. Just look at slavery, civil rights, commerce, firearms, marriage licenses and drivers licenses (their acceptance across the nation), marriage equality, and more. Otherwise, why have a union of states at all instead of fifty individual nations? The balance between states rights, and the rights of the union is a very delicate and careful process. I am for a Dept. of Ed, it just needs to be gutted and reformed into something useful and practical. Give the states a set of standards they all must meet, but let them figure out how best to get there.



I respectfully disagree.  Set the standard:  grade 1 must have these component, grade 2, etc.  Then anything above and beyond can be up to the state in the form of...electives, whatever.

Whatever reason they invented the DOE in 1979, it really hasn't worked.  Kill it, distribute the tax money that would have supported it to the states DOEs.

The cabinets were established to set, enforce, and promulgate national policy.  To dictate to a state how to run a state-mandated program is crazy.  Or, do this:  get rid of all the states' DOEs, and just federalize it (no, please don't).  But the animal they created does not work. 

I think when one looks at any program that is supposed to be results-oriented, you have to ask: "are we getting the results we desire?"  Outcome-based education is nothing new, but in it's current form, does not work.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 9, 2017)

Do we need a Department of Education, or could a "gutted/rebuilt DoE be an agency in another Department (HHS foe example?).


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 9, 2017)

I am for an education department for many of the same reasons laid out by @ke4gde.

I think that education is a national defense priority, as such it should be regulated by the federal government.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 9, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Do we need a Department of Education, or could a "gutted/rebuilt DoE be an agency in another Department (HHS foe example?).



I think there is so much damn overlap and redundancy, which is such a freaking peeve of mine.  I try to view government operations like a business or a family (I know, I probably shouldn't).  I know when I eliminate redundancy in my job or in my family, I usually make things more efficient and I sometimes save money.

How many intel agencies do we have?  Law enforcement agencies?  How many cabinet-level departments with tentacles spread into other departments?  Yeah, it can be done.  But it is to no one's advantage, especially the government's.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> But if that's the argument, why have states at all if the Federal government knows best?
> 
> As Devildoc pointed out earlier, Dept of Education wasn't formed until 1979.  How did we possibly progress prior to that?!   We certainly weren't faltering as a nation.
> 
> So, disbanding it is not something that will lead to a cataclysmic event for the nation.  Standardization is only good to a point; sometimes the bureaucracy stifles innovation.  We still need to be competitive at a global level, that helps serve as a free market check.


I never said the Federal government knows best. However, I do know that states are at times incapable of doing whats best for everyone. I provided several general examples of where that has proven true in the past. I am all for avoiding the pitfalls of standardization, but understand that not having a standard for everyone to work towards creates differing levels of quality. You wouldn't run a manufacturing business with varying levels of quality. You would have all your products meet the same level of quality control. Being competitive involves basic levels of intelligence and competence. 



Devildoc said:


> I respectfully disagree.  Set the standard:  grade 1 must have these component, grade 2, etc.  Then anything above and beyond can be up to the state in the form of...electives, whatever.
> 
> Whatever reason they invented the DOE in 1979, it really hasn't worked.  Kill it, distribute the tax money that would have supported it to the states DOEs.
> 
> ...


That's kinda what I said isn't it? Set a standard and let the states figure out how to get there. The concept of a DOE makes logical sense. Just because it has been mismanaged for several decades doesn't mean it cannot be put to good use. 

The fact that the DOE was created on a specific date, and had not been used before is a weak one. We didn't mandate vaccinations for school children until the early 1900s. Since we didn't have them before then did we need them? Just look at the mess California got into with allowing for religious exemption for basic childhood vaccinations. I realize the original topics are different in that one saves lives and the other does not, but the intent is to show that states cannot always agree on what needs to be done. 

Think about it. Our nation, as a whole, needs to make sure we all can compete with each other, and the world. How can we be expected to compete when the west teaches revisionist history, the south teaches hell fire and damnation, the north teaches....well, no one really knows what they teach (other than being assholes :troll:). The states cannot have all the power and decision making authority. Nor can the Federal government have that sole power over the states to dictate everything. The Feds are there for when the states cannot agree.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think that education is a national defense priority, as such it should be regulated by the federal government.


Damn, that was a better reason than mine. Had not considered it a critical infrastructure item, but it makes sense.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 9, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think that education is a national defense priority, as such it should be regulated by the federal government.


By that logic, virtually everything could be argued as a national defense priority, right?  So, why have states powers at all?  Was our national defense at risk prior to 1979?  Were we uneducated prior to having federal intervention? 

Just curious to hear more about this argument because I hear it often.  It makes for a good superficial argument, I guess, but it doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny.  No U.S. Department of Education does not mean no education.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> By that logic, virtually everything could be argued as a national defense priority, right?  So, why have states powers at all?  Was our national defense at risk prior to 1979?  Were we uneducated prior to having federal intervention?
> 
> Just curious to hear more about this argument because I hear it often.  It makes for a good superficial argument, I guess, but it doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny.  No U.S. Department of Education does not mean no education.


How so? It absolutely stands up to scrutiny. National defense is not a static priority, it changes and must be seen within a long term context. How can you assure security without well educated people? Using your logic, how are power, water, and agriculture national defense priorities or critical infrastructure? They are because they help to keep civilized society functioning. 

We didn't have laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places prior to 1964. Does that mean that it wasn't needed? Obviously it was. Same holds true with the Dept of Ed. It is needed. It also needs to be completely retooled with less waste, fraud, and abuse  :-"


----------



## CDG (Feb 9, 2017)

Unprofessional behavior on both sides.  POTUS needs to realize he can't make those kinds of remarks, and the Senator acted like a child throwing a temper tantrum.

‘Come after me’: Pennsylvania pol goes off on ‘gibbon’ Trump in profanity-laced Facebook post


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 9, 2017)

I'm definitely not an expert in the department of education but I think it's responsibilities are not as significant as @DA SWO and @Devildoc are describing.  Would love to understand better if someone has more resources to post.  These were the best summary resources I saw on a quick search: Federal Role in Education What Does the U.S. Department of Education Do?

It looks to me like the department of education is primarily a national source to track education progress and standards and to allocate/manage federal resources.  Considering federal money is approximately 8% of the education budget it's a useful stick but by no means the last word on anybody's education.  I definitely think we would want a federal agency to manage federal resources - and I would think having federal tracking data to judge effectiveness, resource management, and achievement standards is far superior to having a mish-mash of state standards (or lack thereof).

Also, at least going by the education department website, they became a cabinet organization in 1979 but the responsibilities they execute are traced back to the 19th century.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 9, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> I never said the Federal government knows best. However, I do know that states are at times incapable of doing whats best for everyone. I provided several general examples of where that has proven true in the past. I am all for avoiding the pitfalls of standardization, but understand that not having a standard for everyone to work towards creates differing levels of quality. You wouldn't run a manufacturing business with varying levels of quality. You would have all your products meet the same level of quality control. Being competitive involves basic levels of intelligence and competence.
> 
> That's kinda what I said isn't it? Set a standard and let the states figure out how to get there. The concept of a DOE makes logical sense. Just because it has been mismanaged for several decades doesn't mean it cannot be put to good use.
> 
> ...



I see your points; I just disagree.  To me, the concept of a DOE in not logical.  It is redundant; and worse, if we say we measure by outcomes, the product has sucked.  As for my argument regarding when it was invented, I do not see it as weak.  Your analogy to immunizations isn't quite right because not all school require all immunizations, and if you look at the outcomes, rates of disease have gone down since immunizations started being mandated in public schools.  With regard to DOE, the outcomes have actually got worse, not better.  If the DOE would normalize quality control and educational outcomes, then all states would be roughly the same.

We'll have to declare a _modus vivendi_ on this one and agree where we can.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 9, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> By that logic, virtually everything could be argued as a national defense priority, right?  So, why have states powers at all?  Was our national defense at risk prior to 1979?  Were we uneducated prior to having federal intervention?
> 
> Just curious to hear more about this argument because I hear it often.  It makes for a good superficial argument, I guess, but it doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny.  No U.S. Department of Education does not mean no education.



If there is not a National standard that is enforced at a national level, and there are no federal funds reaching some of the lowest levels, we may have many people who are too undereducated to do the most basic of jobs. 

In my opinion, our country's defense rests on a few things. A strong educated base from which to pull men and women to fight, a highly educated research and development group that can out engineer our present and future enemies. 

Part of what makes American soldiers, and many western ones, good is that we can think on our feet. We can understand what we are taught in basic training. We aren't just given a rifle and told advance or die.


----------



## AWP (Feb 9, 2017)

I liken the DoEd to what many of us learned in some form of SOF role: Tell me the desired end state or goal, let me determine how to arrive at that point.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 9, 2017)

In regards to the Dept of Ed, the states DOEs and the Federal Dept Of Ed do not accredit schools.  Standards are truly set by the accrediting agencies.  So in California, Hawaii and our Island Territories in the Pacific all seek accreditation through WASC and WASC Senior.  Specialty schools are different the higher you go.

Point being is that the California Department of Education has a budget of 53.2 Billion...not sure how many employees but I'm sure it is significant.   The Budget for the Department of Education seems stupidly high when they should have maybe, and I mean maybe a quarter of their work force.  The damn thing has 4400 employees and a budget of over 120 billion, half of the funding is coming from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.   Set standards for the states and accrediting agencies and then be done.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I see your points; I just disagree.  To me, the concept of a DOE in not logical.  It is redundant; and worse, if we say we measure by outcomes, the product has sucked.  As for my argument regarding when it was invented, I do not see it as weak.  Your analogy to immunizations isn't quite right because not all school require all immunizations, and if you look at the outcomes, rates of disease have gone down since immunizations started being mandated in public schools.  With regard to DOE, the outcomes have actually got worse, not better.  If the DOE would normalize quality control and educational outcomes, then all states would be roughly the same.
> 
> We'll have to declare a _modus vivendi_ on this one and agree where we can.


Fair enough. I did acknowledge that the analogy wasn't perfect, but it does showcase how states cannot be left to their own devices on some issues. Even though not all schools require all immunizations, are there not a basic set of standard immunizations that are required? By the same token, not all schools are required to teach all subjects. Only the basic ones that are required (math, science, english, social studies, etc..). In any event, I completely agree with eliminating redundancy where it is not needed.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 9, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Set a standard and let the states figure out how to get there.


No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Common Core, etc. have all worked like a charm and were embraced, right?  How is Every Student Succeeds doing?



ke4gde said:


> The fact that the DOE was created on a specific date, and had not been used before is a weak one. We didn't mandate vaccinations for school children until the early 1900s. Since we didn't have them before then did we need them? Just look at the mess California got into with allowing for religious exemption for basic childhood vaccinations. I realize the original topics are different in that one saves lives and the other does not, but the intent is to show that states cannot always agree on what needs to be done.


It's not at all weak.  If the argument is that education needs to be improved (something I think we all agree on), the question becomes whether education improved, declined, or remained stagnant since the creation of this federal department.  There seems to be rather strong evidence that it has remained stagnant or declined.  Education has become diluted and throwing more money and policy is not a solution (this is  also in partial response to @TLDR20 's earlier post as well).  Consider this opinion piece:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...l-more-education-money-hasnt-improved-results



ke4gde said:


> Think about it. Our nation, as a whole, needs to make sure we all can compete with each other, and the world. How can we be expected to compete when the west teaches revisionist history, the south teaches hell fire and damnation, the north teaches....well, no one really knows what they teach (other than being assholes :troll:). The states cannot have all the power and decision making authority. Nor can the Federal government have that sole power over the states to dictate everything. The Feds are there for when the states cannot agree.


Think about that even a bit more...if particular schools/states are not producing a competitive product, what will happen?  People will make changes locally or they will go elsewhere.  That's how free markets work.  And what works for Alabama, may not work for California...and vice versa.  This is also where accreditation comes into play, which seems to be at  the core of at least part of your argument.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Common Core, etc. have all worked like a charm and were embraced, right?  How is Every Student Succeeds doing?
> 
> It's not at all weak.  If the argument is that education needs to be improved (something I think we all agree on), the question becomes whether education improved, declined, or remained stagnant since the creation of this federal department.  There seems to be rather strong evidence that it has remained stagnant or declined.  Education has become diluted and throwing more money and policy is not a solution.  Consider this opinion piece:
> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...l-more-education-money-hasnt-improved-results
> ...


Education is not a free market. Most families cannot go shopping for education where they like. If a school does not preform it gets left behind, in a sense. It is unrealistic for most families to uproot themselves, and their lives, to move somewhere else in order to get a better education. You can decline business services and still be fine, you cannot decline an education and still be fine. Accreditation only works at the college level. If you make it there, you still are likely to have to take the college's own courses that ensure your mastery of the basic subjects you should have learned in your first 12 years (and spend more money).

You're still not reading everything I said. I never said the answer was to throw more money, keep the DoE in its current form, or to dictate how the states should accomplish their goals. I have said in at least two posts that the standard should be set by the Feds with the states figuring out how to get there. That takes into account the argument as to what works in one state may not work in another. That does not mean that Alabama gets to teach the virtues of the Confederacy, Jesus, and the Earth was created in seven days; while California gets to teach the failings and failures of American democracy according to Hollywood. 

The programs you mentioned are examples of something not working. They are also examples of politics getting involved in places it does not belong. If a circuit breaker in your house isn't working, you don't burn the whole house and say "fuck it". You fix it and try to get the whole system working again.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 9, 2017)

Thought this was a very interesting article related to the school system, though in this case the federal program dealing with school lunches is the USDA: She Outsmarted Jamie Oliver — And Figured Out The Future Of School Lunch

The article is very pro-CEP and school lunch on principle but even if you take a different view of the philosophy behind welfare and school lunch I think it's a great detailed insight in how government can be effective - but is most often not.  In that sense I think it relates very well to concerns on both sides about the department of education - and maybe government in general.


----------



## AWP (Feb 9, 2017)

There's a reason my wife and I call the FCAT the "Florida Universal Comprehensive Test"...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 9, 2017)

Staying on Education...so I did some digging, the first cabinet level agency was in 1867, they were then scuttled and were a part of the Dept of Interior in 1868, then in 1939 became an office under the Federal Security Agency, 1953 FSA because Dept of Health, Ed, Welfare, and then in 1979 split the Dept HEW into Departments of Health and Human Services and Department of Education.  Needless to say we've had a federal education office of some kind since 1867.

It seems Trump and Richard Blumenthal are in a spat over Gorsuch.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 9, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Education is not a free market. Most families cannot go shopping for education where they like. If a school does not preform it gets left behind, in a sense. It is unrealistic for most families to uproot themselves, and their lives, to move somewhere else in order to get a better education. You can decline business services and still be fine, you cannot decline an education and still be fine.


But it is many respects and could be even more so.   A free market doesn't ensure you can afford everything (I have car options due to free market competition, that doesn't mean I can afford to buy a Porsche 918); it just allows competition to exist.  That's why private schools (to include Montessoris, etc.) and supplemental education business, such as Mathnasium, etc. continue to grow.  There may also be alternative public schools, such as charter schools, etc.  Perhaps not in your area, but in many places, vouchers and open enrollment are also allowed; it's a local decision.   To that point, you vote in your local school boards and have tremendous say in what happens locally.  If the community doesn't like the education their receiving, the have a strong ability to influence it locally.

No one here is suggesting no education; quite the contrary.  Unfortunately for many, when the discussion about eliminating the U.S. Dept of Education, the argument gets framed up that way (not suggesting that's your view).  To me, the argument is how to deliver the best education and the role, if any, the federal government plays in doing so. 



ke4gde said:


> The programs you mentioned are examples of something not working. They are also examples of politics getting involved in places it does not belong.


Sadly, politics cannot be separated from the equation, especially at the federal level.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> But it is many respects and could be even more so.   A free market doesn't ensure you can afford everything (I have car options due to free market competition, that doesn't mean I can afford to buy a Porsche 918); it just allows competition to exist.  That's why private schools (to include Montessoris, etc.) and supplemental education business, such as Mathnasium, etc. continue to grow.  There may also be alternative public schools, such as charter schools, etc.  Perhaps not in your area, but in many places, vouchers and open enrollment are also allowed; it's a local decision.   To that point, you vote in your local school boards and have tremendous say in what happens locally.  If the community doesn't like the education their receiving, the have a strong ability to influence it locally.
> 
> No one here is suggesting no education; quite the contrary.  Unfortunately for many, when the discussion about eliminating the U.S. Dept of Education, the argument gets framed up that way (not suggesting that's your view).  To me, the argument is how to deliver the best education and the role, if any, the federal government plays in doing so.
> 
> ...


It is a free market IF the parents choose to forego public schooling in favor of private or charter schooling. Typically, charter or public schools try to surpass education standards in order to improve profits. Which is ok. The entire point about public education however, is to provide a standard of education for everybody in society, regardless of socioeconomic status, that allows them to survive, compete, and thrive if they avail themselves. In that respect, public education is not a free market. Again, a free market is for incidental luxury items or services that are not needed to survive. To survive in this society you need an education. Which is a basic service provided by all of our tax dollars.

ETA: Using your ballot to change the local school board is all well and good, but it does nothing to solve an immediate problem. It could take years, or decades to effect a significant change in a local population's school board. Which is useless to me as a parent when my child is in school right now. Being taught things that he needs to know in order to succeed later. As many of us with children know, raising a child is an early and ongoing process. It does me no good for changes made a decade form now when my child is supposed to be learning now.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 9, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> It is a free market IF the parents choose to forego public schooling in favor of private or charter schooling. Typically, charter or public schools try to surpass education standards in order to improve profits. Which is ok. The entire point about public education however, is to provide a standard of education for everybody in society, regardless of socioeconomic status, that allows them to survive, compete, and thrive if they avail themselves. In that respect, public education is not a free market. Again, a free market is for incidental luxury items or services that are not needed to survive. To survive in this society you need an education. Which is a basic service provided by all of our tax dollars.
> 
> ETA: Using your ballot to change the local school board is all well and good, but it does nothing to solve an immediate problem. It could take years, or decades to effect a significant change in a local population's school board. Which is useless to me as a parent when my child is in school right now. Being taught things that he needs to know in order to succeed later. As many of us with children know, raising a child is an early and ongoing process. It does me no good for changes made a decade form now when my child is supposed to be learning now.


Curious, does your school system allow open enrollment in public schools?  ie. if you prefer another district for whatever reason, open enroll in that district (space restrictions may exist for receiving school); it's still comparison shopping.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Curious, does your school system allow open enrollment in public schools?  If you prefer another district for whatever reason, open enroll in that district (space restrictions may exist for receiving school) and it's still comparison shopping.


No, it does not. However, there are magnet programs that each school specializes in (law, aerospace, military, biology, medical, etc...), and you can request to go to one of those magnet schools depending on the racial makeup of the school/zone.  You can also request a special assignment for various reasons (special programs, hardships, family employee benefit). The special assignment has to be approved by the administration of the school you are assigned. On the whole though, you are confined to the school district you reside in and the schools assigned to that district. Your only other choice is to attend a private or charter school that has a tuition. Which is not an option, even with vouchers, for many families. While many of those private/charter schools offer scholarships, there are not enough to allow everyone a free choice.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 9, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> No, it does not. However, there are magnet programs that each school specializes in (law, aerospace, military, biology, medical, etc...), and you can request to go to one of those magnet schools depending on the racial makeup of the school/zone.  You can also request a special assignment for various reasons (special programs, hardships, family employee benefit). The special assignment has to be approved by the administration of the school you are assigned. On the whole though, you are confined to the school district you reside in and the schools assigned to that district. Your only other choice is to attend a private or charter school that has a tuition. Which is not an option, even with vouchers, for many families. While many of those private/charter schools offer scholarships, there are not enough to allow everyone a free choice.


Interesting. 

BTW, I apologize for derailing this thread a bit.  Back on topic...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 9, 2017)

O/T Kevin Plank, Under Armour CEO, states that a pro-business president is good for business...sponsored athletes go apeshit.

ETA: Alright, seriously, can someone take the phone away, with the way he uses $TWTR it should have posted double digit growth.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 9, 2017)

Oh, Kellyanne, you so crazy! With your unethical behavior and overall batshit craziness. 

Democrats call for Conway investigation after Ivanka Trump plug  - CNNPolitics.com

I love that Spicer said she was "counseled". I feel like people outside the military are missing the awesome joke that contains.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 9, 2017)

See you in court, amlove21!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 9, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Oh, Kellyanne, you so crazy! With your unethical behavior and overall batshit craziness.
> 
> Democrats call for Conway investigation after Ivanka Trump plug  - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> I love that Spicer said she was "counseled". I feel like people outside the military are missing the awesome joke that contains.



Hey, write your own 4856...


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 9, 2017)

I don't think I saw this posted.

White House fires back at immigration order critics with list of terror arrests


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 10, 2017)

Interesting Opinion on the 9th Circuit's Opinion: How to Read (and How Not to Read) Today’s 9th Circuit Opinion

The 9th Circuit didn't even cite the US Code which gave the POTUS this power, which is rather stupid.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 10, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Interesting Opinion on the 9th Circuit's Opinion: How to Read (and How Not to Read) Today’s 9th Circuit Opinion
> 
> The 9th Circuit didn't even cite the US Code which gave the POTUS this power, which is rather stupid.



That's what happens when you have a personal agenda! Facts get in the way.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 10, 2017)




----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 10, 2017)

Fake news, real news, whatever....this made me laugh out loud....

Russia considers giving Edward Snowden as 'gift' to Trump


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 10, 2017)

Because Memes...


----------



## CDG (Feb 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Because Memes...



How is that a meme?  All I saw was some hot immigrant chick.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 11, 2017)

1- I bet @April is spending the same on her cell phone and Internet a month then she gets for Food Stamps.  Average Cell is $73 a month, average internet is $47 a month, that equals $120.  The number I saw for average Food Stamp is $126 a month.  She should head on down to Trump Towers for a job as their Tweeter campaign manager.....  #tweetoreat

2- The Cost of President Trump and Family was $37 MIL for 74 day, from Election until Inauguration.  That's $500 K a day, which at the figure is on $15 MIL a month, sorry @MarkMOB only 7000 homeless families get a one bedroom apartment.  This figure is actually way less, more like $400K a day....aka $12 MIL!!!! :-"   #math

3- First Lady and son plan to head back to DC after school year.  So these numbers are way off, but since we are having fun, let us see how useless a BIOMED research LAB really is: 4 years x $30MIL a month x 12 months which =  $1.44 BIL / 2000 yrs = $720K a year.  Based on this number, @BW you may get your BIO LAB but it won't be for another 1000 years...sorry bro!!!!  :wall: #waityerturn


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 11, 2017)

Tweeter Campaign Mgr is prolly well worth haveing for The Donald. The question will be, how long can that person maintain his/her sanity?


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 11, 2017)

So VP Pence unveiled his amnesty plan when he was at West Point last Friday.

Too bad he doesn't have that kind of Constitutional authority.

Sad.



> To raucous (and distressingly militant) applause in the West Point cafeteria, Pence announced that he would personally grant amnesty for all minor offenses committed by the most conservative body of college students in the nation.
> 
> Looks like the 200-year-old military academy, long known for its history of violent political protests, just got a free pass for a little bit of the ultra-violence.



;)  IKIS


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 11, 2017)

*IMPEACH NOW*


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 11, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> *IMPEACH NOW*


And what has he done outside the powers of the Constitution and US Code to merit such a call?

As I told my step-dad, step away from the facebooky and the computer.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 11, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> *IMPEACH NOW*



Are you calling for the impeachment of @Marauder06 ?


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> And what has he done outside the powers of the Constitution and US Code to merit such a call?
> 
> As I told my step-dad, step away from the facebooky and the computer.


 
Hey brother, the article was a joke and Salty knows it was a joke.  He's just playing along.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 11, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Are you calling for the impeachment of @Marauder06 ?



Wait, what just happened?


----------



## AWP (Feb 11, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Are you calling for the impeachment of @Marauder06 ?



I will.

-Lacks humor and wit
-Will never make it in SOF
-Is a woman

Back to the thread!!!!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 11, 2017)

<searching for political meme to get thread back on track and to divert attention away from calls for my impeachment... aha! >


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 11, 2017)

Back to important topics....BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dominican paper apologizes for using Baldwin photo for Trump


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 11, 2017)

He was like a 15 year old girl meeting Beiber on twitter today over Abe.


----------



## CDG (Feb 12, 2017)

Interesting video that went viral from a retired USMC SSG working as a contractor in Iraq.  He talks about a discussion he had with some Iraqis about the travel ban.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 12, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> ...snip...


I like the fact check, but you've missed the forest for the trees. Also, your math in#3 isn't right. Melania (14m) plus guarding Trump Tower (30m) plus however much travel, and extra residence, extra security for those members cost (I didn't look it up cause I don't care) = >$1-$1.5m per month. 

While you did highlight a disparity in the numbers; you neglected to admit that we are still only talking about a single family/person's expenditure vs. entire swaths of humans in need. You basically said, "LULZ, no, only 7000 families could be housed not 15k." and "April is probably using her foodstamps for her cell and internet". That may or may not be true, who knows. 

I typically dislike silly number comparisons like this cause it gets to slippery slope territory immediately. 

"Well, if we stopped funding defense/NASA/Planned Parenthood/whatever, we could solve world hunger!!!" Yeah, ok I guess.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 12, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I like the fact check, but you've missed the forest for the trees. Also, your math in#3 isn't right. Melania (14m) plus guarding Trump Tower (30m) plus however much travel, and extra residence, extra security for those members cost (I didn't look it up cause I don't care) = >$1-$1.5m per month.
> 
> While you did highlight a disparity in the numbers; you neglected to admit that we are still only talking about a single family/person's expenditure vs. entire swaths of humans in need. You basically said, "LULZ, no, only 7000 families could be housed not 15k." and "April is probably using her foodstamps for her cell and internet". That may or may not be true, who knows.
> 
> ...



I missed the trees or the forest?  

FACT CHECK: Does Melania Trump's NYC Security Cost Twice the NEA's Budget?

I just crunched the numbers and showed how it didn't add up....

I have nothing against any of the 3 Tweeters....they were just all wrong and used ZERO facts!
Look at Aprils face in that photo, she's not hurting for food.  Is there even 16000 open Section 8 homes in NYC to move these homeless families into?  Why would someone want a Bio Medical Facility for 2000 yrs...Earth will melt in 10 years right.....?!?!??!  :-"


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 12, 2017)

Snopes is bullshit:-"


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 12, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Snopes is bullshit:-"



I find it pretty useful.  I don't think it's bullshit but it does seem a bit biased to a lot of people  And clothed in secrecy.



> In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it's secret.”


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 12, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I find it pretty useful.  I don't think it's bullshit but it does seem a bit biased to a lot of people  And clothed in secrecy.



It has been called bullshit on this site numerous times when it has been used to fact check right wing "things"


----------



## Grunt (Feb 12, 2017)

I use Snopes occasionally for "non-political" things because they have been found to be a little biased in many of their "facts." When I do use them, I usually have to independently "fact check" them through other sources. I use them as a quick go to in order to find additional information to research myself.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 12, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> It has been called bullshit on this site numerous times when it has been used to fact check right wing "things"


It's entirely possible that in those few instances it was bullshit.  No one gets it right every time, especially when politics and agendas come into play.

As I said, I happen to find Snopes pretty useful.  But I don't consider it a final arbiter and I don't single-source my fact-checking.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 12, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> It's entirely possible that in those few instances it was bullshit.  No one gets it right every time, especially when politics and agendas come into play.
> 
> As I said, I happen to find Snopes pretty useful.  But I don't consider it a final arbiter and I don't single-source my fact-checking.



You are certainly right. No one should single source fact check anything. But often it is my first place to go when something feels fake. Plus I follow them on Facebook so I see what viral stuff is bullshit ahead of time. 

Denying that Snopes is right a gigantic percentage of the time is also epically wrong. 

I think it is very typical, and awfully hypocritical by some on both sides to pick and choose when a source is good or not. Snopes is the best example to me. If we are talking about a car break in phenomenon in Arkansas snopes is fine. If we are talking about debunking a child sex ring in a pizza shop, that shit is biased and part of a progressive movement to destroy America funded by George Soros.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 13, 2017)

The President and the IC are in the process of a messy breakup
The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 13, 2017)

I never thought they were an "item".  And the author of that article seems like a reliable and stand up dude...:-"

The Crazy Emails That Took Down NSA Spook John Schindler


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 13, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> The President and the IC are in the process of a messy breakup
> The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins


reads like an unsubstatiated hit piece.  "The IC" is a huge organization, and to toss something out there like the author did, that "the IC" is against the President, with (from a quick skim) no sources and no meaningful examples, is pretty irresponsible of the author.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 13, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I missed the trees or the forest?
> 
> FACT CHECK: Does Melania Trump's NYC Security Cost Twice the NEA's Budget?
> 
> ...


Snopes isn't considerd reliabel.
A good comparison would compare security for Ms Trump to security for the Clinton's or Obama's.
But that might make Liberals cringe.


----------



## Dienekes (Feb 13, 2017)

I'm not exactly sure how intel works, but wouldn't knowingly and willfully withholding intel from the sitting US President be tantamount to treason? I'm not saying that I believe they are because the article is fairly sketchy, but I would assume anyone withholding intel would spend their life in an 8x8 with no windows until rats are eating their corpse if found out.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 13, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> The President and the IC are in the process of a messy breakup
> The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins



I read this over the weekend and thought it a good example where a journalist's technical knowledge of a subject was just not up to reporting on it.  The sources for the article were clearly - in my view - using the press to jockey for position and influence inside the administration for the DNI and the PDBs.  However, they weren't well-served by the journalist who wrote up the story - one, for their obvious lack of knowledge of how the IC works and two, by opting to go for clickbait headlines and sensationalist tropes like the IC was 'withholding' critical intelligence. 

'Intelligence' when you're talking about being at the level where it can be included in any dissemination chain - the President being the most significant - means serialized reporting and/or published reports.  That means the intelligence is 'finished' in the sense it has gone through a QA/QC review process and has been 'released' by competent authorities inside the IC.  For something like the PDB 'raw' or 'unfinished' intelligence (information that has been collected and analyzed - but not yet published in serialized reporting) is frequently rushed to publication - a process the CIA especially is very good at but the NSA does as well (for the NSA the line in terms of actual work put in between finished and unfinished intelligence is not that significant).

Sometimes, in previous administrations, if the President was particularly interested in a topic key raw intelligence might be included (usually in the briefers notes, not in the published PDB since that can be shared) and intelligence on those topics of interest would be pushed for publication and inclusion in the PDB.

So, the only 'withholding' that could be going on is because the President seems less interested those preparing the PDB are not pushing to include stuff he's interested in - because they don't know what that is (if anything).

This looks to me like someone - or group of people - in the PDB process really want it to be important to the President and the NSC so they're saying through this journalist 'you're missing out on good stuff by not paying attention to us or doing it like other President's.'  However, one that's not really their role and they need to STFU and two, they've chosen a very poor messenger who made it sound like - likely in an effort to get more clicks - the IC is resisting the President.  It's a recipe for reduced trust and more purges if ever their was one - which is not going to help anybody.

Related topic, though not as specific on intel, I thought this piece on the NSC showed what kind of reporting you can get when the journalist clearly understands the nuances of the NSC.  Not at polemical but still very interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/...0170213&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=41336949&_r=0


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 13, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Snopes isn't considerd reliabel.
> A good comparison would compare security for Ms Trump to security for the Clinton's or Obama's.
> But that might make Liberals cringe.



That wouldn't be a good comparison as they both co-located in the White House when their spouses were president. They didn't live in separate cities full time by choice.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> That wouldn't be a good comparison as they both co-located in the White House when their spouses were president. They didn't live in separate cities full time by choice.


i wonder what the upgrades to Trump Tower cost, and if past presidents required their personal dwellings to be upgraded. I'd assume there would have to be.

I also wonder where that money came from. I imagine the would be a budget for that sort of thing?


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 13, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> i wonder what the upgrades to Trump Tower cost, and if past presidents required their personal dwellings to be upgraded. I'd assume there would have to be.
> 
> I also wonder where that money came from. I imagine the would be a budget for that sort of thing?



Like the upgrades to the Obama house in Chicago that they barely used?


Obama Neighbors Welcome 4 More Years of Increased Security


----------



## RustyShackleford (Feb 13, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> i wonder what the upgrades to Trump Tower cost, and if past presidents required their personal dwellings to be upgraded. I'd assume there would have to be.
> 
> I also wonder where that money came from. I imagine the would be a budget for that sort of thing?



When I worked in northwest Indiana, our USSS guys were out of Chicago.  There was a TDY rotation for the detail on the house in Chicago, which obviously expanded when he was at the house.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 13, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Like the upgrades to the Obama house in Chicago that they barely used?
> 
> 
> Obama Neighbors Welcome 4 More Years of Increased Security





RustyShackleford said:


> When I worked in northwest Indiana, our USSS guys were out of Chicago.  There was a TDY rotation for the detail on the house in Chicago, which obviously expanded when he was at the house.



Yeah, exactly like that. I assume it would happen somewhat frequently, which it apparently does, so you'd figure neither side could get their panties in a bunch about it.

:wall:

And I don't know what it is- my phone or the interface- but I can always tell when I post from my phone. The amount of spelling mistakes/typos goes way up.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 13, 2017)

Personally, I find politics to be a dirty business. Regardless of whether they sport an R, D, I, or anything else at the end of their name -- they lie, cheat, steal, etc. It's become the nature of their business.

Unfortunately, they all do it. Some worse than others in certain areas, but they all make up for it in their area of "expertise."

Now, I want to start seeing some work on balancing my budget....


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 13, 2017)

Agoge said:


> Personally, I find politics to be a dirty business. Regardless of whether they sport an R, D, I, or anything else at the end of their name -- they lie, cheat, still, etc. It's become the nature of their business.
> 
> Unfortunately, they all do it. Some worse than others in certain areas, but they all make up for it in their area of "expertise."
> 
> Now, I want to start seeing some work on balancing my budget....



You hit on a couple important points. First, the American public, especially the wealthy, have given their power to the political, elected class. People are happy with the same ole same ole, or the guy who they "like" vs. the guy who can get things done. Perhaps a way to get some of that power back is through term limits. 
Second, while the office of the President has immense power, the greatest influence comes through local and state government. This is how cities like Pittsburgh PA, Cleveland OH, and Greenville SC become re-vitalized, while other cities like Detroit remain destitute. The President doesn't have anything to do with Flint MI or Detroit, or fleeing residents from the NE. It is the state and local governments, and their policies, which set conditions for positive or negative growth. I moved from NC to SC and I see the negative influences of GOV McCory (removed film tax credit, solar credit, HB2, better roads) vs GOV Haley (Kept film and solar credits, worse roads b/c SC folks don't like a quarter penny tax:wall:). Pay more attention to state and local government, less attention to the Federal government.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 13, 2017)

I know what it means when someone says something is "fluid". It means, "Don't make me answer this question because I have absolutely no win here and I want to be as vague as possible so I can't be wrong later."

Flynn situation is 'fluid,' source says - CNNPolitics.com

I guess Spicer is learning, that's a plus.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 13, 2017)

So...snopes is out....cool!  I'll just stick to cartoons....


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> That wouldn't be a good comparison as they both co-located in the White House when their spouses were president. They didn't live in separate cities full time by choice.


Use todays costs as they have multiple houses and we pay for it (Obama, and Clinton expenses would be nice to see)


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 13, 2017)

Mike Flynn has resigned
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/...reakingNews&contentID=64910673&pgtype=article


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 14, 2017)

Ah. 

Hm. 

Yeah.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 14, 2017)

Yeah, so nobody saw that happening.


----------



## AWP (Feb 14, 2017)

@Marauder06, do you even clip art, bro?


----------



## Centermass (Feb 14, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Mike Flynn has resigned



Kellogg takes the reigns. I was on his staff years ago. Damn good man.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 14, 2017)

AWP said:


> @Marauder06, do you even clip art, bro?



Calling *me* out?  Here?  With my own technique?  Bold strategy Cotton, we'll see if it pays off for you.


----------



## AWP (Feb 14, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Calling *me* out?  Here?  With my own technique?  Bold strategy Cotton, we'll see if it pays off for you.



It just got real. Site-wide, world-wide, if you wanna be tha' man you gotta' beat tha' man!


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 14, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Yeah, so nobody saw that happening.



I was surprised - which maybe says more about me than the facts since there had been strong indicators for days, the lack of defense from the white house and President Trump himself being chief amongst them.

But, with the amount of scandals and bad press surrounding the administration's first weeks I thought it odd to take such a hard line with LTG(R) Flynn - a guy who had been one of the earliest and staunchest proponents of President Trump's candidacy.  LTG(R) Flynn lent then candidate-Trump a significant amount of credibility as a serious candidate and national security figure.  Further, the administration has embraced controversy from day one with spirited defenses and counter-attacks even on issues where their claims were demonstrably false - voter fraud, media criticism, crowd size, Russian hacking, Muslim ban, etc.  It just seems odd to me they would take such a strong line on something that could be placed in the same category - 'he lied about something, but it wasn't a big lie and the administration has told dozens of them in the last three weeks, just see the President's twitter feed - move on, he's in.'  But, instead they treated it as very serious and let him go (or asked for his resignation) without a fight.

The mistrustful anti-administration stance would be to say 'look, these guys have no loyalty and looks like we're seeing who is the strongest as the in-fighting intensifies (indications are LTG(R) Flynn ran afoul of having been dishonest with the VP, who does not seem to have been in a forgiving mood).'

But, a more charitable view might be to say 'maybe the narrative about the administration being packed with Russian stooges is off - they seem to have taken LTG(R) Flynn's pro-Russian actions very seriously.'

The truth could of course be a combination of related - or totally unrelated things - but given some of the issues with other cabinet nominees this seemed like an aberration from the norm in the administration.  Still, I guess the administration is new enough we don't know exactly what the 'norm' is yet.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 14, 2017)

Memes you say.....


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 14, 2017)

@SpongeBob*24


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 14, 2017)

@amlove21


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 14, 2017)

Anyone else watch Last Week Tonight this week?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 14, 2017)

So this may be one of the most frightening things I have read -

Donald Trump's power to enforce travel ban 'cannot be questioned' insists Stephen Miller, in talk-show debut that delighted his boss

_“Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that *the powers of the president *to protect our country are very substantial and* will not be questioned,” *said Stephen Miller, Mr Trump’s senior policy director.

 _


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 14, 2017)

I thought this was an interesting and more in-depth look at theoretical in-fighting in the Trump administration over LTG(R) Flynn's resignation and the very real speculation and faction-fighting outside the administration.

The Nationalist Right Is Coming for Priebus

The problem of course with reporting like this is it's relying on 'inside' sources with their own agendas and 'outside' sources who are interpreting and acting according to both an agenda and a pre-conceived idea of how everything fits together - which may or may not align to reality.  In that way it's very similar to diplomatic relations - everybody is acting on signals, assumptions, and goals - but they don't necessarily interpret all of it the same way.

Still, I think given President Trump's penchant for taking on talking points from media that supports him - like Brietbart - I think it's a reasonable assumption to say the battle lines over the increasing evidence/leaks of Russian interference are shaping up.  The administration, and supportive media, may be inclined to take the position they are under attack from the IC - and the continuous leaks will only bolster that feeling/narrative on the part of the administration.

I guess if you've had any experience in MI you should get your application for SES in the IC ready to go - that type of fight means a lot of senior civilian vacancies in the upper echelons of the IC.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 14, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I thought this was an interesting and more in-depth look at theoretical in-fighting in the Trump administration over LTG(R) Flynn's resignation and the very real speculation and faction-fighting outside the administration.
> 
> The Nationalist Right Is Coming for Priebus
> 
> ...


Seems to me that house cleaning should include a few mid ranking intel folk too.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 14, 2017)

I think counterintuitively the administration would run into more problems there - unless their leak-identifying efforts prove more fruitful.  As much as Brietbart is peddling these supposed 'sleeper cells' the reality is that the federal workforce has almost union-like protections when it comes to firing.  I think the administration would need significant support from congress to get laws changed to do the kind of layoffs necessary to get a massive exodus.

Senior leadership on the other hand is much more vulnerable to be fired or undermined enough to resign through executive action - especially in the DNI and CIA.

It could be the exodus you describe could arise on a voluntary, or semi-voluntary basis as people in the IC become disillusioned or just don't want to work in the administration in any capacity - as I believe there are some rumblings about at the DOS.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 14, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> @amlove21


Bahahahhahahahah! 

That's a good one


----------



## benroliver (Feb 15, 2017)

It is moments like these where I miss Dylan Ratigan the main stream news channels. Lol he pissed off MSNBC so much. I wish he still had his show, I am positive he could provide the proper outrage. This epic rant sealed his fate


----------



## CDG (Feb 15, 2017)

The real story behind Mike Flynn's resignation.

Flynn resigns after Mattis and Kelly repeatedly steal his lunch money

_Kelly was accused of pushing the national security adviser to tears during a national security briefing after detailing a racy encounter he allegedly had with a Russian mail-order bride that turned out to be Flynn’s mother.

“Those guys are just dicks,” said Flynn. “I quit.”


_


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 16, 2017)

Soooooo, President Trump's Whitehouse runs like a "machine".

Except for the international faux pas. And the whole "Nominees keep resigning" thing. And the blatant ethical violations. And the fact that his aides had contact (how much is fake news, depending) with Russia during the election.

It's like he is on his own planet.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 16, 2017)

I thought "I can't believe I'm saying I'm a politician but I guess that's what I am now" should make it into some quote books.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> "Nominees keep resigning" thing. And the blatant ethical violations. And the fact that his aides had contact (how much is fake news, depending) with Russia during the election.
> 
> It's like he is on his own planet.


 Here we go again:-"  How soon we forget our history.... 

Charles W. Freeman Jr - antisemetic stance
Bill Richardson - Federal corruption probe

Tom Daschle - Tax evasion, ethics
For the Dashcle nominee, the previous administration was quoted as saying 





> Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination as secretary of health and human services on Tuesday after weathering four days of scrutiny over unpaid taxes, prompting President Obama to concede having “screwed up” in undermining his own ethical standards by pushing the appointment.


There was one more that withdrew, but I cannot find it at this time and don't want to do further research at the moment. The point to this being that it is funny how we forget our own history when pointing the finger at the other side from the supposed moral high ground. It is not uncommon, at all, for the first 100 days of ANY presidency to be rocky as leaks are plugged and people are appointed. In all actuality, this first 100 days is going better than I can remember them going, then again I admit I am biased. :troll:


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 16, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Here we go again:-"  How soon we forget our history....
> 
> Charles W. Freeman Jr - antisemetic stance
> Bill Richardson - Federal corruption probe
> ...


You are completely right about the nominees getting shot down, but this flood of leaks within the first month of an administration is pretty unprecedented.  Not only that, but it's very unusual for a new administration to lose a court challenge within its first 100 days, even one that moves as quickly as Trump's.  Moreover, if the Senate Intelligence committee moves forward with its investigation (as Mitch McConnell has indicated) then we're truly in unprecedented territory.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 16, 2017)

Also former SEAL and Vice Admiral Robert Harward, who was reportedly going to replace Mike Flynn as National Security Adviser to the administration, has reportedly turned down the job.
Vice Admiral Robert Harward turns down national security adviser job


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 16, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> You are completely right about the nominees getting shot down, but this flood of leaks within the first month of an administration is pretty unprecedented.  Not only that, but it's very unusual for a new administration to lose a court challenge within its first 100 days, even one that moves as quickly as Trump's.  Moreover, if the Senate Intelligence committee moves forward with its investigation (as Mitch McConnell has indicated) then we're truly in unprecedented territory.



I think too, the historically low approval ratings - and high disapproval ratings (by intensity) from the other side are pretty unprecedented.  However, I don't know if that would have been the result of the election regardless of the victor given the level of divisiveness during the election cycle - and the reputations of the two candidates in the opposing parties.  It could be the 'honeymoon period' is a thing of the past in general.

I also think, at least by the numbers I've seen, the administration might not be that worried about the approval rating.  I've seen numbers as high as 55 percent (which is very good for a President at any stage) but the consensus numbers are around 44 percent (which, though bad for the start of the first term are not terrible general numbers - believe President Obama hovered around this number for much of his two terms).

I think the real measure of the administration's success will be taken as congress comes back into session.  It's hard to tell how many of the missteps so far are an administration in turmoil and how much are just the adjustments of a politically inexperienced, revanchist, populist administration and all that entails in the modern era.  There was a politico article I saw the other day arguing that the administration really hadn't done that much so far: President Trump Has Done Almost Nothing

I definitely wouldn't go as far as the author but there is a case to be made that most of the executive actions so far have amounted to changes of intent, style, and tone - that have had only marginal impact on the actual running of the country.

I think there are a lot of consequences brewing in the conduct of the executive - especially in the national security/intelligence arena.  I think everyone involved is in for a bad time given the rampant leaks, mistrust, and dishonesty abounding.  I think whatever your 'side' in all that drama (and I think there is much more than two) there are going to be 2nd and 3rd order effects for the entire community that will last for years.  It reinforces the idea to me that if you're in the IC, LE or military stay out of politics as much as possible - even when you're 100% sure you're correct.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 16, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> You are completely right about the nominees getting shot down, but this flood of leaks within the first month of an administration is pretty unprecedented.  Not only that, but it's very unusual for a new administration to lose a court challenge within its first 100 days, even one that moves as quickly as Trump's.  Moreover, if the Senate Intelligence committee moves forward with its investigation (as Mitch McConnell has indicated) then we're truly in unprecedented territory.


I agree with everything except the court challenge. It is unprecedented for an executive order to have been challenged so quickly. It usually takes weeks or months to go before a court. Something that I cannot recall happening in the previous administration. I could be wrong, I just cannot recall an instance. Additionally, the circuit that issued the ruling had a 70-80% overturn rate when appealed. It is all about the long game when it comes to court matters.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 16, 2017)

The discussion has moved on but if I can necro-post I thought this was a very well-written and easy to understand breakdown on the administration of the federal government and the pros/cons of the federal hiring freeze.

Well worth a read if government reform and/or function is something that interests you: 10 questions and answers about America’s “Big Government” | Brookings Institution

Summary: In the aggregate the federal workforce does ok - or at least better than the alternatives.  Most of government runs on a proxy workforce in the states, for-profit contractors, and not-for-profit (but still lobbying like motherfuckers just like the other groups) NGOs.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 16, 2017)

Just read this and it puts firmly my thoughts on the "leaks".  I don't agree with the authors politic stance but he makes a strong point on the dysfunction in the IC.  I'd say a good bunch of us have professional experience in said world or at least have held a security clearance.  We know that it's not our place to "leak" anything to anyone.  

America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 16, 2017)

All the people I expected to hire me when I retire are quitting/not joining the government.  I'm going to have to get a real job.  WTF.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 16, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> All the people I expected to hire me when I retire are quitting/not joining the government.  I'm going to have to get a real job.  WTF.



Your just need to make new friends.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 16, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Your just need to make new friends.


Yeeeaahhh.... that's not what I'd say I do around here.  Or anywhere.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 16, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> I agree with everything except the court challenge. It is unprecedented for an executive order to have been challenged so quickly. It usually takes weeks or months to go before a court. Something that I cannot recall happening in the previous administration. I could be wrong, I just cannot recall an instance. Additionally, the circuit that issued the ruling had a 70-80% overturn rate when appealed. It is all about the long game when it comes to court matters.


True, but I would bet my BAH that the ACLU began preparing amicus briefs the minute that Trump announced the Muslim ban during a campaign rally back in June of last year.  This would give them months to prepare for a legal challenge.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 16, 2017)

Even the Russian's are having fun with all this.

LISTEN: John McCain Shares Insider Info With Prankster Posing As Ukrainian PM - Vessel News


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 16, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> ...then again I admit I am biased. :troll:


Yep. 

Just because it's happened before doesn't mean this current 'shit show' (to quote Harward, if his friend is to be believed) isn't just that. Kellyanne Conway blatantly broke the law on international TV by helping Ivanka Trump personally profit from an elected officials endorsement. 

President Trump's administration had inappropriate contact with Russia throughout the election and after. Gen Flynn resigned over it. Bringing up Daschle's tax evasion to say, 'oh how soon we forget our history' really doesn't mean anything valuable. They don't cancel each other out- they're both individually and separately wrong. Trying to make it seem as if they aren't is silly. 

I know we talked about this before the election, but when does the accountability kick in? President Trump whined (again) today about the press, the election (why? You won, get over it), inheriting a 'mess', etc. during a weird ranting press conference which he openly lied again ('biggest electoral victory since Regan') and when he was called out in it? Sidestepping. Lies. Excuses. He said, "Somebody told me that."

Just because Nixon (and Regan and Bush and Obama and whoever else) lied before while in office, its still completely true to say, 'President Trump lied today and didn't own his words when called on it and that's bullshit. This 100 days so far has been really, really concerning.'


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Yep.
> 
> Just because it's happened before doesn't mean this current 'shit show' (to quote Harward, if his friend is to be believed) isn't just that. Kellyanne Conway blatantly broke the law on international TV by helping Ivanka Trump personally profit from an elected officials endorsement.
> 
> ...


So, why or how exactly did Trump lie? Because MSM told you? We can take a new conference, press release, report, etc... and get at least two different spins on the story. This is as much a "shit show" as Obama's 8 years was a "crap filled failure" It is all a matter of perspective. KC made an error that violated ethics rules, and should be reprimanded. Flynn resigned over not disclosing his conversations with his counterpart. Not for having contact with them, which is common to begin with. At least as I understand it and have seen in the "news". At the moment I cannot recall where I read it, and it isn't important enough for me to expend the energy on it. 

With all due respect, I don't recall you asking for Obama's accountability when he started throwing GW under the bus almost right away. Honestly, a lot of this argument sounds like the chicken little story. If the sky didn't fall for the last administration, it is not likely to fall for this one. I brought up Daschle's evasion as an example of ethics, which you first brought up. The Russians did no more or no less than what we have done in the past with other foreign elections. Is it right? No, but it happens. It isn't an excuse, just a fact.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 16, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> *So, why or how exactly did Trump lie? Because MSM told you?* We can take a new conference, press release, report, etc... and get at least two different spins on the story. This is as much a "shit show" as Obama's 8 years was a "crap filled failure" It is all a matter of perspective. *KC made an error that violated ethics rules, and should be reprimanded.* Flynn resigned over not disclosing his conversations with his counterpart. Not for having contact with them, which is common to begin with. At least as I understand it and have seen in the "news". At the moment I cannot recall where I read it, and it isn't important enough for me to expend the energy on it.
> 
> With all due respect, *I don't recall you asking for Obama's accountability when he started throwing GW under the bus almost right away*. Honestly, a lot of this argument sounds like the chicken little story. If the sky didn't fall for the last administration, it is not likely to fall for this one. *I brought up Daschle's evasion as an example of ethics, which you first brought up*. *The Russians did no more or no less than what we have done in the past with other foreign elections.* Is it right? No, but it happens. It isn't an excuse, just a fact.


To the bolded, in order-

- You can re-watch the entire video and read the transcript here. The lie was, _"270 which you need, that was laughable. We got 306 because people came out and voted like they’ve never seen before so that’s the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan. " _His electoral win margin was not the biggest win since Reagan, so either he is completely ignorant or he willingly stated an untruth. When pressed if the American public should trust him when he throws out information so demonstrably false as if it was true, he replied: _"Well, I don’t know, I was given that information. I was given — I actually, I’ve seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that? OK thank you, that’s..." _Not only did he not own his lie; he doubled down and said someone told him AND he'd seen that information around. 

- Agree.

- I'll wager you also don't recall me defending President Obama or blaming President Bush, because I didn't. Their administrations were responsible for their behavior, in my opinion, and they shouldn't be able to benefit OR be burdened by the previous administration. That's just my personal opinion. 

- I brought up Conway's ethics breach (along with Flynn and the Russian involvement and the other administration's missteps) as an example of how poorly this administration is doing in it's first 100 days, which is the topic of the thread. 

- Again, _just because it's happened before does not excuse culpability now. 

_


----------



## AWP (Feb 16, 2017)

I know we've discussed H1B visas before and this article drives home the point. What they are doing/ have done to the IT industry is worse than people realize.

Research verifies Trump stance on H-1B for U.S. tech workers



> The study Understanding the Economic Impact of the H-1B Program on the U.S., led by John Bound at the University of Michigan, estimates that domestically-sourced tech talent would have earned 3%-5% more in the period studied without the H-1B scheme, with *overall American employment in the sector projected 6% to 11% higher than it actually was*.
> 
> In 2014 approximately half of 120,000 H1-B visas given by the U.S. went to computer science employees.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 17, 2017)

One small silver lining from this whole situation: I'm good friends with a professor at the Columbia Journalism School, which is one of the oldest graduate journalism programs in the United States.  He told me that the school has seen nearly triple the applications for this year than in previous years.  He also said that other programs are reporting similar increases in applications.  It seems as though interest in professional journalism is being renewed by this administration, even as trust in traditional media is falling.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 17, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> One small silver lining from this whole situation: I'm good friends with a professor at the Columbia Journalism School, which is one of the oldest graduate journalism programs in the United States.  He told me that the school has seen nearly triple the applications for this year than in previous years.  He also said that other programs are reporting similar increases in applications.  It seems as though interest in professional journalism is being renewed by this administration, even as trust in traditional media is falling.



To add -

I am also finding friends and acquaintances becoming more discerning about the types of stories they forward me, for no reason other than to not be accused of sending "fake news".


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 17, 2017)

AWP said:


> I know we've discussed H1B visas before and this article drives home the point. What they are doing/ have done to the IT industry is worse than people realize.
> 
> Research verifies Trump stance on H-1B for U.S. tech workers



When all the major IT companies in the US freak out due to the temp ban, you know it's fucked up.  Foreign workers aren't just picking berries. There's talk of some moving things up here but we have similar visa requirements.  Although I'm sure our Drama Teacher in Chief will make exceptions for all of them though.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 17, 2017)

Ummm yeah.  So this just hit the wire...

Trump may use up to 100,000 National Guard troops to round up illegal immigrants

WASHINGTON —

_A draft memo obtained by The Associated Press Friday outlines a Trump administration proposal under consideration to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants. Millions of those who would be affected in 11 states live nowhere near the Mexico border.


The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana. If the proposal is implemented, governors in the affected states would have final approval on whether troops under their control participate.

Earlier this week, immigrant rights activists and Democrats raised concerns about recent immigration enforcement actions -- though immigration officials maintain that only routine actions targeting criminals were underway._


----------



## CDG (Feb 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ummm yeah.  So this just hit the wire...
> 
> Trump may use up to 100,000 National Guard troops to round up illegal immigrants
> 
> ...



That's a VERY slippery slope.  What's the ROE for a barricaded family?  What happens if more street gangs start forming to try and stand up to these troops?  What happens when the first illegal is killed by a NG troop, or vice versa?  How much military equipment will be used?  You gonna start doing call outs with Bradleys/Strykers/M1s etc.?  I think this is a bad idea.


----------



## benroliver (Feb 17, 2017)

After that last press conference I am afraid to even watch the news anymore. I am about to leave for basic and I am wondering what going to happen in the next 3 months while I am gone lol.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 17, 2017)

He needs to slow his roll on this one and seriously contemplate it before putting it into action. This one could have really bad results.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 17, 2017)

...and the bullshit begins to fly...

My problem with the response of, "Calm down, it's just a draft memo" is that I see it as a 'testing the waters' memo.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 17, 2017)

I find all of the crap happening this week insane.



Salt USMC said:


> One small silver lining from this whole situation: I'm good friends with a professor at the Columbia Journalism School, which is one of the oldest graduate journalism programs in the United States.  He told me that the school has seen nearly triple the applications for this year than in previous years.  He also said that other programs are reporting similar increases in applications.  It seems as though interest in professional journalism is being renewed by this administration, even as trust in traditional media is falling.



To be honest I'm not sure that's that awesome.  I think journalists shouldn't go to school to be journalism majors.  I was a journalist once, some 11 years ago I was a staff writer and then editor-in-chief for the school paper.  I think journalists need to cut their teeth as an extra-curricular activity, although I will point out that college papers can make significant change.  The business side of the house always makes the change, but the writers do get a cut eventually.  I think if someone actually wants to be a journalist they work on the college paper writing staff, takes some journalism classes but major in something else.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 17, 2017)

Fuck it, round them up and send them home. Street gangs vs the Untied States Army National Guard? Really?  Yeah, me thinks the Guard can handle the hommies. And honestly who gives a fuck about gang bangers, use those fuckers for target practice. 

Barricaded family? We got toys and tactics for that too.

I just hope they use special train cars...


----------



## pardus (Feb 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ummm yeah.  So this just hit the wire...
> 
> Trump may use up to 100,000 National Guard troops to round up illegal immigrants



It would be interesting to see how the States in question, particularly the Governors of those States would react to a Federal call up if it were to happen. 
However Sean Spicer has denied that it is true. So there's that.


----------



## CDG (Feb 17, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Fuck it, round them up and send them home. Street gangs vs the Untied States Army National Guard? Really?  Yeah, me thinks the Guard can handle the hommies. And honestly who gives a fuck about gang bangers, use those fuckers for target practice.
> 
> Barricaded family? We got toys and tactics for that too.
> 
> I just hope they use special train cars...



I mean, you're joking, right?  This one of those #IKIS posts.  Right?  You can't actually believe what you just said.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 17, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Fuck it, round them up and send them home. Street gangs vs the Untied States Army National Guard? Really?  Yeah, me thinks the Guard can handle the hommies. And honestly who gives a fuck about gang bangers, use those fuckers for target practice.
> 
> Barricaded family? We got toys and tactics for that too.
> 
> I just hope they use special train cars...



"Hate" cause...


Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Street gangs vs the Untied States Army National Guard? Really?  Yeah, me thinks the Guard can handle the hommies.



You might be surprised.





Diamondback 2/2 said:


> who gives a fuck about gang bangers, use those fuckers for target practice.



It's not just the "gang bangers" who would be rising up





Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I just hope they use special train cars...



Dude you didn't just say that?


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 17, 2017)

pardus said:


> *It would be interesting to see how the States in question, particularly the Governors of those States would react to a Federal call up if it were to happen. *
> However Sean Spicer has denied that it is true. So there's that.


That was my first question, the second being whether use of NG troops under Federal (not State) orders is a Posse Comitatus issue?  I'm not an SME on the delineation between the different types of orders guard personnel can be activated under, but it would seem that if called to act as a federal military force that some lines may be crossed.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 17, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> That was my first question, the second being whether use of NG troops under Federal (not State) orders is a Posse Comitatus issue?  I'm not an SME on the delineation between the different types of orders guard personnel can be activated under, but it would seem that if called to act as a federal military force that some lines may be crossed.



Many of those states can't afford to pay their normal bills, much less activate the NG based on a federal request or mandate. If I was a governor, I wouldn't do it...but that's just me.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Feb 17, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Fuck it, round them up and send them home. Street gangs vs the Untied States Army National Guard? Really?  Yeah, me thinks the Guard can handle the hommies. And honestly who gives a fuck about gang bangers, use those fuckers for target practice.
> 
> Barricaded family? We got toys and tactics for that too.
> 
> I just hope they use special train cars...



Lol.  Going on 16 years now and the active component supplemented by the guard and reserve can't win an insurgency OCONUS.  See what happens when it happens here.

Forced entry for a misdemeanor?  Good luck with that in court.

Sometimes people really need to think before they post.  In the words of Herm Edwards: "Don't press send."


----------



## pardus (Feb 17, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> That was my first question, the second being whether use of NG troops under Federal (not State) orders is a Posse Comitatus issue?  I'm not an SME on the delineation between the different types of orders guard personnel can be activated under, but it would seem that if called to act as a federal military force that some lines may be crossed.



Federal activation is tile 10. Active duty.
State activations are title 32. State Active Duty. Ive done both, my SAD time was in uniform, on the streets of a major US city, carrying a loaded firearm, with the sames rules of engagement I had when I was deployed in OEF. Not a Posse Comitatus issue. 

So any federal call up would be a Posse Comitatus issue.
However it seems with the right support in Congress that wouldn't be a problem at all.



> Whoever, *except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by* the Constitution *or Act of Congress,* willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.



Or the Feds could ask the states to do the mission themselves with troops operating on title 32 orders, avoiding the need to go through congress. My question would be, would those states be willing to hold that particular hot potato though...


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 17, 2017)

Thanks for the clarification, @pardus.


----------



## pardus (Feb 17, 2017)

Agoge said:


> Many of those states can't afford to pay their normal bills, much less activate the NG based on a federal request or mandate. If I was a governor, I wouldn't do it...but that's just me.



Don't worry, that money is coming from the feds one way or another. At least in large part.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 17, 2017)

Okay, so no joking around on SS today. Mention special train cars and everyone loses their shit...


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 17, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Okay, so no joking around on SS today. Mention special train cars and everyone loses their shit...



There wasn't a whole lot (if anything) in your post to indicate humor and given the tone of the rest of the post, it appeared to be 100% serious.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 17, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Fuck it, round them up and send them home. Street gangs vs the Untied States Army National Guard? Really?  Yeah, me thinks the Guard can handle the hommies. And honestly who gives a fuck about gang bangers, use those fuckers for target practice.
> 
> Barricaded family? We got toys and tactics for that too.
> 
> I just hope they use special train cars...



Dude this post is so off even for this thread. I saw a few posts further where you say you are joking. But still. 

Clean it up man.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 17, 2017)

Alright,  I don't want the military deployed against my own country or people, don't want to use human people as targets and I would never approve of people being put on train cars and sent off to anywhere. I was making a joke, as I see nobody saw that.

I'll take a break...


----------



## pardus (Feb 18, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Alright,  I don't want the military deployed against my own country or people, don't want to use human people as targets and I would never approve of people being put on train cars and sent off to anywhere. I was making a joke, as I see nobody saw that.
> 
> I'll take a break...



Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 18, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Okay, so no joking around on SS today. Mention special train cars and everyone loses their shit...



Possibly because you've offended every Jew ever, especially those with people in their family with tattoos. 

I've been in one of those special train cars (Holocaust Museum in DC) and find nothing funny in your post.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 18, 2017)

Nailed it!!!!!!:-"


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 18, 2017)

Way to go, Canada!     :-"

Eight people flee border patrol to seek asylum in Canada | Daily Mail Online



@RackMaster


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 18, 2017)

How convenient for a photo op.


----------



## CQB (Feb 19, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Even the Russian's are having fun with all this.
> 
> LISTEN: John McCain Shares Insider Info With Prankster Posing As Ukrainian PM - Vessel News



Plus quite a bit more, the damage looks to be more than just a simple election outcome wouldn't you say?


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 19, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Way to go, Canada!     :-"
> 
> Eight people flee border patrol to seek asylum in Canada | Daily Mail Online
> 
> ...



I'm honestly surprised Prime Minister Little Potato wasn't there in person to hand out hugs and parkas.  

This is honestly out of control and happening at all sections of the border; even the Yukon/Alaska border.  But I think they are smart enough up there not to travel this time of year.  There's a "Safe Third Country" agreement between the US and Canada, so if they claimed asylum at a border crossing; they are processed through your system.  If they cross a farmers field, they get detained, medical care and once they pass a criminal background check, released.  There's been private immigration lawyers offering services to any of them that cross, if not they get legal aid.  In a few weeks they can apply for a work permit or as most do, collect social assistance.  It's turning into the European situation, they keep travelling to whatever country offers the better/easier benefits.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 19, 2017)

This is a great view of the "leaks".

I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 19, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> This is a great view of the "leaks".
> 
> I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control


This guy makes a very compelling case and I somewhat agree with him.  

I see motivational scenarios for these leaks: The first is a group of ideologically-driven intel professionals, aggrieved by their loss in November, have made it their partisan mission to destroy the administration via media assassination.  They may or may not have enough damning material for impeachment, but they will leak just enough information to make it _look_ like they do.
The second is that you have a group of intelligence professionals who, while politically aware, have nonetheless accepted the election results.  However, they've seen enough damning material on the administration that they feel it must be acted upon.  Some might have even gone through official whistleblower channels, although this is probably less-likely.  They also are likely distressed at the very slow pace in which current investigations are progressing, and are using this slow drip of leaks in order to force the investigators' hand.  In this scenario, it's not the scope of the material which is lacking, but the speed at which it is being investigated.

The truth is that the leakers are probably a mix of both groups - ideologically driven, as well as frustrated.  Regardless of who is doing the leaking, the author is right - the Washington "deep state" deciding who has power is highly problematic.  Our intelligence and diplomatic corps were not appointed to act as a check on executive power.  That's what the other two branches are for.  While it's important for these professionals to keep their eyes open to this kind of stuff, they should not be acting as a de facto fourth government branch.

Bill Moyers' site has this great (and long) piece about the evolution of a deep state: Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State | BillMoyers.com
It was put out about two years ago some of the references may be a little dated, but it's a fascinating and somewhat prescient read.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 19, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> This guy makes a very compelling case and I somewhat agree with him.
> 
> I see motivational scenarios for these leaks: The first is a group of ideologically-driven intel professionals, aggrieved by their loss in November, have made it their partisan mission to destroy the administration via media assassination.  They may or may not have enough damning material for impeachment, but they will leak just enough information to make it _look_ like they do.
> The second is that you have a group of intelligence professionals who, while politically aware, have nonetheless accepted the election results.  However, they've seen enough damning material on the administration that they feel it must be acted upon.  Some might have even gone through official whistleblower channels, although this is probably less-likely.  They also are likely distressed at the very slow pace in which current investigations are progressing, and are using this slow drip of leaks in order to force the investigators' hand.  In this scenario, it's not the scope of the material which is lacking, but the speed at which it is being investigated.
> ...



I think the descriptor 'deep state' is a useful model when describing countries like Turkey and Russia - where elements in and out of government wield power in ways that are illegal, even in their own countries.  I think it's an extreme exaggeration and disservice to use it in the United States - especially when it's almost exclusively done in the national security arena.  Nobody is talking about the HUD deep state.

There are a lot of mechanisms by which leaks make their way into the press.  IC members are one - and that certainly could be at the heart of the leaks in the administration - but I doubt it.  Congress, the Senate, cabinet officials, and the administration themselves are replete with people with regular access to the same information, close and continuing contact with members of the media and/or other people who talk to the media, and frequently with objectives in releasing information, rumors, and speculation.  In truth there is at least some access to sensitive information being a member of Mar E Lago as we saw with the DPRK debacle the other week.   It could be the Trump administration is facing an insurgency of liberal hacks seeded into the government, that his administration is caught up in bitter in-fighting, that the members of his administration's disdain for expertise are setting a new bar for ineptness and lack of security consciousness, that these factors are making professionals at every level of the government complain to anyone who will listen - or any combination of all or none of these things.  The nature of most of these leaks - one or more sources reporting on what they heard/know/believe to be true - rather than releasing sensitive documents means there is a very wide swath of people with the placement, access, and accessibility to report on it accurately.

It could absolutely be 100% the IC - or even a smaller portion.  However, as someone who works in the IC I'll need a little more proof than the latest round of tweetstorms.  As always, everyone is free to believe what they want with as much burden of proof as they desire.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 19, 2017)

Read an ok-ish article today with a great quote.

"Motion does not equal progress. A rocking chair has near constant motion, but doesn't get anywhere."
imo
That's a pretty good description of the first 100 days so far. Lots of flail, lots of news, lots of bluster- not a lot of concrete changes or progress, IMO.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 19, 2017)

First 100 days have had a ton of action, it's just whether you agree if it is progress or not.


----------



## Poccington (Feb 20, 2017)

Trump reached new levels of comedy genius with his "last night in Sweden" comment.

The man is on a different planet.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 20, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Trump reached new levels of comedy genius with his "last night in Sweden" comment.
> 
> The man is on a different planet.


BUTBUTBUT he was talking about a show he saw on Fox News about immigration... 

I'm curious as to what progress we have seen so far. The only real action Pres Trump has taken this far is a handful of executive orders (one of which was ineffective and repealed), most of which simply stated 'examine this process' or 'report findings to the president'. 

What progress am I missing?


----------



## CDG (Feb 20, 2017)

More issues with NSC positions/people.  Very tumultuous start for the Trump Administration.  

Senior Trump appointee fired after critical comments


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 20, 2017)

At this rate, the President is going to run out of people to draw from if he's going to can every person that may have a difference in opinion with him at some point.  With leadership, they say it's lonely at the top...but come on.

Ventura was/is a dipshit and had incredibly thin skin as a governor but Trump is taking that thin skin well into the stratosphere.  It has quickly become a huge liability.  He needs to get over his hard on for the media and someone needs to revoke his access to Twitter; it's become as old as the whining and protests from leftists.  I hope he changes his approach soon but won't hold my breath.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 20, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> BUTBUTBUT he was talking about a show he saw on Fox News about immigration...
> 
> I'm curious as to what progress we have seen so far. The only real action Pres Trump has taken this far is a handful of executive orders (one of which was ineffective and repealed), most of which simply stated 'examine this process' or 'report findings to the president'.
> 
> What progress am I missing?


You can follow along at The First 100 Days
The site appears to be a non-partisan way of tracking the President's progress on campaign promises, staff appointments, and myriad issues.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 20, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> At this rate, the President is going to run out of people to draw from if he's going to can every person that may have a difference in opinion with him at some point.  With leadership, they say it's lonely at the top...but come on.
> 
> Ventura was/is a dipshit and had incredibly thin skin as a governor but Trump is taking that thin skin well into the stratosphere.  It has quickly become a huge liability.  He needs to get over his hard on for the media and someone needs to revoke his access to Twitter; it's become as old as the whining and protests from leftists.  I hope he changes his approach soon but won't hold my breath.



Agreed.  

Again, Piers Morgan nails it.

PIERS MORGAN: President Trump needs to calm down | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 20, 2017)

CDG said:


> More issues with NSC positions/people.  Very tumultuous start for the Trump Administration.
> 
> Senior Trump appointee fired after critical comments



I saw a Foreign Policy article today that made a similar point - one of the big gaps the administration is struggling with (compared to other administrations in their first 100 days) is filling those 2nd and 3rd tier appointees that actually run things day-to-day.  It's a huge practical difficulty in actually executing policy likely exacerbated by the lack of a strong party infrastructure to draw on (much of the intellectual/think-tank/academic Republican party that this pool is normally drawn from is the heart of the 'never-Trump' movement inside the Republican party) and the unconventional style of President Trump where individual loyalty and access are so critical to effectiveness.  I imagine you can draw in powerful people from the business and donor world to fill top spots but it's much more difficult to get them to fill spots further down the chain.

I think the FP article does a good job of framing substantive problems with the administration this early in it's tenure.  However, if you want to read it you should understand the authors come from a camp that was/is decidedly anti-Trump so there's no attempt to be even-handed (though I still think the criticisms are logical and fact-based).  Also, it's coming from the perspective - pretty common in academia and professional journals - that political science and the national security apparatus have a clear and useful purpose.  If part of your support for President Trump is that whole 'establishment' is shitty and needs to reform/burn to the ground I don't think any of the base theses are going to hold weight with you.

Here's the article for reference: President Trump’s Terrible One-Month Report Card


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 20, 2017)

Here's an appointment I can get behind: H.R. McMaster is the new National Security Advisor


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 20, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Here's an appointment I can get behind: H.R. McMaster is the new National Security Advisor


It You Ain't CAV!!!!


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 21, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> It You Ain't CAV!!!!



I'd heard about the Cav. This kinda confirms it.


----------



## AWP (Feb 21, 2017)

No one would know his name without 73 Easting and subsequent books.

I hope he does great in his new position.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 21, 2017)

AWP said:


> No one would know his name without 73 Easting and subsequent books.
> 
> I hope he does great in his new position.



Three companies from my old signal battalion were fragged out to support then-COL McMaster during 3ACR's second stint in Iraq. Many of them had served under him and COL. Teeples in 2003, and were of the opinion that McMaster was a much better regimental commander.  

His success in Tal Afar could not be denied, and was instrumental in breaking the logjam preventing him from picking up that first star.  From my understanding at the time, he'd been blocked by various politicians something like five times because they couldn't stand the man (I think Dereliction of Duty had something to do with it). The gains he made in Tal Afar were plastered all over the news, and his opponents found themselves without a leg to stand on in blocking his ascencion to flag rank. 

It's been nearly ten years since I researched the man, so I can't remember all my sources verbatim. But I believe he'll be a great fit in this position.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 21, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Three companies from my old signal battalion were fragged out to support then-COL McMaster during 3ACR's second stint in Iraq. Many of them had served under him and COL. Teeples in 2003, and were of the opinion that McMaster was a much better regimental commander.
> 
> His success in Tal Afar could not be denied, and was instrumental in breaking the logjam preventing him from picking up that first star.  From my understanding at the time, he'd been blocked by various politicians something like five times because they couldn't stand the man (I think Dereliction of Duty had something to do with it). The gains he made in Tal Afar were plastered all over the news, and his opponents found themselves without a leg to stand on in blocking his ascencion to flag rank.
> 
> It's been nearly ten years since I researched the man, so I can't remember all my sources verbatim. But I believe he'll be a great fit in this position.



I saw a very short article from a couple years ago where LTG(R) Barno praised LTG McMaster and claimed he had been in the room where senior officers were discussing how to end his (McMaster's) career.  I don't believe he provided any more details but it supports what you're talking about. 

I think the triple threat of 73 easting, dereliction of duty, and Tal Afar make LTG McMaster someone with credentials that can't be balked at by any source - that kind of person is likely very dangerous for senior officers.  Still, it might also free him from some of the politicking other GOs frequently have to do - in the service and with their press clippings (GEN Patreaus always comes to my mind as a leader with a preternatural affinity for his press profile, at least until the end).  I've never served under him but I know a number of people who have.  All describe him as a good commander and leader but very harsh - very willing to relieve people, stop meetings, and berate folks.  Most have talked about him being very fair with it - he was the same asshole to everyone, never played favorites, and always rested his criticisms in competence.

It makes his selection as the NSA really interesting.  His reputation and credentials will lend significant weight to the administration - and he'll likely have significant credibility with the press and the establishment from day one.  However, an NSA's main role is to influence the President and corral a truculent group of personalities at the highest levels of government.  Those are significant political and interpersonal skills.  The President has demonstrated a desire for a specific kind of loyalty at every turn - especially insisting his obvious untruths/lies/mistakes are backed by his subordinates.  He also seems especially influenced by conjecture and fanciful claims - a briefly seen cable news clip can make it's way into speeches, tweets, and policy maybe (not 100% clear how much of what the President says is really policy at this point).  That seems like a recipe to put LTG McMaster's experience to the test.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 21, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> I'm honestly surprised Prime Minister Little Potato wasn't there in person to hand out hugs and parkas.
> 
> This is honestly out of control and happening at all sections of the border; even the Yukon/Alaska border.  But I think they are smart enough up there not to travel this time of year.  There's a "Safe Third Country" agreement between the US and Canada, so if they claimed asylum at a border crossing; they are processed through your system.  If they cross a farmers field, they get detained, medical care and once they pass a criminal background check, released.  There's been private immigration lawyers offering services to any of them that cross, if not they get legal aid.  In a few weeks they can apply for a work permit or as most do, collect social assistance.  It's turning into the European situation, they keep travelling to whatever country offers the better/easier benefits.



It's so nice of your country to welcome our scumbags. 



Blizzard said:


> At this rate, the President is going to run out of people to draw from if he's going to can every person that may have a difference in opinion with him at some point.  With leadership, they say it's lonely at the top...but come on.
> 
> Ventura was/is a dipshit and had incredibly thin skin as a governor but Trump is taking that thin skin well into the stratosphere.  It has quickly become a huge liability.  He needs to get over his hard on for the media and someone needs to revoke his access to Twitter; it's become as old as the whining and protests from leftists.  I hope he changes his approach soon but won't hold my breath.




Trump has never held an elected office. He's never had to answer to anybody. His companies are private, no stockholders. He's used to being a virtual dictator in the private sector. Do what I say or your fired. When he makes a business decision, his employees oppose it at their peril. Eventually he may finally realize the limitations of Presidential power...and that you get more with honey than you do with vinegar.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 21, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Trump has never held an elected office. He's never had to answer to anybody. His companies are private, no stockholders. He's used to being a virtual dictator in the private sector. Do what I say or your fired. When he makes a business decision, his employees oppose it at their peril. Eventually he may finally realize the limitations of Presidential power...and that you get more with honey than you do with vinegar.


I will say- I am hoping (against all hope, it seems) to see a steep learning curve while President Trump figures out how to navigate those waters. I don't want to see ANY president fail, because America pays a price there.

I am just not seeing it yet.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 21, 2017)

I'm still unconvinced on this Rouge POTUS twitter account. It's really hard to tell if it's legit or not.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 21, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I'm still unconvinced on this Rouge POTUS twitter account. It's really hard to tell if it's legit or not.


Yeah, same here.  They're putting out less and less material recently and mostly just retweeting stuff about #theresistance or whatever.  I'm willing to bet that they had some tertiary access at one point, or at least had some secondhand access to insider info, but that has since been cut off.  I mean, in the days right after the inauguration they did put out some stuff that scooped the news media and established their bona fides, but that seems to have quieted down.  Now it's just "@POTUS is so pissed off about protesters!! #resist is working!!"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2017)

This is where we seem to be at these days: http://nypost.com/2017/02/24/trump-supporters-unwittingly-wave-russian-flags-at-cpac/


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 24, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> This is where we seem to be at these days: http://nypost.com/2017/02/24/trump-supporters-unwittingly-wave-russian-flags-at-cpac/



Sorry, but I think that is funny as hell.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 24, 2017)

Reince Priebus apparently communicated a request to the FBI to publicly comment on a story alleging WH/Russia ties.  The FBI declined
FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories - CNNPolitics.com



> The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN.
> 
> But a White House official said late Thursday that the request was only made after the FBI indicated to the White House it did not believe the reporting to be accurate.
> White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.
> ...



According to the Guardian, Priebus might be in trouble 
The administration is certainly making no friends at the FBI.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2017)

Oh I definitely had a chuckle. People are idiots.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 25, 2017)

Another March and this time with their very own militant manifesto.

How can the majority of smart women in America not see their cause has been co-opted by terrorists and Communist sympathizers? 

http://nyp.st/2mwM4x4


Here's their manifesto.
Women of America: we're going on strike. Join us so Trump will see our power


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 25, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Another March and this time with their very own militant manifesto.
> 
> How can the majority of smart women in America not see their cause has been co-opted by terrorists and Communist sympathizers?
> 
> ...



Maybe we should see how many turn up to the next one before saying people are supporting them, or their militant beliefs.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 25, 2017)

This cannot surprise anyone.

Trump: I won't attend White House correspondents' dinner


----------



## CDG (Feb 25, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This cannot surprise anyone.
> 
> Trump: I won't attend White House correspondents' dinner



If I was him, I wouldn't go either.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 25, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Another March and this time with their very own militant manifesto.
> 
> How can the majority of smart women in America not see their cause has been *co-opted by terrorists and Communist sympathizers? *
> 
> ...


What?

The terrorist lady mentioned in the article got co-author credit for the Guardian article.  From what I can tell, she has absolutely no organizational role with the strike.  She's not even mentioned anywhere in the list of organizers for the strike, nor is she listed on the committee page for the Women's March.  For all intents and purposes, she's just listed in the by-line in this article and is in no way "behind the next women's march."  This is just cherry-picking clickbait from NYPost, which I suppose we should come to expect.

As for the other contributors, I just ask: So what?  Angela Davis is bad because she supported the Black Panthers at some point and was acquitted of gun charges?  Tithi Bhattacharya is bad because she once wrote a pithy comment about Maoists?  Hell, she's a cultural theorist.  That's what these kind of intellectuals do.  Check out her entire list of publications: https://www.cla.purdue.edu/history/documents/Publications/PublBhattacharya.pdf

The Post is reaching reeeeeeeeally hard.

Let us not for this whole section, which is just a hilarious strawman fallacy


> The bristling tone of the manifesto and its call for a “militant” uprising are yet another indicator that liberals are increasingly willing to justify violence in the name of opposing Trump. After the Berkeley campus erupted in flames and violence to protest the planned appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos, many progressive activists took to Twitter to cheer them on. Hollywood stars Debra Messing and Sarah Silverman both tweeted their support, with Messing saying, “RESISTANCE WORKS” and Silverman ranting: “WAKE UP & JOIN THE RESISTANCE. ONCE THE MILITARY IS W US FASCISTS GET OVERTHROWN. MAD KING & HIS HANDLERS GO BYE BYE.”
> 
> Progs are equally enthusiastic about the idea that it’s OK to punch people as long as you hate them: “Stranger Things” star David Harbour said at the Screen Actors Guild awards, “We will, as per Chief Jim Hopper [the character he played on the show], punch some people in the face when they seek to destroy the weak and the disenfranchised and the marginalized.”


----------



## CDG (Feb 25, 2017)

@Salt USMC, what are you saying is the fallacy?  Are you saying that liberals are NOT increasingly justifying violence?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 25, 2017)

CDG said:


> @Salt USMC, what are you saying is the fallacy?  Are you saying that liberals are NOT increasingly justifying violence?


Correlating the tone of the manifesto with a rise in leftist violence.  The clear message is "Hey, you saw what happened at Berkeley, right?  This shit is gonna get violent"
It doesn't help when the lede is basically "A TERRORIST IS ORGANIZING THE STRIKE!!"


----------



## Poccington (Feb 25, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Reince Priebus apparently communicated a request to the FBI to publicly comment on a story alleging WH/Russia ties.  The FBI declined
> FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> 
> ...



There's something quite amusing about Trumps Chief of Staff using anonymous sources to refute the Russian links to the Trump campaign, while Trump continues his crusade against the press and demands that anyone using anonymous sources should have to name them publicly.


----------



## CDG (Feb 25, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Correlating the tone of the manifesto with a rise in leftist violence.  The clear message is "Hey, you saw what happened at Berkeley, right?  This shit is gonna get violent"


Gotcha.  I agree with you there.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 25, 2017)

This is interesting.

Majority of Americans disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president: Poll

It's broken down by race and education also.


_A majority of Americans disapprove of the way President Donald Trump is handling his job after a month in office, according to results from the latest NBC News|__SurveyMonkey__ poll, though divisions are wide along party, gender and racial lines._


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 25, 2017)

Dems choose DNC chair. 

Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez beat U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison in a closely fought race to lead the Democratic Party as it tries to figure out how to take on GOP President Trump.

Rep. Keith Ellison loses Democratic chair race, will stay in Congress

And for the first time I am aware of, Keith Ellison says something that I agree with:

_“Organizing is how we’re going to win,” Ellison said Saturday in a speech to the more than 400 DNC delegates, before voting started. “We believe we would rather have a million donations of $10 than 10 donations of $100,000_.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 25, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> Majority of Americans disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president: Poll
> 
> ...



Since when was Survey Monkey a scientific poll?

Can someone who is lightyears smarter than me explain why calling Islamic Terrorists what they are is somehow not helpful as stated by the new National Security Advisor: Trump's national security adviser reportedly says label 'radical Islamic terrorism' not helpful


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 25, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Since when was Survey Monkey a scientific poll?
> 
> Can someone who is lightyears smarter than me explain why calling Islamic Terrorists what they are is somehow not helpful as stated by the new National Security Advisor: Trump's national security adviser reportedly says label 'radical Islamic terrorism' not helpful



I wouldn't trust anything NBC was behind either.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 25, 2017)

So...word on the street is the POTUS will not be attending the Correspondents Dinner: Donald Trump to Skip White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 25, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Since when was Survey Monkey a scientific poll?
> 
> Can someone who is lightyears smarter than me explain why calling Islamic Terrorists what they are is somehow not helpful as stated by the new National Security Advisor: Trump's national security adviser reportedly says label 'radical Islamic terrorism' not helpful





RackMaster said:


> I wouldn't trust anything NBC was behind either.



Good points. I'll look to find something else. I did like the headline also.

Overall the other polls I have looked at say about the same thing.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 25, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This cannot surprise anyone.
> 
> Trump: I won't attend White House correspondents' dinner





ThunderHorse said:


> So...word on the street is the POTUS will not be attending the Correspondents Dinner: Donald Trump to Skip White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner



On top of it tonight...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 25, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> On top of it tonight...


Whoops...


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 25, 2017)

I can see that being a double edged sword for him. On one hand, he will avoid the inevitable taking of the piss that happens with all Presidents attending. That would be good for his own ego since he can't stand any kind of comment or joke about him. I would wager that is the main reason.

On the other hand he'll alienate the press corps even more- and that's not in his best interest at all.


----------



## CDG (Feb 26, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I can see that being a double edged sword for him. On one hand, he will avoid the inevitable taking of the piss that happens with all Presidents attending. That would be good for his own ego since he can't stand any kind of comment or joke about him. I would wager that is the main reason.
> 
> On the other hand he'll alienate the press corps even more- and that's not in his best interest at all.



I'm not sure it's possible for him to alienate the press any more than he already has.  This dinner would have been different than any WHC Dinner I have ever seen.  The press fawned over Obama, and while many of them took issue with George Bush, the remarks/satire/jokes/ have always been in relatively good fun.  This would have been awkward, tense, and full of animosity from both sides.  

The press has long been in need of reigning in, and while I do not necessarily agree with how POTUS is going about it, at least someone who matters is calling BS.


----------



## Poccington (Feb 26, 2017)

CDG said:


> I'm not sure it's possible for him to alienate the press any more than he already has.  This dinner would have been different than any WHC Dinner I have ever seen.  The press fawned over Obama, and while many of them took issue with George Bush, the remarks/satire/jokes/ have always been in relatively good fun.  This would have been awkward, tense, and full of animosity from both sides.
> 
> The press has long been in need of reigning in, and while I do not necessarily agree with how POTUS is going about it, at least someone who matters is calling BS.



See, this is the one major issue I have with how Trump is dealing with the press.

He's talking about "fake news" and what not, is now at the stage where Spicer is banning certain media outlets from gaggles, Trump is demanding sources in stories being named etc. 

Yet I don't see how they can keep a straight face and continue to talk about "fake news" when they speak just as much, if not more, utter bollocks than anyone else.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 26, 2017)

CDG said:


> I'm not sure it's possible for him to alienate the press any more than he already has.  This dinner would have been different than any WHC Dinner I have ever seen.  The press fawned over Obama, and while many of them took issue with George Bush, the remarks/satire/jokes/ have always been in relatively good fun.  This would have been awkward, tense, and full of animosity from both sides.
> 
> The press has long been in need of reigning in, and while I do not necessarily agree with how POTUS is going about it, at least someone who matters is calling BS.



It probably would not have happened, but Trump could have been the cool dude in the room and use it to maybe even dial down the animosity. It feels to me to be a missed opportunity for POTUS Trump.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 26, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I can see that being a double edged sword for him. On one hand, he will avoid the inevitable taking of the piss that happens with all Presidents attending. That would be good for his own ego since he can't stand any kind of comment or joke about him. I would wager that is the main reason.
> 
> On the other hand he'll alienate the press corps even more- and that's not in his best interest at all.


Yeah, it was probably the right thing to do.  If he went, the correspondents would've torn him apart and made him look (more) foolish.  Meanwhile, his supporters would just double (triple?) down on their hatred of the press.
By not going, he kinda sticks his thumb in the press' eye, and looks like a big man to his supporters.  Of course, people on the left are going to say that his ego is too fragile to stand up to the correspondents' roasting, but it's not like his base is going to care.  They see this as a win, and that's what matters.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 26, 2017)

Because the girlfriend says we watch the Oscars: Jimmy Kimmel tweeted at the POTUS, I wonder if he'll respond.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 26, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Because the girlfriend says we watch the Oscars: Jimmy Kimmel tweeted at the POTUS, I wonder if he'll respond.



That was pretty funny.  Especially the top one...


----------



## CDG (Feb 27, 2017)

I play trivia games on a website called Sporcle.  Tonight, the home page showed this as one of the most popular games of the day:  Donald Trump or Adolf Hitler? Quiz - By zachHu1

This type of bullshit, regardless of which side pulls it, does nothing but further divide an already divided country.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 27, 2017)

CDG said:


> I play trivia games on a website called Sporcle.  Tonight, the home page showed this as one of the most popular games of the day:  Donald Trump or Adolf Hitler? Quiz - By zachHu1
> 
> This type of bullshit, regardless of which side pulls it, does nothing but further divide an already divided country.



Clowns will be clowns, Brother! I simply don't go to their circus....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 27, 2017)

It's probably been stated within this thread, but is Bill Owens' becoming Trump's Cindy Sheehan?

Father Of Navy SEAL Killed In Yemen Raid Has Harsh Words For Trump


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 28, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> It's probably been stated within this thread, but is Bill Owens' becoming Trump's Cindy Sheehan?
> 
> Father Of Navy SEAL Killed In Yemen Raid Has Harsh Words For Trump



Sounds like the Father was against Trump from the start and the media's definitely taking advantage of his grief.  Plus I'm pretty sure the mission will have a mandatory AAR anyway, the Father just won't be entitled to all the answers; probably won't be the answers he's looking for anyway.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 28, 2017)




----------



## Poccington (Feb 28, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Sounds like the Father was against Trump from the start and the media's definitely taking advantage of his grief.  Plus I'm pretty sure the mission will have a mandatory AAR anyway, the Father just won't be entitled to all the answers; probably won't be the answers he's looking for anyway.



Well if he wasn't against Trump before, he certainly will be following Trumps comments on Fox News where he pretty much washed his hands of the Yemen raid.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Well if he wasn't against Trump before, he certainly will be following Trumps comments on Fox News where he pretty much washed his hands of the Yemen raid.



Cooking dinner and will fact check in a bit, but please tell me that he "<Trump> did not find a way to blame Obama for the mission going south because it had already been presented to him once.  I shouldn't even have to guess that, but I am still not past the whole "alternative facts" thing.


----------



## CDG (Feb 28, 2017)

Looks like President Trump is listening to someone. I think we need to be harsher on illegal immigrants, but the reality is that POTUS is going to have to compromise some on his hardline stance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/...ackage-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 28, 2017)

I am wholeheartedly against a legal pathway on principle.  I'm a descendent of relatively recent legal immigrants from Mexico, they hated the illegal immigration problem in SoCal.  But they also felt that Mexican immigrants were targeted at a significantly higher rate than say anyone from Asia or Europe and that needed to be fixed.  In SoCal there may be illegal immigrant problem from Mexico, but we also have problems with people coming from all over Asia and making it through in Cargo containers.  Some of that is Human trafficking and some of that is people taking chances.

However, is it practical to deport all of them?  Probably not.


----------



## Poccington (Feb 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Cooking dinner and will fact check in a bit, but please tell me that he "<Trump> did not find a way to blame Obama for the mission going south because it had already been presented to him once.  I shouldn't even have to guess that, but I am still not past the whole "alternative facts" thing.



FOX & friends on Twitter

Basically, the entire thing didn't really have much to do with him and when it comes to the Generals who planned the raid, "they lost Ryan".


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2017)

Poccington said:


> FOX & friends on Twitter
> 
> Basically, the entire thing didn't really have much to do with him and when it comes to the Generals who planned the raid, "they lost Ryan".



Fuck that. 

Come on Mr. President.  Go read the "fired Navy Captains" thread to learn about accountability, and then come back and try again. 

Disappointing.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 28, 2017)

I would just be happy to hear someone say that sometimes, things are what they are. Why does he have to be responsible for what happened? Why does anybody but those who were involved -- our side and the bad guy side. After all, like it's been said, the bad guy gets a vote too.

Honestly, I'm just tired of the blame game! People need to get over it and let's move forward!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2017)

@Agoge - Disagree because he is the Commander-in-Chief of our Military.  If something goes south on his watch, the President should own it.  Everyone knows he didn't have any real influence over what did or did not happen to Chief Ryan, but he should own it.  

Perception is reality, and what I perceive by his saying, "the Generals lost Ryan" is a man who will not take the fall for his Generals when the "whatever" hits.  I've always feared Trump as a person who liked to spread blame and take credit; I'm still on the "anyone but Hilary" train, but times like this I think Trump is in way over his head.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Agoge - Disagree because he is the Commander-in-Chief of our Military.  If something goes south on his watch, the President should own it.  Everyone knows he didn't have any real influence over what did or did not happen to Chief Ryan, but he should own it.



Don't get me wrong, Brother...I agree the buck stops with him. But, like you noted...he isn't responsible for it. I think he acted like a clown by blaming it on someone else, but, with that said...it's time to move on.


----------



## pardus (Feb 28, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I am wholeheartedly against a legal pathway on principle.  I'm a descendent of relatively recent legal immigrants from Mexico, they hated the illegal immigration problem in SoCal.  But they also felt that Mexican immigrants were targeted at a significantly higher rate than say anyone from Asia or Europe and that needed to be fixed.  In SoCal there may be illegal immigrant problem from Mexico, but we also have problems with people coming from all over Asia and making it through in Cargo containers.  Some of that is Human trafficking and some of that is people taking chances.
> 
> However, is it practical to deport all of them?  Probably not.



What is the percentage of illegals from the southern border (more than just Mexicans) compared to Asian? I'm fairly certain that Latin America is responsible for the vast majority of illegal immigrants to the USA. Therefore they should be targeted more. 
That's a non brainier.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 28, 2017)

Yeah one giant land border with lots of cross border travel versus limited illegal immigration via containers (which is reasonably rare). 

I know where I'd put my resources.


----------



## AWP (Feb 28, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I would just be happy to hear someone say that sometimes, things are what they are. Why does he have to be responsible for what happened? Why does anybody but those who were involved -- our side and the bad guy side. After all, like it's been said, the bad guy gets a vote too.
> 
> Honestly, I'm just tired of the blame game! People need to get over it and let's move forward!



I would be perfectly fine with some version of "I ordered the raid and this is on me. Our men performed brilliantly and with exceptional courage. With that said we need to remember nothing is perfect in war and that situations are dynamic and complex. I ordered the raid and the family and teammates of the deceased have my sincere condolences for their loss."

He can own it while reminding everyone this isn't cut-and-dried.

ETA: correct a horrible phrasing oversight


----------



## Grunt (Feb 28, 2017)

AWP said:


> I would be perfectly fine with some version of "I ordered the raid and this is on me. Our men performed brilliantly and exception courage. With that said we need to remember nothing is perfect in war and that situations are dynamic and complex. I ordered the raid and the family and teammates of the deceased have my sincere condolences for their loss."
> 
> He can own it while reminding everyone this isn't cut-and-dried.



Perfectly stated!


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 28, 2017)

Well, I will say that speech was the best that Trump has been recently. He stuck to his teleprompter, and kept on message, and actually behaved like a president.

There were issues, sure, but in my mind this was an uptick.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 1, 2017)

pardus said:


> What is the percentage of illegals from the southern border (more than just Mexicans) compared to Asian? I'm fairly certain that Latin America is responsible for the vast majority of illegal immigrants to the USA. Therefore they should be targeted more.
> That's a non brainier.


I guess you haven't been to Hacienda Heights and West Covina recently...

In regards to how the President has handled the raid bit.  He just needs to say: "The enemy has a vote in this fight too, you know, it was a well planned mission, executed by our best and sometimes we don't come out unscathed, this is war.  His death is but the first of what I hope may be few but could be many that weigh on me as I'm the CinC and I send our men into the night to keep us all safe, etc."


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 1, 2017)

Do you have an actual reply to the Mexican statement or just empty naff?


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 1, 2017)

That was probably the best speech that he's ever given and a significant departure from "American carnage."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 1, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Do you have an actual reply to the Mexican statement or just empty naff?


I don't know what you're on about.  But I personally don't like people getting targeted just because they happen to be a certain color, especially when there are plenty of other illegal immigrants in that same area of a different color, so you can just not comment because you have some empty naff right there.

And then there was the Clinton staffer getting mad about Ryan Owens' Wife:
Despicable Dan Grilo Calls The Wife of Fallen Navy Seal an Idiot

http://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/201...rnet-after-post-bashing-dead-navy-seals-wife/


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 1, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I don't know what you're on about.  But I personally don't like people getting targeted just because they happen to be a certain color, especially when there are plenty of other illegal immigrants in that same area of a different color, so you can just not comment because you have some empty naff right there.
> 
> And then there was the Clinton staffer getting mad about Ryan Owens' Wife:
> Despicable Dan Grilo Calls The Wife of Fallen Navy Seal an Idiot
> ...



What he is on about is you seem to honestly be comparing the problem of illegal immigration from and through Mexico with the amount of Asian immigrants, and then using one town in LA as an example. 

The two are only comparable as they are both illegal. They are not comparable in the scope or severity of the problem.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 1, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> Majority of Americans disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president: Poll
> 
> ...



From today:

7 in 10 Speech-Watchers Say Trump Boosted Optimism - CNNPolitics.com

It's amazing what a speech can do to a country's mood.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 1, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> From today:
> 
> 7 in 10 Speech-Watchers Say Trump Boosted Optimism - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> It's amazing what a speech can do to a country's mood.



Really just him being Presidential... his actions are what keep people uneasy.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Really just him being Presidential... his actions are what keep people uneasy.


It seems everyone is going to be uneasy with whomever becomes POTUS going forward since everyone is so partisan.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 1, 2017)

Disagree because I am a staunch Republican and am still uneasy by our current President and his actions - or future actions.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Really just him being Presidential... his actions are what keep people uneasy.



Generally agree.  But people hinge their hopes on words.  But this poll could just as soon invert based on whatever he tweets this afternoon.


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 1, 2017)

I thought this was an interesting perspective: Grading Trump on a Curve

My perception of the reaction to the speech - which I did not watch - is it is being graded on an extreme curve across the spectrum.  Conservatives are falling over themselves in joy and anticipate major poll shifts from it (even though President Trump is actually polling very well amongst Republicans - his high disapproval numbers, compared to other Presidents, stem from his very high disapproval ratings amongst Democrats and independents), the MSM (defined as major non-Fox news networks) are giving the speech heaps of praise primarily from optics and surprise, while liberals (like me) are still unimpressed - especially if you take a look at any attempt at fact-checking.

Seems like this is a win for the administration on style - business as usual on substance.  If you're an administration supporter you should be happy, if not I'm not sure how much cause there is to shift your existing opinion.  Will be interesting to see if the conservative joy is well-founded and this pushes the administration into the honeymoon period they haven't received so far.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 1, 2017)

I liked his tone during the speech, but...it was a speech.

I judge people by their actions...and now, I am lying in wait to see that talk being walked...


----------



## Centermass (Mar 1, 2017)

Even staunch critics noticed something different. When someone such as Van Jones takes notice and says something positive, regarding last night, it becomes a head tilting moment.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 1, 2017)

I'm only reading the stuff on the back end, as I did something important last night, called watching baseball.  I find it better in such that our world is getting extremely partisan and stupid to read it later rather than watch live.  To be honest there's a lot of meh crap.

The wearing of white and purple by the Dems and not clapping at  certain points that are traditional based on what I'm reading just continues to show the long road we're going down.  Not that the Republican party was innocent during the Obama administration.

But if these idiots in Congress seriously think women's rights are going to be curtailed...I really don't get it.

ETA: RU's Douche of the Week-Dan Grilo
Instagram post by Ranger Up • Mar 1, 2017 at 7:13am UTC

ETA2: Sessions being accused of speaking to the Russian Ambassador as a representative of the Trump Campaign and not at a ranking member of the Armed Services committee.  I'm getting tired of this shit.  If it's true, can him, if not, skewer alive these asshole congress criminals: Sessions Met Twice With Russian Envoy During Trump Campaign


----------



## CDG (Mar 2, 2017)

Did anyone else watch the MSNBC special last night about the POTUS/Putin connection?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 2, 2017)

CDG said:


> Did anyone else watch the MSNBC special last night about the POTUS/Putin connection?


Was it this one?





"Sources"  I truly hate this crap, put your name to your leak and withstand the storm.

ETA: Congress grapples with investigating Trump’s Russia ties

ETA 2: Jeff Sessions will recuse himself from all Russia investigations because feelings of Democrats. Watch: Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks amid backlash over Russia contact


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 2, 2017)

Heartbroken Russian Ambassador Thought Special Meetings With Jeff Sessions Were Very Memorable


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 2, 2017)

This was tweeted about 50 times by USA Today...today: Pence used personal email for state business — and was hacked

What I have to say about this is that it doesn't matter as Loretta Lynch chose to meet on the tarmac with Bill to tell him something and proved that DoJ was thoroughly political.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 4, 2017)

Dear Congressman Richmond,

In reference to the above photograph, this is why you leave the jokes to the professionals.  

First, it was not even funny, second, it did not appear to be the right type of venue, and finally, from what I've heard about Ms. Conway, she is the wrong woman in Washington to be on the bad side of.

Chelsea Clinton defends Kellyanne after Richmond's joke | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 4, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> View attachment 18182
> 
> Dear Congressman Richmond,
> 
> ...


Hard agree.  This was a terrible joke, and even if you disagree with Kellyanne's politics this is not the kind of comment you make.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 4, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Hard agree.  This was a terrible joke, and even if you disagree with Kellyanne's politics this is not the kind of comment you make.



Completely agree BUT it's become the standard response by the extreme left.


----------



## Poccington (Mar 4, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Completely agree BUT it's become the standard response by the extreme left.



The mental thing is that all she's "guilty" of is being on the other side of the political spectrum to people like that cunt of a Congressman.

How any politician feels that's an appropriate way to conduct themselves and speak about people in public is beyond me.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 4, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Completely agree BUT it's become the standard response by the extreme left.


I wouldn't say that it's become the standard response by the extreme left, but the left has definitely become more comfortable with saying extremely crude and sexist things about conservative women before being called on it.  I really don't like that one bit.  Just because your side usually supports feminism and equality doesn't mean you get carte blanche to use all of those nasty insults against women with whom you disagree.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 4, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I wouldn't say that it's become the standard response by the extreme left, but the left has definitely become more comfortable with saying extremely crude and sexist things about conservative women before being called on it.  I really don't like that one bit.  Just because your side usually supports feminism and equality doesn't mean you get carte blanche to use all of those nasty insults against women with whom you disagree.



Exactly...


----------



## Poccington (Mar 5, 2017)

Trump 'wiretap': White House wants investigation but Clapper denies order

This is an almost biblical level of deflection from Trump and Co. that's actually pretty impressive.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 5, 2017)

This is an excellent read and gives a more detailed look into the situation.

Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 5, 2017)

It feels like this story is gaslighting me somehow.  I could've sworn that wiretaps were acknowledged to have been done on four Trump campaign subordinates.  In fact, I seem to recall that those FISA taps revealed that Michael Flynn was talking with the Russian ambo after the election.  Am I getting my wires crossed here?  Or is there a technical detail that's missing, like - Trump Tower itself was not tapped, but the communications of foreign agents were monitored who happened to place calls to Trump Tower?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 5, 2017)

To be honest I'm not sure where this goes.  But Senator Schumer worked with the US Embassy in New Delhi to get this alleged pedophile a Visa so that he could compete in the snowshoeing championships.  The perpetrator 24 years old, the victim 12 years old.

Schumer pulled visa strings for Indian athlete now accused of child sex abuse


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 6, 2017)

BBC writes story about wiretapping citing anonymous sources.

Limbaugh and Levin 'connect the dots' with no original/additional reporting, citing stories with anonymous sources.

 Breitbart conglomerates all that information and writes story. No additional facts/reporting.

President Trump flips shit and starts tweeting less than 12 hours after the Breitbart story.

Anyone wanna bet no one ever says. 'You know, our bad here, turns out this was fake news and we got excited and made allegations that weren't founded.'? Anyone?

In the midst of all this re-invigorated cloak and dagger bullshit, the re-written travel ban (it's not a ban!) was filed. Almost, like, on purpose or something. You know, in a way to manipulate the news cycle and pull the ole Kansas City shuffle.



'Gaslighting' is a great term in this whole situation, @Salt USMC

ETA- the hypocrisy is choking. Why isn't the White House screaming about naming the sources instead of running with the allegation? Why isn't the response, 'We aren't going forward until these sources are outed and verfified?'


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 6, 2017)

So let's talk policy

There's a growing discourse amongst European national security folks about the need to shift the deterrence role away from the United States and on to France and Great Britain.  Although it's just talk right now, this represents a dramatic shift in natsec orthodoxy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/world/europe/european-union-nuclear-weapons.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/world&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront


> BERLIN — An idea, once unthinkable, is gaining attention in European policy circles: a European Union nuclear weapons program.
> 
> Under such a plan, France’s arsenal would be repurposed to protect the rest of Europe and would be put under a common European command, funding plan, defense doctrine, or some combination of the three. It would be enacted only if the Continent could no longer count on American protection.
> 
> ...



This is seriously scary stuff.  The fact that this kind of 'plan B' is even being given serious consideration is a pretty strong indicator that Europe is losing faith in our commitment to defense agreements.  That alone should be incredibly alarming.  I genuinely hope that it doesn't come to that.  The president needs to drop these silly Twitter feuds and publicly re-affirm our commitment to NATO.  Not just Jim Mattis - President Trump needs to reassure our allies that we'll actually be there for them.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 6, 2017)

I don't even know how that's a good idea as the UK and French Armies just went through significant reduction and structure changes.  Germany has the largest land based component within the EU.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 6, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> *So let's talk policy*
> 
> There's a growing discourse amongst European national security folks about the need to shift the deterrence role away from the United States and on to France and Great Britain.  Although it's just talk right now, this represents a dramatic shift in natsec orthodoxy.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/world/europe/european-union-nuclear-weapons.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/world&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
> ...




<What follows is directed at the points made in the article, not at my Salty friend>

Ok then, let's talk policy.  

There is indeed a "commitment" issue when it comes to NATO, but it's on the part of the Europeans, not the Americans.  America is (quite rightly, in my opinion) tired of Europe freeriding on the the US-funded NATO gravy train.  NATO member countries are supposed to contribute 2% of their GDP to defense.  Almost none of them (2/28, I think?) do.  Many of Europe's ground forces, considered in whole, are inexperienced, "overstretched," poorly funded, and ill-equipped.  They are not pulling their own weight.  They are not ready.  NATO overlies on American military and economic power.  America is tired of it and wants NATO to step up their game.  I think that's a pretty reasonable policy.

And as much as people would like it to be, this problem did not start with, nor is it confined to, the Trump administration, nor is it limited to European financial contribution to their own defense. It has been a problem for a long, long time.  The US has other grievances as well:  they were pretty pissed about NATO's contributions (or lack thereof) during the GWOT.  And let's not forget the fact that NATO member Turkey wouldn't even let the US cross their territory into Iraq.  

I'm not blaming any other country for doing what they think was right for their nation.  I'm just pointing out some reasons why current policy is the way it is. Nor am I claiming that the US underwrites NATO economically and militarily out of blind altruism.  It's very good for us as well.  But it could be--it needs to be--better.

When it comes to the US commitment to the alliance, the sitting Vice President of the United States declared, in Germany, mere weeks ago, that the US commitment to NATO is "unwavering."  But he also stipulated that the Europeans need to do their parts.  I think that's totally reasonable.  But hey, some people in Europe cooked up some half-assed, utterly unobtainable policy that ignores very basic issues of sovereignty and political realism so let's run with that as an indicator of future US foreign policy!  

The EU can't even get people to agree on a common monetary policy, and they're going to have one, combined military command?  Under the French?  With nukes?  This article is ridiculous fear-mongering.  A French-led "eurodeterrent?"  Without the United States?    Against whom, the Italians?  Because they're sure not going to deter the Russians.  
Those aren't French tanks in Poland (well, I mean there were, but they left. In 2015.  After two months).  Those aren't German troops taking the lead in Ukraine.  The Baltic states aren't begging for the Brits.  America is committed to NATO, and I think it's only reasonable to expect the other member nations to AT LEAST meet their agreed-to obligations.

How well did a US-less "deterrent" work out for Europe in the last two World Wars?  That idea briefs well, but even if they COULD pull it off politically they can't afford it.  The United States of America, the world's best economy, contributes 3.5% of their GDP to defense.  The countries of European Union only spend 1.5%.  Only five of the 28 NATO countries are contributing their targeted share of GDP to their own defense... and guess what?  Germany and France aren't in that number.

No European military, individually or en masse, has the logistical, economic, intelligence, or experiential "ass" to pull something like this off.  If it's anything between managing low-level conflict against third-rate non-state actors, or all-out nuclear war, the armies of Europe are ill-suited to handle it without the United States.  And they know it.

France is always trying to start shit about NATO.  In fact, they quit NATO's military command structure once before.  And then, in 2009, they came back.  Why?  Because it's one of the best deals going.  Even the Germans, who have the best economy in Europe and probably one of the best armies, recognize they need the US.  They're not going to jump in bed with the French, not over something as important as national security.  Not at the expense of their relationship with the US.

But hey, if they don't want to, they always have the French...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 6, 2017)

Although I liked your post.  The Germans are already in bed with the French.  From cross training in exercises and school assignments to the Franco-German Brigade, officers assigned to EuroCorps and French RRC.  Now are the French in bed with the Germans?  I didn't see any of that with my eye balls.


----------



## AWP (Mar 6, 2017)

Considering our vaunted partnership in Afghanistan was paid for by America, yeah...NATO needs to do more. The mere concept of a joint nuclear command is laughable.

FACT SHEET: U.S. Contributions to NATO Capabilities



> Common Funding supports, among other things, certain Alliance operational costs (such as in Afghanistan or Kosovo); NATO AWACS....
> 
> The NAEW&C consists of 16 E-3A AWACS aircraft based in Geilenkirchen, Germany.  The aircraft have had an important presence in NATO campaigns in Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, and the Mediterranean, as well as recently in assurance measures in the East and in Turkey.  Sixteen nations contribute funding for modernization programs and certain operational costs related to the NAEW&C force, and the UK makes contributions-in-kind from its national inventory of 6 E-3D AWACS aircraft based in Waddington, UK.  *The two largest contributors are the U.S. (with a 40 percent cost share) and Germany (27 percent). *
> 
> *Ten NATO allies* plus two Partnership for Peace countries work under a Memorandum of Understanding to operate three Boeing C-17 strategic transport aircraft out of Papa Air Base, Hungary.  The participating* nations each control a proportional share* of the available fight hours, based on their respective acquisition cost shares, and may choose to make their hours available to support operations led by nations, by NATO or by the European Union.  The *U.S. acquisition cost share was 33 percent* (for which the United States provided one C-17 aircraft as its contribution).  The *U.S. annual operations cost share is 31 percent* (of a total annual cost of $153 million).



40 percent of the NATO AWACS mission and 31 percent of the C17 program for which we allegedly receive roughly 30 percent of the flight hours out of 10 nations?

I don't know our percentage of support for NATO deployments to Afghanistan, but I had a former NATO staff officer tell me point-blank that Poland refused to go without a sizable contribution from the US. That was particularly galling given their...."suboptimal" performance in Ghazni province....

NATO needs to chiggity check itself.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 6, 2017)

Man, sometimes you just cannot make this shit up.

Ben Carson likens slaves to immigrants in first speech | Daily Mail Online

_'A land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less.'
'But they, too, had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great grandsons, great granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.'_


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 6, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> <What follows is directed at the points made in the article, not at my Salty friend>
> 
> Ok then, let's talk policy.
> 
> ...



Hard agree with this post. Just like it is not correct to blame Trump for the EU getting ready to start requiring visas for US travelers. That is a result of the expiration of a two-year grace period that the EU had extended to countries that still required visas for certain travelers hailing from member states (In our case, Poland, Romania, and Croatia). Australia complied within the two years, we did not. Blaming Trump would be incorrect this time.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 7, 2017)

We all need a little uplifting laughter, so why not another screaming protester banshee.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 7, 2017)

It became double funny when the supporters started screaming back at her


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 7, 2017)

Was there something physically wrong with that woman?  The only time I've seen pallor like that is on corpses or in the ads for those weird Japanese sex bots.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 7, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Was there something physically wrong with that woman?  The only time I've seen pallor like that is on corpses or in the ads for those weird Japanese sex bots.


When even the sun is oppressive to you, you don't tend to get out much.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 7, 2017)

She needed some medical attention, this is what happens when your mental health system gets gutted.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 7, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> We all need a little uplifting laughter, so why not another screaming protester banshee.



Poor gal, her friends never showed up.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 7, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Poor gal, her friends never showed up.



All her "friends" are probably stuffed animals and the voices in her head.  She looks like she hasn't been outside, except to buy more Twinkies, in years.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 7, 2017)

Cat Worshipper.....


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 7, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> <What follows is directed at the points made in the article, not at my Salty friend>
> 
> Ok then, let's talk policy.
> 
> ...




I think you express US, and to a lesser extent British, frustrations with NATO very well.  Additionally, I think you are rightly skeptical of any European-led military alliance – though, in fairness, those doubts are not at all downplayed in the article.

What I got from the article was less a solid security proposal – and more a shot across the bow by the European security establishment to the new administration.  I think they’re trying to sound out the international security order on understanding if NATO will not meet European security needs they’ll find another way.  I think attempting to send signals or warnings to this administration in anything that’s not a corporate memo is foolish.  However, to those with the ability to understand those kinds of signals I think it’s something to take note.

Further, I think the erosion or disillusion of NATO in it’s current form is almost inevitable in a Trump administration.  One can argue good riddance (I’m not one of them) but I think either way one should acknowledge the massive shift that will make in US influence in Europe and likely the world.

It’s probably a separate thread to talk about what we do or don’t gain from NATO or the international security order – I happen to think we gain a lot – but, here are my reasons to think the European alliance is doomed under a Trump administration:

The alliance relies on trust.  The idea the US is going to backstop NATO security with money and force of arms.  President Trump has made sufficient statements to seriously doubt his commitment to those agreements.  When combined with his apparently cozy relationship to Russia it’s enough to give anyone in, or wanting to be in NATO grave doubts.  Because of the type of President Trump is proving to be – one significantly outside the mold for good or ill – I think it’s impossible for that trust to be won back.  You cited the Vice President’s statements.  To take those seriously you have to believe the VP is capable of speaking for the President and assuring allies.  I can’t see how you can look at the President’s behavior (or twitter feed) and still be willing to make national security bets on his word one day versus another.  Even the President’s most ardent supporters are forced to say ‘he didn’t really mean that’ for a lot of the stuff he says and does.  I think in the national security realm it’s very difficult not to give credence to the worst case – and be very skeptical of the best case.  I think the administration finds themselves in that bind (if you believe the stuff is important enough to put you in a bind) now and will continue to do so in the international community for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 7, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> When even the sun is oppressive to you, you don't tend to get out much.



Damn I wish I would have thought of this^ first.  Takes all the fun out of needling your friends of other political persuasions when they beat you to the punch.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 7, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Damn I wish I would have thought of this^ first.  Takes all the fun out of needling your friends of other political persuasions when they beat you to the punch.


Well hey, I may be the biggest lefty weirdo on this site but even I know when snowflakes are snowflaking extra hard.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 7, 2017)

What are we going to do with all the peace and quiet tomorrow?  :-"

everything you need to know about taking part in the women's strike | read | i-D

"We strike for an end to racist and sexual assaults, and all forms of bigotry," reads the Women's Strike website. "Reproductive freedom, full access, and no coercion. National Health Care for all. A $15 minimum wage for all workers, no exceptions. Protection and expansion of Social Security Childcare, free like the public schools, and paid family leave."


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 7, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> We all need a little uplifting laughter, so why not another screaming protester banshee.




Yep, no mental health issues with her.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 7, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> What are we going to do with all the peace and quiet tomorrow?  :-"
> 
> everything you need to know about taking part in the women's strike | read | i-D
> 
> "We strike for an end to racist and sexual assaults, and all forms of bigotry," reads the Women's Strike website. "Reproductive freedom, full access, and no coercion. National Health Care for all. A $15 minimum wage for all workers, no exceptions. Protection and expansion of Social Security Childcare, free like the public schools, and paid family leave."


So my cousin, whom is an ultra feminazi was we like wear red tomorrow to simulate the rebellion against [blank].  I posted on her page stating that I hope people understand not going to work tomorrow for this thing isn't the correct thing.  She responded saying that the correct thing was for all men to donate 23% of their pay to women's charities.  I let it go.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So my cousin, whom is an ultra feminazi was we like wear red tomorrow to simulate the rebellion against [blank].  I posted on her page stating that I hope people understand not going to work tomorrow for this thing isn't the correct thing.  She responded saying that the correct thing was for all men to donate 23% of their pay to women's charities.  I let it go.



That's because all identity politics ultimately comes down to rent-seeking.  It's *always *all about the money.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So my cousin, whom is an ultra feminazi was we like wear red tomorrow to simulate the rebellion against [blank].  I posted on her page stating that I hope people understand not going to work tomorrow for this thing isn't the correct thing.  She responded saying that the correct thing was for all men to donate 23% of their pay to women's charities.  I let it go.



This is a boycott/strike action "for" women, but it's totally OK to give your business to "female or minority-owned businesses."

So if you take out all of the women and all of the minorities, then this is directed squarely at...


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 7, 2017)

When accounting for almost all variables the wage gap is significantly less significant than the 23% quoted. It is still a thing though. Even in a 91% female career field, I will make more than my female colleagues over a 5 year span....


----------



## Dienekes (Mar 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> When accounting for almost all variables the wage gap is significantly less significant than the 23% quoted. It is still a thing though. Even in a 91% female career field, I will make more than my female colleagues over a 5 year span....



No disrespect, sir, but do your qualifications match exactly to your peers? This is not meant as a personal question, but an economic one. Qualifications and employer discretion mean a lot in determining wages. I would assume that a highly trained SF medic with extensive trauma training and instructor experience combined with a degree from one of THE top nursing programs in the nation likely demands a higher pay differential than a similarly qualified BSN/RN. If not, then the non-medical related experience is likely of great additional value.

I mention this because my mother had a "similar" situation. My mother spent a lot of time working the books for local business when I was younger before she went back to school to get her BSN/RN. She worked many nursing jobs from NICU, Cath Lab, home health, hospital case manger, and 2 director positions to end up as the current director of cardiology at her current place. Despite her similar nursing experience and qualifications with her peers, her business qualifications added to her value.

All this to point out that, unless you directly ask for someone's resume or have an extensive relationship with someone, you may not know an individual's full qualifications. In a true labor market, wage is determined by not just experience but qualifications and some of those quals not directly related to your job but which facilitate more efficient/effective job performance add to value. Also, every job/internship that I ever had (that didn't require a can of dip and a spit cup) since I was 16 explicitly told me, "Do not talk about pay" so it's difficult to compare with all peers except the ones you may be particularly close with.
This was not to single your post out, sir, just to add to the gender pay gap discussion.


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> No disrespect, sir, but do your qualifications match exactly to your peers?



20 years ago a man could enter an RN program with a GPA considerably lower than a woman because it is a female-dominated profession. Now? No idea, but there's no way every job is looking at a resume except for a name and some basic quals.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 7, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> No disrespect, sir, but do your qualifications match exactly to your peers? This is not meant as a personal question, but an economic one. Qualifications and employer discretion mean a lot in determining wages. I would assume that a highly trained SF medic with extensive trauma training and instructor experience combined with a degree from one of THE top nursing programs in the nation likely demands a higher pay differential than a similarly qualified BSN/RN. If not, then the non-medical related experience is likely of great additional value.
> 
> I mention this because my mother had a "similar" situation. My mother spent a lot of time working the books for local business when I was younger before she went back to school to get her BSN/RN. She worked many nursing jobs from NICU, Cath Lab, home health, hospital case manger, and 2 director positions to end up as the current director of cardiology at her current place. Despite her similar nursing experience and qualifications with her peers, her business qualifications added to her value.
> 
> ...



I should have qualified, as a male after 5 years I will make more than my female peers ... male Nursing faculty make considerably more than female nursing faculty. This is regardless of me personally...


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 7, 2017)

AWP said:


> 20 years ago a man could enter an RN program with a GPA considerably lower than a woman because it is a female-dominated profession. Now? No idea, but there's no way every job is looking at a resume except for a name and some basic quals.



This is still the case. Nursing is an extreme example, but a good one in my opinion. It takes away many of the variables, danger, educational variances, etc. the average male hospital nurse with a BSN makes more than a woman after 5 years...


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 7, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> No disrespect, sir, but do your qualifications match exactly to your peers? This is not meant as a personal question, but an economic one. Qualifications and employer discretion mean a lot in determining wages. I would assume that a highly trained SF medic with extensive trauma training and instructor experience combined with a degree from one of THE top nursing programs in the nation likely demands a higher pay differential than a similarly qualified BSN/RN. If not, then the non-medical related experience is likely of great additional value.
> 
> I mention this because my mother had a "similar" situation. My mother spent a lot of time working the books for local business when I was younger before she went back to school to get her BSN/RN. She worked many nursing jobs from NICU, Cath Lab, home health, hospital case manger, and 2 director positions to end up as the current director of cardiology at her current place. Despite her similar nursing experience and qualifications with her peers, her business qualifications added to her value.
> 
> ...



Also apps like glass ceiling ease asking about pay...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 8, 2017)

Sounds like they should file their HR complaint.  The point was, the protest was bullshit, and I was going to chuckle just like the day without immigrants.

You want more money, become an asset.  End Rant.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 8, 2017)

While the healthcare debate is roiling in congress, this cute little piece of legislation was introduced in committee last week:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 8, 2017)

If what was in Ryan's hand was the full plan...it should be simpler to understand as it wasn't 5000 pages.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 8, 2017)

Well to be fair, it's an unbelievably complex subject.  Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated!


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 8, 2017)

Just as long as we don't have to pass it to find out what's in it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Well to be fair, it's an unbelievably complex subject.  Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated!


Well...I mean...look at how many regulations are in Military Service...


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Well to be fair, it's an unbelievably complex subject.  Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated!


Anyone claiming to be the preeminent subject matter expert on healthcare is an absolute idiot.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 8, 2017)

I'm sure there are people out there. They're just not in politics.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 8, 2017)




----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 8, 2017)

AWP said:


> 20 years ago a man could enter an RN program with a GPA considerably lower than a woman because it is a female-dominated profession. Now? No idea, but there's no way every job is looking at a resume except for a name and some basic quals.



The teaching profession was heavily staffed with females, and the salary was what it was pre WW II. When men began populating the teaching profession, as the primary bread winner, teaching salaries began to rise. The same salary rise came to the Nursing profession in the late 50s/early 60s. Today. Nurses can pull down six figures, depending on where you work, and who you work for. The need for Nurses today is at a critical shortage point. All the post WW II baby boomers are living longer, and in need of health care. The salary cap for Nurses is approaching, but right now it is the field to go into, male or female. The salary rise now is driven by the Nursing shortage, more than the influx of male primary bread winners. 

My $.02.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 9, 2017)

Math..it doesn't always add up.....


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 9, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Math..it doesn't always add up.....
> 
> View attachment 18223



There are a lot of wasted brains out there.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 9, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> There are a lot of wasted brains out there.



I blame the increase in life expectancy and not enough culled from the herd.  These morons wouldn't last a week...


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 9, 2017)

Social media =  wasted brains


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 9, 2017)

So...this happened in Alexandria, Virginia.  Alexandria Public Schools cancelled school on Monday night for Wednesday's session due to the high volume of requests for time off.  If I were in that district the next school board meeting would be awesome.  15,000 students were unable to attend school because these folks just didn't feel like doing their job.  That's a fireable offense in my book.

Multiple Sources: Alexandria Schools to Close on 'Day Without a Woman'

Women's March Organizers Call for 'A Day Without a Woman'

Alexandria schools to close Wednesday during 'Day Without a Woman'

Readers React To 'Day Without Women' Alexandria School Closures

Awesome analysis from Politico-

How ‘A Day Without a Woman’ Could Backfire
"Rather, a group of teachers decided they’d rather engage in political protest than do their jobs, shutting down the entire school system and leaving working moms and dads scrambling to make arrangements."​


----------



## Viper1 (Mar 10, 2017)

Knock it Off and Get to Work: Four Problems Bigger Than Partisan Politics.

My latest take on the constant rage going on.


----------



## CDG (Mar 10, 2017)

What the fuck?  At first I thought this must be a satire piece, but I don't know if T&P does satire.  So I looked it up, and it's a real story.

Lt Gen Flynn Confirms He Was A Foreign Agent During The 2016 Campaign

White House says Trump was unaware of Michael Flynn's foreign agent work


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 10, 2017)

CDG said:


> What the fuck?  At first I thought this must be a satire piece, but I don't know if T&P does satire.  So I looked it up, and it's a real story.
> 
> Lt Gen Flynn Confirms He Was A Foreign Agent During The 2016 Campaign
> 
> White House says Trump was unaware of Michael Flynn's foreign agent work



They sure did a bang up job of vetting..


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 10, 2017)

"retroactively registered as an overseas lobbyist "

WTF?  retroactively registering?  what a tool.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 10, 2017)

Task and Purpose is garbage.  I can't wait for that thing to fail.

However, the CBS piece TL,DR...that is epic, holy moly. 

Jon Huntsman said to be the guy for the Russian Ambassador job: Huntsman Is the Perfect Ambassador to Russia, and the Anti-Trump

Interesting choice.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 10, 2017)

Yo Spicer...shut up: White House's Spicer calls Flynn's foreign agent work a 'personal matter,' not 'a business matter'


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 10, 2017)

Those phony job reports are real now according to the President....

Analysis | One answer in Sean Spicer’s briefing sums up the White House’s credibility problem


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 10, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Those phony job reports are real now according to the President....
> 
> Analysis | One answer in Sean Spicer’s briefing sums up the White House’s credibility problem


Hey! The best part of that clip was the self-deprecating "Don't make me make the podium move" comment! Spicy FTW.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 11, 2017)

Note to self.

If my servants hire servants, be sure to check on their immigration status as well.  

I mean Chaz Bono hardly qualifies as "Hollywood Elite", but here is just another example of how out of touch these people are  <still>.

My favorite part being that she tweeted the Gov asking, "what are you doing about this?"  Bwahahaha!

Chaz Bono Bemoans That ICE Arrested Her “Housekeeper’s Helper” | Weasel Zippers


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 11, 2017)

I thought this article was a pretty good analysis of the media in 2016 for the election, but I couldn't help but giggle with the Anti-Trump Article front and center above it: There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 12, 2017)

I read and shared that article as well.  There was an Acura ad above the article when I checked it just now, that and the anti-Trump one you saw are probably part of a rotating package of ads built around likely interests of the regular readers.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 12, 2017)

Some nice Sunday morning reading: I Had Dinner With the Afghan Ambassador. What He Said About the Differences Between Trump, Obama Is Stunning

"Trump would listen intently after each question, often asking follow-ups. Trump's second call with our president was even longer than the first. Asking these types of questions for our country is something the Obama administration never did. The Obama administration was the most academic administration we have ever had to deal with but the Trump administration has been the most thoughtful and intelligent." - Dr Hamdullah Mohib, just a snippet from the quotes of the Afghan Ambassador's Q&A session.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 12, 2017)

I loved this piece this morning:

They are poor, sick and voted for Trump. What will happen to them without Obamacare?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 12, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Way to go, Canada!     :-"
> 
> Eight people flee border patrol to seek asylum in Canada | Daily Mail Online
> 
> ...


 


They just keep coming...and coming...and coming...pretty soon France is going ask us to send the Statue of Liberty to you guys!

The border town where immigrants are creeping into Canada | Daily Mail Online

 
@RackMaster


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 12, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> View attachment 18252
> 
> They just keep coming...and coming...and coming...pretty soon France is going ask us to send the Statue of Liberty to you guys!
> 
> ...



It's getting out of control, there's been over 2300 since Jan 1 and most have legit US Visa's that were issued in Riyadh.  Many making the crossing within days of arriving in the US.  In Manitoba alone, there's over a dozen caught that are now in prison due to their criminal record and threat to the public.  That's just the ones caught.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 12, 2017)

Sorry Canada....:-"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 13, 2017)

Here we go: Trump budget expected to seek historic contraction of federal workforce


----------



## compforce (Mar 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Here we go: Trump budget expected to seek historic contraction of federal workforce



yup...



			
				I said:
			
		

> Trump will necessarily bring fiscal discipline and Government reduction to the table. That's all he knows, and all he needs to know. His advisors can fill in the gaps just like everyone else's. The difference is that he will listen to his.



2016 Presidential Race


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 13, 2017)

One positive note from all of this: Small business owners are more confident now than they were under the Obama administration



> TOLEDO, Ohio — The cream of the small-business community here tucked into their lunch on a top floor of a bank building and pondered the question put to them by their local lender’s economist.
> 
> More than any other president since Ronald Reagan, President Trump is moving to strip away regulations and slash taxes, said Jeffrey Korzenik, an investment strategist with Fifth Third, a large regional bank in the Midwest and Southeast. In meetings with clients, Mr. Korzenik has been making the case that these policies will rouse the slumbering animal spirits in businesses across America.
> 
> ...



It's good to see that business confidence is up, though I wonder (and the article correctly points this out) if the country will be able to achieve the kind of economic growth that the president wants now that the fed is planning to raise interest rates.  Certainly we're going to experience growth, but it will be more difficult to borrow money in the long term.


----------



## compforce (Mar 13, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Certainly we're going to experience growth, but it will be more difficult to borrow money in the long term.



It can't be more difficult.  With an 800+ credit score (out of 850), high revenue, positive cash flow and a perfect payment history, I couldn't/can't take a small business loan without taking a second mortgage or paying usury rates to one bank in Utah for a line of credit (that decreases if your cash flow decreases, but never goes back up).  The best that I could find over two years of searching was a business credit card with a $5k limit.  In businesses under $50M (revenue), and most over $50M, money comes from equity investment not banks.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 13, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> View attachment 18252
> 
> They just keep coming...and coming...and coming...pretty soon France is going ask us to send the Statue of Liberty to you guys!
> 
> ...




Adios motherfuckers.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 13, 2017)

CNBC anchor to a guest: "How unprecedented is this, that members of the Trump Administration, during the campaign, were meeting with the ambassador of a _*hostile foreign nation*_?"

He meant Russia. You know, the country with whom we share a space station. The country who supposedly is an ally of ours in the fight against ISIS. Since when did Russia become a hostile foreign nation? Since Trump got elected. My question is, where were all these vehemently anti-Russian Leftist bastards when we were actually fighting Soviet and Chicom-backed proxy wars? They were waving Viet Cong flags, hanging up Che posters in their dorm rooms, quoting Marxist dogma...


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 13, 2017)

Yepp.....


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 13, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Yepp.....
> 
> View attachment 18259



I been wondering lately if "Liberals" in the West were finally infiltrated by the Communists and now we are dealing with that.  But since the Wall fell, Russia has gone to the other side of the pendulum and the infiltrators are pissed.  Here in Canada, our Liberals openly admit their Marxist leanings and it shows with our current Prime Minister who openly admitted his admiration for the "Basic Dictatorship" of China.  His father was openly a Communist sympathizer and spent a lot of time in China.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 14, 2017)

And there you go: Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch

ETA: Now I've read the whole thing.  It's straight forward and simple, Director of OMB in conjunction with each Department Secretary will identify redundancies that can be eliminated.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 14, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> And there you go: Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch



Thanks for posting that, I hadn't seen it yet.  Will be interesting to see how it works out.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 15, 2017)

compforce said:


> It can't be more difficult.  With an 800+ credit score (out of 850), high revenue, positive cash flow and a perfect payment history, I couldn't/can't take a small business loan without taking a second mortgage or paying usury rates to one bank in Utah for a line of credit (that decreases if your cash flow decreases, but never goes back up).  The best that I could find over two years of searching was a business credit card with a $5k limit.  In businesses under $50M (revenue), and most over $50M, money comes from equity investment not banks.




I'm looking at starting my own business trucking. I'm looking at 20% down and 20% interest for my first truck, even used.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 15, 2017)

That seems pricey as hell.  20% interest??? Who's giving you a loan, a credit card company?  Damn.  

for anyone:  Are there still programs out there that give grants/microloans to vets seeking to start small businesses?


----------



## compforce (Mar 15, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> That seems pricey as hell.  20% interest??? Who's giving you a loan, a credit card company?  Damn.
> 
> for anyone:  Are there still programs out there that give grants/microloans to vets seeking to start small businesses?



SBA Microloan program - Microloan Program  | The U.S. Small Business Administration | SBA.gov

There is the SBA Express Program, up to 350,000 - SBA Express | The U.S. Small Business Administration | SBA.gov  which has the fees waived for veterans Loan Fees Waived For Veterans Who Use SBA Express - Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization   Easy to get if it's under $50k (non-qualified).  A little more difficult over $50k

I have one through Crossroads Small Business Solutions (Crossroads Small Business Solutions - Crossroads)  if you need $25k or less I highly recommend them.  Ask about the Patriot Express program whichever bank you choose to work with.  Here's some info on the program - Patriot Express Veterans Small Business Loans - dummies


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 15, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> I'm looking at starting my own business trucking. I'm looking at 20% down and 20% interest for my first truck, even used.



You can almost live in some of the big rigs these days. The first boat I had an alcohol stove, small sink with a hand pump water supply, a porta potty and could sleep four comfortably in the cabin. If I wanted to do it, I could have taken out a 30 mortgage on the dam thing. While not as big, the rigs today are nearly as livable. The interest rate of 20% is outrageous. Take out a mortgage on it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 15, 2017)

Mattis is all about some climate change;

Trump’s Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as National Security Challenge


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 15, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Mattis is all about some climate change;
> 
> Trump’s Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as National Security Challenge



Fucking liberal snowflake


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 15, 2017)

Activist judges continuing to allow states to sue for stays against immigration policy: 
Trump’s Second Travel Ban Is Blocked by U.S. Judge


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Activist judges continuing to allow states to sue for stays against immigration policy:
> Trump’s Second Travel Ban Is Blocked by U.S. Judge


Pesky separation of powers...


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 15, 2017)

Interesting.  It would seem to me that this type of ban is squarely within the President's powers under the Constitution, even though I think it's unnecessary and counterproductive.  Might need the Supreme Court to weigh in on this one.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 16, 2017)

*/discussion digression start*



Marauder06 said:


> That seems pricey as hell.  20% interest??? Who's giving you a loan, a credit card company?  Damn.
> 
> for anyone:  Are there still programs out there that give grants/microloans to vets seeking to start small businesses?



We're talking trucks that when new range upwards of $100,000, and can go all the way to over a quarter million dollars depending on configuration and intent for working the equipment. Nevermind trailers, which end up starting used good condition at $25,000 and depending on configuration and intended use, can also range into the "dear mother of..." territory easily. 

The challenge is that it's transportation industry, and also in that I intend to be leasing my truck and myself on to an existing company (Landstar most likely, although I have 4 friends who have recently gone to a company called Traveloko and are doing very well there). While I will be functionally in business for myself IE doing the freight runs I choose from the options they have available, most likely I will not be immediately "hanging my own shingle" on the freight market with my own DOT numbers, business name, etc. As such, I'm in a grey area and effectively am on my own for my first purchase.

There's additional overhead and headache with running your own DOT numbers though, plus the whole Net 30+ game with regards to payment.  As long as I'm getting paid what I feel I and my provided services are worth, I give a shit who's company name is on the door. Hell, I'd pull for Swi... ok I can't say that with a straight face.... but you get my drift.

It also doesn't help that most small business things period are focused around brick-and-mortar businesses. I have no need for that expense as my truck (and trailer, when I purchase my own down the road) will be parked at my mom's house where my stepdad used to park his RV. I don't need an office to do business trucking, I really literally only need a file cabinet at the house, and a printer/scanner plus laptop in the truck. State level SBA's as well as federal seem to all ask about how many jobs your business is going to create.  Unless I'm suddenly good in their eyes for say 3 mil, I'm not starting my own fleet of trucks.  I may at a later point, but right now my first and primary step is to tap into the market with a larger faucet than the drip irrigation line I currently have as a company employee.

Example of what I'm talking about with that last bit:

Freight load of 20,000 lbs offered at $2 a mile for a 1000 mile load.
$.64 a mile "Truck with engine running" cost, includes fuel, fuel tax escrow, maintenance/repairs escrow
$100 a day just to own the truck, in terms of insurance, payments, etc

2 day trip, so $840 total cost to run the load. Net income, $1.16, or $1,160 for two days work before the IRS gets it's take versus my say for per diem, etc.

Right now, I get $0.38 a mile as a company driver doing over the road trucking. That same 1000 mile load earns me $380. 

The truck costs the same to run, if not cheaper for the corporation as they get bulk pricing for the equipment (and it's shit tier fleet spec for bigger companies, bare minimum to just go down the road and make money vs having my own rig and creature comforts) self insure since they've got the dosh, etc etc... so $780 of that load goes to paying all of the corporate goons who basically make less of a benefit and more of a hassle towards operation with regards to my perspective as the operator, and profit to shareholders.

I want that extra $780. I do the same f'ing job, minus having my own name on a title.  Why not take the step towards having a little bit more skin in the game, and get that paper?



compforce said:


> SBA Microloan program - Microloan Program  | The U.S. Small Business Administration | SBA.gov
> 
> There is the SBA Express Program, up to 350,000 - SBA Express | The U.S. Small Business Administration | SBA.gov  which has the fees waived for veterans Loan Fees Waived For Veterans Who Use SBA Express - Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization   Easy to get if it's under $50k (non-qualified).  A little more difficult over $50k
> 
> I have one through Crossroads Small Business Solutions (Crossroads Small Business Solutions - Crossroads)  if you need $25k or less I highly recommend them.  Ask about the Patriot Express program whichever bank you choose to work with.  Here's some info on the program - Patriot Express Veterans Small Business Loans - dummies



These would be an option if I go whole hog and get my own DOT numbers, however there are some benefits with being an lease operator versus full owner operator when it comes to trucking. I'm willing to minimally reduce gross income by pawning off some of the back-office bullshit to someone else, as that's basically what you're doing by being a lease operator in this industry. I am still new to the game, and having a knowledge/client base to draw on from an established company is a good thing. It's like being a subcontractor to a major defense contractor. They get a cut because they're the big dog and know the in's and out's of dealing with the market as it is, but you still make good money providing your piece of the pie.



Red Flag 1 said:


> You can almost live in some of the big rigs these days. The first boat I had an alcohol stove, small sink with a hand pump water supply, a porta potty and could sleep four comfortably in the cabin. If I wanted to do it, I could have taken out a 30 mortgage on the dam thing. While not as big, the rigs today are nearly as livable. The interest rate of 20% is outrageous. Take out a mortgage on it.



I live in my truck every day I'm not at home, which was over the last 30 days.... 26 days, with it not being a straight 29 (This is my first real day home/off since the beginning of February) solely due to lucking out with a load heading from Oregon to California that routed past my house. 80 over the Sierra Nevada's was closed completely to trucks 2 weeks ago due to heavy snowfall, and I simply took a 15 mile detour to park the truck at the truckstop in town and slept/ate at home while waiting for the pass to open.  Since I was dispatched for the duration, it didn't count as actual "Home Time" in the system so I got to come home yesterday for the next few days, officially.  My phone is on divert to voice mail for any work number until Friday, at which point I will address anything that came up.

The major issue with creature comforts and trucking is that you can't go over 80,000 lbs gross with general freight. That means that your truck, trailer, and cargo cannot exceed 80,000 lbs. Basically, the more creature comforts you have, the more the tractor weighs... The more your combination hauling freight weighs, the less freight you can move in one shot, which limits your loads you can take, and your overall viability and profitability in the long run.

Now, there's a flipside, since most stupid heavy loads actually don't pay well. Beer and Paper, being two prime examples.  Anheuser-Busch will literally load you within 100 lbs of maximum gross weight for a delivery, so you have to make sure you have 3/4 tank of fuel BEFORE you show up so you can actually make any headway. They don't even pay any more if you're loaded to the gills and show up with say 1/4 tank (50 gallons or so) so the PITA of having to fuel every 200 miles or less, repeatedly, to make headway, just adds in insult to injury due to the low rates of those loads.  Nevermind the accompanying decrease in economy of operation as your MPG suffers when you're loaded for bear, and that affects the bottom line.

You can't take a mortgage out, or mortgage duration. 3-5 years is what you're usually looking at for what could be a $150,000 piece of equipment.

*/discussion digression end*


----------



## CDG (Mar 16, 2017)

I agree with this article.  I know the right is guilty of things as well.  However, I just do not see the two sides as having equal reactions.  The left has been more vitriolic about President Trump than the right was about President Obama, IMHO.  The left also was much quicker, and more severe, in its criticism of conservatives making disparaging or threatening comments.  The inverse has not been true since President Trump won the election.  Both sides need to cut the shit and start figuring out how to work together, but at this point the left is more in the wrong with the constant violence and threats of violence.

Violent threats against the president are OK now?

ETA:  Now they're threatening Melania.  Classy.  Bow Wow threatens to “pimp” Melania Trump and “make her work for us” | Atlanta Buzz with Jennifer Brett


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 16, 2017)

Democrats calling the Trump Budget plan a "Hatchet Job"No. 2 House Democrat says Trump's budget blueprint is a 'hatchet job' that's DOA


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 16, 2017)

Trump's Proposed Budget and a list of Federal impacts:
What's getting cut in Trump's budget

The article above is does a great job of providing an easy to read, comprehensive review of the changes but here is a condensed list from McNews as well:

The 62 agencies and programs Trump wants to eliminate


> Trump's budget says hundreds of programs and agencies would be eliminated — with more than 50 in the Environmental Protection Agency. But his first budget proposal identified 62 specifically. The list:
> 
> *Department of Agriculture*
> *Water and Wastewater loan and grant program *($498 million): "Rural communities can be served by private sector financing or other federal investments in rural water infrastructure, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's State Revolving Funds," the budget says.
> ...



I have to say, that while everyone will find something to disagree with from the list (a sign that it's equally offensive), overall there are some gutsy moves in the right direction.  We'll see how much actually comes to fruition.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 16, 2017)




----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 16, 2017)

National Endowmnet for the Humanities funds Warrior Scholar. Glad they are getting the axe...


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 16, 2017)

What's Warrior Scholar?


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 16, 2017)

The Atlantic ran an article today on how sequestration will make the Trump administration budget very difficult to pass (the article actually said impossible - but some possible ways were highlighted in it).  I found it very convincing: Trump's Budget Can't Survive Sequestration


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 16, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> What's Warrior Scholar?



The Warrior Scholar Project...


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 16, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> What's Warrior Scholar?


 x 1000


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 16, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> The Atlantic ran an article today on how sequestration will make the Trump administration budget very difficult to pass (the article actually said impossible - but some possible ways were highlighted in it).  I found it very convincing: Trump's Budget Can't Survive Sequestration


Sequestration literally did nothing to solve problems.  At least Trump is attempting to solve problems by cutting them out like cancer.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 17, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> x 1000



Sorry, should have said "which Warrior-Scholar."  There are like eight different things going on under a similar name.


----------



## Poccington (Mar 17, 2017)

White House 'will not repeat' allegations that GCHQ spied on Trump

Someone needs to tell Trumps administration to stop digging themselves into a deeper hole with this wiretapping carry on.


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 17, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Sorry, should have said "which Warrior-Scholar."  There are like eight different things going on under a similar name.


And that's the problem with a lot of this stuff.  It's redundant or otherwise covered elsewhere.  Perhaps it technically would go away but the reality is that same/very similar services are or can be provided through other resources.


----------



## Dienekes (Mar 17, 2017)

He can eliminate agencies that receive funding, but he does not control funding, only veto it in a budget bill. I would argue he's putting everything possible on the table so that some of it gets cut rather than going to the table with trimmings and getting a paper towel to suck up the juice. Although I'm pretty sure he can eliminate executive agencies that receive funding or direct their operations so there's a possibility.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 18, 2017)

Another thing POTUS is talking about is privatization of the Air Traffic Control system. I think this is a horrible decision. This would IMO lead to user fees, which would further hamper a decreasing general aviation(GA) community, increase costs for air carriers, and again IMO decrease the professionalism of that community. I have flown out of airports with contracted ATC and they are by and large rider, and less professional than the ones at larger fully governmental ones. 

Look no further than Europe to see what a shitty GA network looks like...

Many do not realize how many jobs GA creates, not only  for future airline pilots, but for mechanics, FBO's, fuelers and many others...


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 18, 2017)

I don't know much about the air traffic control but typically the government does a poor job running business-like activities.  And the aviation industry as a whole seems to have benefitted enormously from privatization and deregulation.  Maybe the ATC will have the same effect.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 18, 2017)

Ah.

Trump and Merkel not shaking hands is a bad thing I know but what is the impact of that? Just looks bad or what?

:-/


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 18, 2017)

ATC isn't and shouldn't be a business like venture. It is critical infrastructure. It shouldn't be in the business of making money. That could lead to a decrease in competency, and a decrease in safety. I am pretty sure we can look at our aviation industry, particularly ATC as an example of something the government does extremely well.

The evidence for this is the amazing safety record of commercial and general aviation in the US.

Here is something that points out how safety could be compromised in a privately run ATC or fee based ATC system.

FAA privatisation – User fees based ATC – First hand experience from Europe | The Online Hangar

Trump Proposes Corporate ATC


----------



## AWP (Mar 18, 2017)

There are some things that just shouldn't be privatized, such as ATC and prisons.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 18, 2017)

AWP said:


> There are some things that just shouldn't be privatized, such as ATC and prisons.



Could not agree more!


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 19, 2017)

The issue with privitizing ATC isn't so much a discussion of who can do it better gov't v. private.  That alone won't necessarily result in user fees.  Rather, in this case, the bigger issue is the speculation as to _*who*_ would make up the private group.  The consensus seems to be that it'd be a board largely made up of and controlled by the airlines, essentially turning control over to them.  It is control by a group such as this that has the GA world concerned about user fees.  But, in theory anyway, there are ways to avoid this and move to a private system.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 19, 2017)

*Donald Trump says Germany owes US and Nato 'vast sums of money' for defence*

Donald Trump demands Germany pays the United States to defend it


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 19, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> The issue with privitizing ATC isn't so much a discussion of who can do it better gov't v. private.  That alone won't necessarily result in user fees.  Rather, in this case, the bigger issue is the speculation as to _*who*_ would make up the private group.  The consensus seems to be that it'd be a board largely made up of and controlled by the airlines, essentially turning control over to them.  It is control by a group such as this that has the GA world concerned about user fees.  But, in theory anyway, there are ways to avoid this and move to a private system.



That's always seemed to me a good insight about privatization/nationalization in general.  It's not just a question of something being run by the government, NGO, or business - it matters a great deal how you set it up, what the incentives are, and what checks/regulations are in place.  I don't know enough about the ATC to have a strong opinion but I'm with @AWP 100% on private prisons.  Everything I've read says this has been disastrous from a cost, justice, and human rights perspective across the board.  I have been reading some about charter schooling and for-profit companies in the education sector.  It seems like there really are a number of charter schools, even for-profit ones, that get great results and are worth the money (especially when compared with states/cities with really entrenched interests that push all costs up like NJ).  But, there are even more - especially in states with business-backed lobbying that gets whatever they want (like FL) - where the charter schools get similar or worse results at higher costs and minimal accountability.

From a philosophical perspective it's the thing that concerns me about the Trump administration, and wider conservative position, on eliminating regulation.  I can certainly believe there are huge inefficiencies, redundancies, and ineffective rules in the government sector.  But, I think there is also clearly a rapacious side to private industry that will fuck you over at high speed whenever given the opportunity.  I'm much more sympathetic in general to someone talking about regulation/oversight reform rather than blanket elimination.  I'd be willing to support conservative candidates who were pushing smaller government/less oversight if they were making a strong case for more effective government and oversight.  To me, that extends to the defense sector as well.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 20, 2017)

Should keep things interesting:

It's Official: The FBI Is Investigating Trump's Links to Russia


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 20, 2017)

Local agencies exacerbating issues: Report Tallies Jailed Undocumented Immigrants Released Despite DHS Requests


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Should keep things interesting:
> 
> It's Official: The FBI Is Investigating Trump's Links to Russia


I have gotten conditioned to a point where I can not WAIT to see how Spicy squares this circle!!! This administration keeps it interesting, I will say that.


----------



## Poccington (Mar 20, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I have gotten conditioned to a point where I can not WAIT to see how Spicy squares this circle!!! This administration keeps it interesting, I will say that.



He has reached Comical Ali levels of ridiculousness.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 20, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I have gotten conditioned to a point where I can not WAIT to see how Spicy squares this circle!!! This administration keeps it interesting, I will say that.



You mean Melissa McCarthy?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 21, 2017)

Creators get's an "A" for propaganda, but from what I can find online, an "F" for facts.

It is not the end of Sesame Street, regardless of whether or not Trump defunds PBS;  in my opinion, this is a perfect example of fake news.  

The comeback will be to "lighten up", it's just satire.  I disagree, the average person will watch this and believe that Sesame Street is going off the air because of Trump and PBS is doomed.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1508594062513878


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Creators get's an "A" for propaganda, but from what I can find online, an "F" for facts.
> 
> It is not the end of Sesame Street, regardless of whether or not Trump defunds PBS;  in my opinion, this is a perfect example of fake news.
> 
> ...



Sesame Street is on HBO


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 21, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Sesame Street is on HBO


Truth.

PBS pays a licensing fee to broadcast shows at the 9 month mark; which is why I am interested to eventually find out who put out the Elmo video.
A jaded person might be willing to believe that PBS or a group with attachments to PBS put out the video to play off of the emotions of people who are not aware of the HBO connection.

B Is for Broke: Why 'Sesame Street' Is Moving to HBO


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 21, 2017)

As 


Ooh-Rah said:


> Truth.
> 
> PBS pays a licensing fee to broadcast shows at the 9 month mark; which is why I am interested to eventually find out who put out the Elmo video.
> A jaded person might be willing to believe that PBS or a group with attachments to PBS put out the video to play off of the emotions of people who are not aware of the HBO connection.
> ...


I understand it, PBS gets the shows for free which took a huge chunk out of their expenses and then get to capitalize by airing in syndication.  Much cheaper than losing money on it every year like they did the three previous seasons.  The deal also doubled the amount of episodes per year, so pretty lucrative for PBS from that perspective.

I will point out that the youtube channel for Sesame Street is one of the most lucrative channels out there...but the revenue sharing there doesn't approach the production budget.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Creators get's an "A" for propaganda, but from what I can find online, an "F" for facts.
> 
> It is not the end of Sesame Street, regardless of whether or not Trump defunds PBS;  in my opinion, this is a perfect example of fake news.
> 
> ...



TV ads have been targeting kids for decades. They push kids to tell parents what cereal to buy, what jeans to buy, you name it, kids have always been targets. This one just seems...........cheap.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 21, 2017)

Maxine Waters.   Who the hell keeps voting for her?  Her YouTube vids are like SNL bits. 

Rep. Maxine Waters veiled threat to Trump: 'Get ready for impeachment'


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 22, 2017)

Maxine Waters is a serious piece of work.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 22, 2017)

Maxine Waters is the last person who should be threatening anybody with impeachment.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 22, 2017)

Brilliant writing by WSJ editorial team.  Difficult to call this publication a tool of the left....

A President’s Credibility

_If President Trump announces that North Korea launched a missile that landed within 100 miles of Hawaii, would most Americans believe him? Would the rest of the world? We’re not sure, which speaks to the damage that Mr. Trump is doing to his Presidency with his seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods._


----------



## CDG (Mar 23, 2017)

The WSJ makes a great point.  Trump came in on the promise of shaking up the status quo in Washington, but he's going about it in entirely the wrong way.  I was not a Trump supporter at any point, although I did think he would make a better POTUS than Hillary Clinton.  He campaigned on "draining the swamp" in Washington.  He is going about it the wrong way though.  Despite the power that comes with the office of the POTUS, the person holding that office has GOT to have some measure of credibility.  He is quickly burning through that.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 23, 2017)

Schumer has announced he will vote no for Gorsuch.  And McCain is doing McCain things.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 23, 2017)

It will be interesting to see if McConnell exercises the nuclear option as he has threatened to. 

Also, stay tuned for the house vote on AHCA today.

ETA: Apparently there will not be a vote today: No deal on health care bill after conservatives meet with Trump


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 23, 2017)

This administration man...Rick Perry says Texas A&M's election of gay student body president was rigged


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 23, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> It will be interesting to see if McConnell exercises the nuclear option as he has threatened to.
> 
> Also, stay tuned for the house vote on AHCA today.



Yeah, I think the Trumpcare voting is going to be very interesting - through the whole process.  Republicans are really struggling on the moderate and freedom caucus ends of the party with the content of Trumpcare with opposite pressures.  Because of the make-up of the house the freedom caucus has the power - likely pushing the bill to the right - but the opposite is the case in the Senate meaning even if it passes the house there's going to be some serious wrangling going on in committee.

Will be interesting to see the judgment of Republicans individually and collectively.  The individual pressures will likely push against passage but collectively they've got to realize failing to pass President Trump's first major policy initiative (not to mention the thing they've been campaigning on for 7 years) will be a massive blow to the ability of the Trump administration - or congress - to get their agenda passed.  I think tax reform would be tough to do if you can't do Obamacare repeal - much less all the tougher stuff like infrastructure, immigration and government reform.

I think if Trumpcare becomes law - even substantially modified - we've got to start admitting that President Trump's business or other experience did translate into an ability to get things done.  That's hard shit to pass in any administration - even if there are other circumstances impacting choices legislators are making.  But, if he is unable to get it through I think people have got to start considering that maybe all that 'outside government' stuff is a lot better in theory than in practice in terms of effectiveness.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 23, 2017)

Didn't pass...


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 23, 2017)

Didn't even get up for vote (nor should it).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 23, 2017)

I haven't seen the projections for insurance under the ACA for 2018, but 2017 was bad if you didn't have an employer based program here in Arizona.  It needs to go.


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 23, 2017)

I thought the Time cover story on the President's truthfulness was very well done: Can President Trump Handle the Truth?

It's a topic that's very hard not to moralize about and condemn but the author did a good job of just trying to lay out the facts in context.


----------



## Poccington (Mar 24, 2017)

The vote to repeal Obamacare has been postponed indefinitely.


----------



## Poccington (Mar 24, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Schumer has announced he will vote no for Gorsuch.  And McCain is doing McCain things.



What has happened with Gorsuch?

When he was first announced, everything I read seemed to indicate that he was an appointment that would actually be easy enough to swallow for Democrats. All of a sudden it seems they've decided to kick off over it?


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 24, 2017)

Poccington said:


> The vote to repeal Obamacare has been postponed indefinitely.



Probably a smart move for the President and Republicans - all things considered.  It preserves at least a little room for the President to pretend this isn't a major policy failure and doesn't force congressmen to go on record with a vote that was likely going to hurt them in 2018 whichever way they went (some congressmen, not all).


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 24, 2017)

Poccington said:


> What has happened with Gorsuch?
> 
> When he was first announced, everything I read seemed to indicate that he was an appointment that would actually be easy enough to swallow for Democrats. All of a sudden it seems they've decided to kick off over it?



It's the sky-high negative polling for President Trump amongst Democrats.  The party has a very unfavorable 2018 senate map - with something like 24 of 33 seats in Democratic hands and at least a dozen in states that went for President Trump in 2016 (my numbers could be off - I haven't checked them - but I think the principle of more D senate seats in danger than R seats in the 2018 election year).  So, senate Democrats see the massive anger in the party at President Trump and see compromise or bi-partisanship as something that will be poison to their base.  Means it's tough for them to support even reasonable Trump administration appointments.

To be fair, Judge Gorsuch is a very conservative jurist.  His views and decisions would go against most modern liberal principles - but, he is qualified for the post so in a reasonable, bi-partisan structure he should receive at least an up-or-down vote.  The view dominating the Democratic party is that Judge Garland was in the same boat - and the Republicans said 'fuck you' on that one so Democrats shouldn't roll over for Gorsuch.

I think, like a lot of politics, it's smart in the short-term but disastrous in the long-term for Democrats to oppose him.  It's going to build support amongst Republicans to kill the filibuster - which will decimate the ability of the minority party to oppose majority policy.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 24, 2017)

Gorsuch will be confirmed.  If you watched any of the confirmation hearing the Feinstein and Franken need to gtfo the Senate.  Total pieces of crap.  Here's some good stuff:


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 24, 2017)

Poccington said:


> What has happened with Gorsuch?
> 
> When he was first announced, everything I read seemed to indicate that he was an appointment that would actually be easy enough to swallow for Democrats. All of a sudden it seems they've decided to kick off over it?


He's certainly qualified, but as @Il Duce pointed out he's a pretty strict textualist in the same vein as Samuel Alito.  Beyond that, they're mostly opposing him because senate republicans stonewalled Obama's SCOTUS nominee last year.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 24, 2017)

Uh...wtf:
Senator Bob Menendez on Twitter


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 24, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Uh...wtf:
> Senator Bob Menendez on Twitter



One of the worst things about stupid commentary like that from politicians is that it's not even original.

"Ooooooh sick burn bro!  Too bad Jimmy Fallon was making those jokes back in 2014... about President Obama."


----------



## Grunt (Mar 24, 2017)

I am completely sick and tired of the entire House and Senate. It's Romper Room at its finest. A bunch of "old" adolescents who play kid games and get benefits for it. How about acting like humans and adults and vote for the best person regardless of whether they have a D, R, or I next to their name. How about put the electorate before your childish punk antics for once. Bunch of kids....


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I am completely sick and tired of the entire House and Senate. It's Romper Room at its finest. A bunch of "old" adolescents who play kid games and get benefits for it. How about acting like humans and adults and vote for the best person regardless of whether they have a D, R, or I next to their name. How about put the electorate before your childish punk antics for once. Bunch of kids....



Yeah that would have been great for the year that Obamas nominee sat around...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 24, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah that would have been great for the year that Obamas nominee sat around...


What's your point?  To continue the BS?  Cool, that doesn't help.  Gorsuch should have been one of the first people confirmed, because his bonafides are up there with some of the best.  DeVos should have been stopped.  But again, we're not about governance anymore it seems.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 24, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah that would have been great for the year that Obamas nominee sat around...



Not sure if you are in agreement or not, but I am one of those guys that deal with the hand that was dealt me. Vote up or down and let the dice fall where they may. I simply hate when the "game" of politics wins over the needs of the electorate. I didn't agree with what they did with Obama either.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> What's your point?  To continue the BS?  Cool, that doesn't help.  Gorsuch should have been one of the first people confirmed, because his bonafides are up there with some of the best.  DeVos should have been stopped.  But again, we're not about governance anymore it seems.



My point is that no one was bitching then. Getting the smallest dose of your own medicine shouldn't be surprising.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 24, 2017)

Agoge said:


> Not sure if you are in agreement or not, but I am one of those guys that deal with the hand that was dealt me. Vote up or down and let the dice fall where they may. I simply hate when the "game" of politics wins over the needs of the electorate. I didn't agree with what they did with Obama either.



I agree with you. Seeing the gnashing of teeth and bitching just starting up now is funny to me though. Very much a double standard.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 24, 2017)

Merrick Garland was specifically chosen to pass a Republican Senate.  So yeah, it was stupid.  I and my girlfriend thought he was a good choice...but here is what I said then:



ThunderHorse said:


> My girlfriend says Merrick Garland was a wise choice by Obama, but wondering if he's just the shock troops and will be sent back full of holes for only Obama to nominate someone as bad as Kagan who will make it through because the Republicans will have used all of their political capital on Garland.



I've been bitching about this crap for a long time, maybe we should allow them to physically accost each other since we already know that the Democrats will violate the standards of discourse within the Senate.  At least then it will be entertaining.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 24, 2017)

Maybe we need out politicians to me more physical...how awesome would that be.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 24, 2017)

Pretty disheartening that reports seem to indicate President Trump will be retiring to Mar a Lago yet again this weekend. I am aware work can be done everywhere, but I seem to remember someone being very upset at President Obama's golf/vacation schedule. 

Shouldnt the great businessman be trying to get the votes he needs (from his own party no less) for his healthcare bid this weekend, in DC? And why is he mad at Jared Kushner for going skiing instead of working?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 24, 2017)

I don't get the point.  Bush was attacked for how much "vacation" he took, so was Obama.  You know what, Eisenhower spent an insane amount of time at Augusta and the country didn't get bombed by the Soviets.


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 24, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I don't get the point.  Bush was attacked for how much "vacation" he took, so was Obama.  You know what, Eisenhower spent an insane amount of time at Augusta and the country didn't get bombed by the Soviets.



I think the point is it was President Trump personally who consistently attacked President Obama for taking vacations and playing golf - and on at least one occasion that I recall as candidate Trump he said he wouldn't take vacations as President as there was too much work to be done.  Now, 64 days in President Trump has taken more vacation, played more golf, and set a higher presidential security spending rate than any of his predecessors.

A particularly glaring case of chutzpah, even for him.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 24, 2017)

Sadly, that's where we are today.  But we wouldn't be here if the DNC would have backed Webb.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 24, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I don't get the point.  Bush was attacked for how much "vacation" he took, so was Obama.  You know what, Eisenhower spent an insane amount of time at Augusta and the country didn't get bombed by the Soviets.




President Trump promised he'd replace Obamacare 'immediately' and 'on his first day in office'.

He didn't get his way, threatened his own party with retributions for voting against him, threatened that this would be 'the only shot' we had at replacing Obamacare, and when he failed in spectacular fashion, he whined like a baby and retreated to his multimillion dollar resort.

But yeah, other than that, he and Eisenhower have a lot in common.

Your comparison is laughable, sir.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 25, 2017)

Cool story and meme bro.  You're a part of the problem.  There are standards of discourse that are expected of those we elect.

Trump doesn't meet those and pretty much all of the Congress doesn't but Mark Twain knew that 150 years ago, which says how much the electorate hasn't changed.  I personally find it hilarious how much we here get our skivvies in a bunch. 

As far as this being Ryan's only chance at passing Healthcare reform...we're in March, two months into this administration.  I think we got plenty of time, but I guess I'll move to a state where my premiums don't double again.

Actually Eisenhower and Trump are quite similar in their personal habits, golf and infidelity.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 25, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I don't get the point. Bush was attacked for how much "vacation" he took, so was Obama. You know what, Eisenhower spent an insane amount of time at Augusta and the country didn't get bombed by the Soviets.



The point (in my humble opinion) is that comparing anything to what was done in the past, and then using that history to justify a behavior is wrong.  To quote a classic, "If you do what you always did, you'll get what you always got."



ThunderHorse said:


> Cool story and meme bro. You're a part of the problem. There are standards of discourse that are expected of those we elect.
> 
> Trump doesn't meet those and pretty much all of the Congress doesn't but Mark Twain knew that 150 years ago, which says how much the electorate hasn't changed. I personally find it hilarious how much we here get our skivvies in a bunch.



How is @amlove21 part of the problem, (what problem, by the way?)  and what are you talking about with the "standards of discourse" comment?

This fucking site is going to turn me into a liberal yet. :wall:

Signed,

Lib-Rah


----------



## Gunz (Mar 25, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This fucking site is going to turn my into a liberal yet. :wall:
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Lib-Rah




CLASSIFIED/TOP SECRET

Your mission is to proceed up the Nung River in a Navy patrol boat. Pick up @Ooh-Rah 's path at Nu Mung Ba, follow it and learn what you can along the way. When you find Ooh-Rah, infiltrate his team by whatever means available and terminate his command.

"Terminate my bro, Ooh-Rah?"

General Corman: He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field making insane posts about defecting to the Libs.

Civilian: Terminate...with extreme prejudice.

Colonel Lucas: You understand, Captain, that this mission does not exist, nor will it ever exist...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 25, 2017)

Hate because-

Because coffee out the nose hurts, and now I need to whipe the steering wheel down before I saunter into the gym!

Son of a bitch !

LOL


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 25, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Cool story and meme bro.  You're a part of the problem....
> 
> I personally find it hilarious how much we here get our skivvies in a bunch.
> 
> As far as this being Ryan's only chance at passing Healthcare reform...we're in March, two months into this administration.


I have this affliction where I have to make sense when I talk, so I'm only going to address the snips, not your whole comment. 

I'll assume you mean 'looking at every little thing the President does and hammering him on it' when you say I'm part of the problem. Look, I don't sit around every day and say, 'What's he gonna do today?!' and wring my hands. But this was a YUGE campaign promise and something he talked a gang of shit about and he straight up failed. He sped on the bill/he did it without proper support and planning, and now by all accounts he's just gonna go 'Meh I tried Obamacare is gonna blow up!'- that hurts Americans too. 

I find it funny when people get 'their skivvies in a bunch' too'. Saying, 'This is a failure' isn't getting any skivvies in a bunch. If me saying that causes you to feel the need to rush to the defense of the Oval Office, well, I think we both know who needs to unbunch their unmentionables, eh? 

As for the 'last chance', I was quoting President Trump's words over the last few days. I hope this administration figures it out and actually does what they promised- healthcare for everyone, cheaper than Obamacare covering more Americans.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 25, 2017)

I'm not a fan of Trump....I blame both parties for not preparing good candidates to run our country.

I do like the fact that he is shaking up things, he is the only president who is actually trying to stick to his promises and acting on them...and it's driving everyone crazy.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 25, 2017)

@Kraut783 i like your comment for it's intent, but in practice I don't think that's necessarily true. The rocking chair analogy (used before) comes to mind. 'Lots of motion, no progress.'

He may be 'shaking things up'- but he's doing it in a way that's alienating allies, pissing off his own party, and not producing anything. 

My question would be, 'What is actually getting done?'  Some pep rallies, tough talk and failed policies are all we really have to show more than half way through his 1st 100 days. 

And that doesn't even begin to touch on his administrations legal woes. 

I'm not particularly saying it- but I've gotten a lot of phone calls! Good friend of mine- smart friend- are saying if the FBI is investigating you, you shouldn't be able to be president.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 25, 2017)

True, but it's the only way for both parties to learn it's lesson......if they are even paying attention, we shall see.

Edit: Just to add, the problem isn't just Trump or the president position itself...both houses are a mess....and congress has no limit to the number of terms it can serve.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 25, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> True, but it's the only way for both parties to learn it's lesson......if they are even paying attention, we shall see.
> 
> Edit: Just to add, the problem just isn't just Trump or the president position itself...both houses are a mess....and congress has no limit to the number of terms it can serve.


Yep, fully agree there.


----------



## AWP (Mar 25, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> CLASSIFIED/TOP SECRET
> 
> Your mission is to proceed up the Nung River in a Navy patrol boat. Pick up @Ooh-Rah 's path at Nu Mung Ba, follow it and learn what you can along the way. When you find Ooh-Rah, infiltrate his team by whatever means available and terminate his command.
> 
> ...



A rough calculation of my Bacardi consumption is between 5 servings and "damn." I don't math well so take that for what it blue monkey overcast boobies. With that said, Sell the house. Sell the car. Sell the kids. Find someone else. Forget it. I'm never coming back. Forget it.

Some day this war's gonna' end.

What's the subject again? I need to go ban someone and clear my head.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 25, 2017)

AWP said:


> A rough calculation of my Bacardi consumption is between 5 servings and "damn." I don't math well so take that for what it blue monkey overcast boobies. With that said, Sell the house. Sell the car. Sell the kids. Find someone else. Forget it. I'm never coming back. Forget it.
> 
> Some day this war's gonna' end.
> 
> What's the subject again? I need to go ban someone and clear my head.



I like Bushmills.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 25, 2017)

AWP said:


> A rough calculation of my Bacardi consumption is between 5 servings and "damn." I don't math well so take that for what it blue monkey overcast boobies. With that said, Sell the house. Sell the car. Sell the kids. Find someone else. Forget it. I'm never coming back. Forget it.
> 
> Some day this war's gonna' end.
> 
> What's the subject again? I need to go ban someone and clear my head.



Bacardigate...........:-"


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 26, 2017)

Trump taps Kushner to lead a SWAT team to fix government with business ideas

This is the sort of thing I could normally support.  Although I think the business/government differences make it impossible to run the government 'like a business' there is a huge amount of room for efficiency and improvement in government in general.  Congress is one of the worst sources for efficiency in operation so I would think an aggressive executive branch focused on this could make some serious headway - especially a team with direct access and support from the President.

However, even after just 65 days I don't trust this administration to make anything but a mess of this.  To my mind they've demonstrated their priorities as cutting regulation to maximize corporate profit and minimize corporate oversight/accountability.  Combined with this administration's penchant for constant lying - even about shit they don't need to lie about - it just seems like this thing will lack the two most important elements in reforming organizations: the right priorities and a high level of trust/credibility.

I hope I'm wrong though.  It would be nice to get some good governance out of this administration somewhere instead of 4 years of vitriol and decline as partisans fight everything out.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 27, 2017)

This stuff just gets more Random...Nunes met with source for Trump monitoring claim at White House


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 27, 2017)

This is another area I think the Trump administration could score a win in, but I suspect they won't: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/..._th_20170327&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=41336949

Conservatives hate the IRS as it represents everything they hate about 'big government.'  But, to me, it's a case were ideology works against them in a very practical sense.  On immigration and gun laws we hear a consistent conservative refrain of 'enforce laws on the books' before enacting new laws.  I can't understand why the same shouldn't be true of the IRS.  The article quotes the statistic (which I've seen other places) that every $1 invested in the IRS returns $4 to the government - it's $10 if the $1 is spent on enforcement.  The current estimate is $450 Billion dollars in uncollected taxes - not to mention the millions/billions of productivity lost to taxpayers due to scams and frauds the IRS helps enforce against.

The Trump administration - with it's populist message and lack of ties to conservative orthodoxy - is in a great position to say 'yeah, this is a good investment - I'm going to decrease the deficit by 80% by just beefing up the IRS and collecting the taxes we're owed.'

I don't think they'll do it, but it would be a very smart move.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 27, 2017)

To be honest, I didn't know this was already an enforced thing.  Loretta didn't really talk about it: Sanctuary Cities to Be Barred From Justice Department Funds, Sessions Says


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 27, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> This stuff just gets more Random...Nunes met with source for Trump monitoring claim at White House


Nunes is a total clown and should've recused himself from this investigation weeks ago.  I mean, seriously?  You have a guy who was part of the leadership for the Trump transition team investigating the Trump administration?  That is absolutely asinine and presents a giant, glaring conflict of interest.  And in light of all this it makes perfect sense that he's doing all of this weird shit with the investigation in the past week.


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 27, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Nunes is a total clown and should've recused himself from this investigation weeks ago.  I mean, seriously?  You have a guy who was part of the leadership for the Trump transition team investigating the Trump administration?  That is absolutely asinine and presents a giant, glaring conflict of interest.  And in light of all this it makes perfect sense that he's doing all of this weird shit with the investigation in the past week.



I thought at first Congressman Nunes would be alright.  Sure, he's a partisan guy who wants President Trump to be exonerated and/or the charges to go away - but I think that's going to be common amongst just about anyone in congress.  Members on both sides of the aisle by-and-large are going to be angling for the best case for their party.  However, you assume some level of scruples and/or unwillingness to show yourself a complete hack.  Congressman Gowdy struggled with it on Benghazi and I think you saw some glimmers of it in the torture investigations in the house.  But in this case, I agree with you.  Congressman Nunes seems committed to nothing but covering for the President.

The crazy thing is, even as someone who tends to think pretty poorly of this President, I don't think this Russia stuff is going to add up to the smoking gun people seem to think.  The only thing that makes it seem so bad is the whitehouse's efforts to continually lie about it and cover things up.  Even if an investigation is able to show close and continuing contacts going back years between the President's close advisors and Kremlin intelligence operatives that's still a far cry from a smoking gun actually proving the President conspired, you're always going to have cutouts and middlemen, even if he knew something.  And in this partisan media environment there are always going to be plenty of people with alternative theories or not believing the ties - there are still people who think OJ is innocent.  I doubt anyone is ever going to produce a tape showing unambiguous collusion - and that's what it would take for impeachment.  President Trump is surrounded by a bunch of unscrupulous cronies who sidled up to and made money off Putin and his allies for years - no shit.  He's also surrounded by folks who have done the same thing with other authoritarian leaders and tons of shady corporate characters - especially from the fossil fuel sector and real estate.  Shit, if you look at the President's record in real estate he might count as one of those shady characters.  Ultimately I just don't see any of that being so out of the blue for his supporters that it's going to change a bunch of votes or party affiliations.  Just my opinion.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 28, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> The crazy thing is, even as someone who tends to think pretty poorly of this President, I don't think this Russia stuff is going to add up to the smoking gun people seem to think.  The only thing that makes it seem so bad is the whitehouse's efforts to continually lie about it and cover things up.  Even if an investigation is able to show close and continuing contacts going back years between the President's close advisors and Kremlin intelligence operatives that's still a far cry from a smoking gun actually proving the President conspired, you're always going to have cutouts and middlemen, even if he knew something.  And in this partisan media environment there are always going to be plenty of people with alternative theories or not believing the ties - there are still people who think OJ is innocent.  I doubt anyone is ever going to produce a tape showing unambiguous collusion - and that's what it would take for impeachment.  President Trump is surrounded by a bunch of unscrupulous cronies who sidled up to and made money off Putin and his allies for years - no shit.  He's also surrounded by folks who have done the same thing with other authoritarian leaders and tons of shady corporate characters - especially from the fossil fuel sector and real estate.  Shit, if you look at the President's record in real estate he might count as one of those shady characters.  Ultimately I just don't see any of that being so out of the blue for his supporters that it's going to change a bunch of votes or party affiliations.  Just my opinion.


Agree on all accounts.  I think it's really unfortunate that the Democrats are getting whipped up for possible impeachment proceedings that are likely not going to happen.  Really, the grand conspiracy that Trump is some kind of Manchurian candidate working for Putin is a total non-starter.  The much more likely explanation, I think, is a more banal conspiracy: Trump was probably trying to cultivate financial interests in Russia, some of which may have been on the very shady side, or needed help fundraising for his campaign and so sought to curry favor with Russian oligarchs.  While probably not illegal, let alone impeachable offenses, a smart electorate *should* look at that and say "Yeah, this guy cannot govern in the best interest of the United States with these financial ties."  Unfortunately what we wanted was a wall and nebulous promises of manufacturing jobs returning to the United States.

What I think *will* happen is that one of his campaign cronies (probably Mike Flynn, or perhaps that psychopath Roger Stone) will flip and testify on Paul Manafort.  Manafort, I think, is going to jail.  Out of everyone in the entire operation, his dealings are the absolute shadiest.  From the absolutely disgusting consulting work he did in Russia way back in 2005, to the corrupt off-the-books dealings he did with Viktor Yanukovych, there's no way that he doesn't get implicated in something.

I do believe, however, that there was at least one person or persons in the Trump campaign who facilitated the DNC and RNC hacking last year.  It probably wasn't directed by the campaign, but as indicated by the unverified intelligence dossier that Christopher Steele released last year, members of the campaign funneled money to the Russian hacker groups purportedly responsible for the hacking.  I just doubt that even if Trump himself were involved in payments to these groups, it's highly unlikely that he would be implicated.

Even if absolutely none of this plays out, I could see some of these guys testifying under oath, and getting a slap on the wrist for perjury.  None of them can keep their stories straight for two seconds.  Really, this is a blessing for Democrats.  The administration is so poorly-run that they trip themselves up without any Democrat involvement whatsoever.  Can you imagine if a Cruz or Rubio had come in with these kinds of financial ties?  You'd get absolutely stonewalled for four years.

ETA: As further evidence of the near-impossibility of impeachment, just look back at the Watergate scandal.  It took over two years, with a Democrat-controlled congress, and Nixon admitting to the cover-up on tape, to finally approve impeachment.  There's no way in hell that Republicans are going to recommend impeachment proceedings, even with provable collusion.


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 28, 2017)

I think those are really good insights.  I think your point on Nixon is further strengthened by the fact it took Republicans to cross over and stop protecting/start going after the President in order for impeachment to be a real possibility.  The only way I see that happening in this climate - even if somebody produces tapes of President Trump murdering someone - is if there is a straight line to VP Pence taking over, which much of the Republican establishment would have preferred in the first place.

I thought this was an excellent article in placing Manafort's activities in context: What Exactly Did Paul Manafort Do Wrong?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 28, 2017)

So I think this goes here, this is from the Phoenix New Times.  Antifa's in brown shirts: 


	
	






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154247224046861
			




Arizona is an open carry state, I don't carry often unless I'm out in the desert hiking.  Walking around in formation in and around the capital grounds makes you an asshole.

ETA: DNC asks all staffers to resign-http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/embattled-dnc-asks-all-staffers-for-resignation-letters-nbc-news.html

ETA 2: Atlantic Monthly used to be so good. The Fundamental Dishonesty of the Gorsuch Hearings


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 30, 2017)

If you need any further convincing that Devin Nunes is a clown and an independent investigation is needed in the Russia investigation, I submit to you exhibit A



> WASHINGTON — A pair of White House officials played a role in providing Representative Devin Nunes of California, a Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with the intelligence reports that showed that President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.
> 
> The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Mr. Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.
> 
> Mr. Nunes has also been faulted by his congressional colleagues for sharing the information with President Trump before consulting with other members of the intelligence committee.



The contacts who informed Nunes of the "incidental collection" of Trump during the campaign (which was neither incidental nor collection) were actually White House staffers, one of whom is pretty senior in the NSC.  Which makes his behavior all the more bizarre: if your sources are within the White House, why would you brief the President on information that he's already privy to?  Are NSC officials not sharing intelligence with the President, or is he choosing to ignore it?

Regardless, this whole debacle is just further confirmation that Nunes is carrying water for the administration and is not acting in good faith as the House intel committee chairman.  I'm just glad that the Senate hearings are going more smoothly, without the weird partisan kabuki theater we saw when Comey and Rogers testified.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 30, 2017)

Comey on Twitter: http://gizmodo.com/this-is-almost-certainly-james-comey-s-twitter-account-1793843641

ETA: Trump's 1Q Salary was donated to the Department of the Interior.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 4, 2017)

This isn't a serious policy gripe and is totally me being nitpicky:

I am kind of upset POTUS didn't throw out the first pitch yesterday. He surely would have been booed, but there is something I think brings people together during baseball. Him punching in a strike would have at least made him connect with some of his base a little more in my opinion. 

I think it is pretty lame to shirk what is in my opinion a good tradition. I know others have not done it, doesn't mean I can't bitch about it now though...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 4, 2017)

Waiting for the arraignment of Susan Rice that will never happen...

In regards to that, what was he doing yesterday that conflicted with it?  Kind of a dumb thing, sort a thing that's on the Calendar, right?


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 4, 2017)

Arraignment?  It might help for there to be illegal and/or unethical behavior first.

The unmasking/masking explanation in this article is surprisingly good - and might be helpful to non-SIGINTers to understand what's being talked about: Susan Rice and the Latest Bogus Attempt to Justify Trump’s Wiretapping Tweet


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 4, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Waiting for the arraignment of Susan Rice that will never happen...
> 
> In regards to that, what was he doing yesterday that conflicted with it?  Kind of a dumb thing, sort a thing that's on the Calendar, right?


Why should it?  There are legitimate reasons why the president's national security advisor could request for US citizens to be unmasked in intelligence reports related to a national security investigation.  I'm not ruling out the idea that it could've been done for partisan political reasons, but conservative media is treating that as a foregone conclusion when that's simply not the case.  Moreover, it's a really blatant attempt to muddy the investigation.  One commentator said it best: It's like the administration just got caught cheating on his girlfriend and he's getting mad at her for going through his phone.

It's also super weird that the administration is double, triple, even quadrupling down on this ridiculous wiretapping claim after the FBI and NSA have already testified that it just didn't happen.  Why can't they let it die like they did with the claim of "millions of illegal voters"?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 4, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Why should it?  There are legitimate reasons why the president's national security advisor could request for US citizens to be unmasked in intelligence reports related to a national security investigation.  I'm not ruling out the idea that it could've been done for partisan political reasons, but conservative media is treating that as a foregone conclusion when that's simply not the case.  Moreover, it's a really blatant attempt to muddy the investigation.  One commentator said it best: It's like the administration just got caught cheating on his girlfriend and he's getting mad at her for going through his phone.
> 
> It's also super weird that the administration is double, triple, even quadrupling down on this ridiculous wiretapping claim after the FBI and NSA have already testified that it just didn't happen.  Why can't they let it die like they did with the claim of "millions of illegal voters"?



One of the reasons we have laws about intel oversight is to prevent intelligence collection being used for political purposes.  I see no reason OTHER than a partisan political one why the then-sitting-president's National Security Advisor (NSA) would want to personally see the individual names of people affiliated with the candidate that her boss desperately wanted to not become president.  If the names were redacted then the intelligence and/or law enforcement officials tasked with collecting the information felt that the high bar for naming US persons was not met.  This means either the information was collected inadvertently or that they were not accused/suspected of a crime.  So why did NSA Rice override that?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 4, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This isn't a serious policy gripe and is totally me being nitpicky:
> 
> I am kind of upset POTUS didn't throw out the first pitch yesterday. He surely would have been booed, but there is something I think brings people together during baseball. Him punching in a strike would have at least made him connect with some of his base a little more in my opinion.
> 
> I think it is pretty lame to shirk what is in my opinion a good tradition. I know others have not done it, doesn't mean I can't bitch about it now though...



It was a savvy political move.  The disruption would have only generated positive press for the protesters and encouraged similar behavior from them in the future.  Not showing up and blaming it on "the left" (or whatever) actually strengthens his base, "Look what other American traditions are threatened by "them!!""


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 4, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> It was a savvy political move.  The disruption would have only generated positive press for the protesters and encouraged similar behavior from them in the future.  Not showing up and blaming it on "the left" (or whatever) actually strengthens his base, "Look what other American traditions are threatened by "them!!""



Wait what? Were there threats of protests? I just assumed he didn't want to be booed. 

I saw people unfurled a banner after the game, but he hadn't planned on going for over a week.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 4, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Wait what? Were there threats of protests? I just assumed he didn't want to be booed.
> 
> I saw people unfurled a banner after the game, but he hadn't planned on going for over a week.



An "Impeach Trump" banner isn't a protest?  

I also read that he had claimed a "scheduling conflict" so maybe that was the cause and not my original supposition.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 4, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> An "Impeach Trump" banner isn't a protest?
> 
> I also read that he had claimed a "scheduling conflict" so maybe that was the cause and not my original supposition.



Sure it is, they did that knowing he wasn't coming though.

Should he not interact with the populace due to fear of protests?


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 4, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> One of the reasons we have laws about intel oversight is to prevent intelligence collection being used for political purposes.  I see no reason OTHER than a partisan political one why the then-sitting-president's National Security Advisor (NSA) would want to personally see the individual names of people affiliated with the candidate that her boss desperately wanted to not become president.  If the names were redacted then the intelligence and/or law enforcement officials tasked with collecting the information felt that the high bar for naming US persons was not met.  This means either the information was collected inadvertently or that they were not accused/suspected of a crime.  So why did NSA Rice override that?



Really?  So, the national security advisor sees a report about high-level Russian diplomats/spies talking with masked US persons about sanctions/elections/cyber/spying/almost anything while that same country has been linked to disinformation and hacking in the just-completed national election.  Meanwhile, her boss is instituting/has instituted diplomatic sanctions (kicking diplomats/spies out of the country) and the IC is preparing a report on Russian interference in the election with Congressional investigations a pretty safe bet.  In that situation you feel like the national security advisor has zero reasons to want to know the US persons masked in the reports other than a desire to leak the names and damage political adversaries?  I would think a national security advisor would be derelict in not wanting to know the names of those people as questions are most assuredly going to come up on 'what did you know and when.'

On top of that 'unmasking' requests are a part of the intelligence oversight chain at NSA covered by DIRNSAs legal office and subject to almost constant audit.  A review board of experts has to review every request for intelligence value, need-to-know, and privacy concerns.  I think they may have come up with at least one reason in that review process other than political dirty tricks.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 4, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Sure it is, they did that knowing he wasn't coming though.
> 
> Should he not interact with the populace due to fear of protests?



You're assuming they knew he wasn't coming.  It's also possible that they planned the protest because they thought he was coming, and then decided to carry it out anyway.

I think he--or anyone--should be judicious about public events, for the reasons already stated.  Sometimes an individual will take a personal hit to avoid having protestors ruin an event for everyone.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 4, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Really?  So, the national security advisor sees a report about high-level Russian diplomats/spies talking with masked US persons about sanctions/elections/cyber/spying/almost anything while that same country has been linked to disinformation and hacking in the just-completed national election.  Meanwhile, her boss is instituting/has instituted diplomatic sanctions (kicking diplomats/spies out of the country) and the IC is preparing a report on Russian interference in the election with Congressional investigations a pretty safe bet.  In that situation you feel like the national security advisor has zero reasons to want to know the US persons masked in the reports other than a desire to leak the names and damage political adversaries?  I would think a national security advisor would be derelict in not wanting to know the names of those people as questions are most assuredly going to come up on 'what did you know and when.'
> 
> On top of that 'unmasking' requests are a part of the intelligence oversight chain at NSA covered by DIRNSAs legal office and subject to almost constant audit.  A review board of experts has to review every request for intelligence value, need-to-know, and privacy concerns.  I think they may have come up with at least one reason in that review process other than political dirty tricks.



First of all, don't put words in  my mouth.  I never said, or implied, that NSA Rice leaked anything.  But yeah, I think that her actions are indicative of someone wanting to garner information for domestic political uses.  I think a reasonable person could go either way on this.  Let an investigation decide.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 4, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> First of all, don't put words in  my mouth.  I never said, or implied, that NSA Rice leaked anything.  But yeah, I think that her actions are indicative of someone wanting to garner information for domestic political uses.  I think a reasonable person could go either way on this.  Let an investigation decide.



What's the domestic political use other than leaking?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 4, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> What's the domestic political use other than leaking?



Crafting future political strategy, for one.  Information doesn't have to be leaked in order to be useful.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 4, 2017)

There is such a silly thing going on. America elected a guy that was going to demolish safe spaces, say fuck the PC police, drain the swamp and all that. Yet when he may be challenged publicly he retreats into his safe space, or his twitter account. 

Bottom line for me is that POTUS seems like he is afraid of the people. He is afraid of what they think of him, be that a shitty first pitch, or a group of angry liberals booing and making posters. If he is such a tough guy why doesn't he strut out there, fire a strike and peace the fuck out? Wouldn't that say more than a scheduling conflict? Wouldn't going out and doing something Americans do maybe normalize the guy, especially a guy that spends all his weekends at his private resort in Florida? 

.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 4, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> be that a shitty first pitch,



That actually disappointed me.  Throw the best pitch you can and if you muss it, do an over-exaggerated "oh my shoulder!" move while smiling and laughing.

I have often believed that one of the things that endeared Bill Clinton and Obama to those with opposing views was their ability to be both self deprecating and available to the public.  Be it Jimmy Fallon, Ellen, Oprah, etc...

If current Mr. President would take a cue and let himself be laughed at a bit, it weakens the strength and effectiveness of the liberal attacks.  Right now he is taking a cue from the late Dennis Green and hiding in the bunker.  It makes him appear self conscious and paranoid.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 4, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That actually disappointed me.  Throw the best pitch you can and if you muss it, do an over-exaggerated "oh my shoulder!" move while smiling and laughing.
> 
> I have often believed that one of the things that endeared Bill Clinton and Obama to those with opposing views was their ability to be both self deprecating and available to the public.  Be it Jimmy Fallon, Ellen, Oprah, etc...
> 
> If current Mr. President would take a cue and let himself be laughed at a bit, it weakens the strength and effectiveness of the liberal attacks.  Right now he is taking a cue from the late Dennis Green and hiding in the bunker.  It makes him appear self conscious and paranoid.



That is exactly my thinking. Why not take it as an opportunity to bridge some of the gap?


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 4, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Crafting future political strategy, for one.  Information doesn't have to be leaked in order to be useful.



Ok, maybe.  But in that scenario wouldn't NSA Rice have needed to know (or strongly suspect) beforehand that President-elect Trump's advisors/staff would be the masked US persons?  All the while, as the NSA she would be helping then-President Obama craft the administration's response to escalated Russian intelligence active measures in the US election.  Even if we knew that in NSA Rice's heart she suspected the administration-elect those would still be important facts to bring to a discussion on national security policy towards Russia.  I think it would be important to the NSA to know who the US persons were for that policy discussion regardless - if they were Democratic/Republican donors, members of the press, private individuals, emerging subjects of an espionage investigation.  All of those thoughts would be critical and important reasons to request the unmasking.  I mean, this was November/December I believe - well before the significant interactions between the Trump campaign and Russia were known - even in the IC.

I guess I still don't see - even if you could somehow peer into NSA Rice's heart, which no investigation is going to be able to do - how it could be illegal or unethical.  It's exactly what I would think any NSA would do (and probably most members of the NSC) in a similar situation.  I would fully expect NSA McMaster to request the shit out of some unmasking on reports of North Koreas officials talking with US persons ahead of/or after missile tests when he's about to have a bunch of meetings with President Trump on our actions there.  If it turns out they were corresponding with Donna Brazile I don't think that makes him a political hack involved in a conspiracy against the Democratic party.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 4, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That actually disappointed me.  Throw the best pitch you can and if you muss it, do an over-exaggerated "oh my shoulder!" move while smiling and laughing.
> 
> I have often believed that one of the things that endeared Bill Clinton and Obama to those with opposing views was their ability to be both self deprecating and available to the public.  Be it Jimmy Fallon, Ellen, Oprah, etc...
> 
> If current Mr. President would take a cue and let himself be laughed at a bit, it weakens the strength and effectiveness of the liberal attacks.  Right now he is taking a cue from the late Dennis Green and hiding in the bunker.  It makes him appear self conscious and paranoid.



I don't know.  I mean, I agree with you in the sense of how I see politicians.  But, as I try to look at it from the other side even as President Trump continues to tank in daily tracking polls overall his supporters are still pretty solid behind him and the areas he continues to poll reasonably well with everyone is I think something like 'is a strong person' and 'is an intelligent person.'  I think a big part of President Trump's persona and identity to his supporters is that he's a 'strong' leader who tells it like it is and doesn't take shit from [insert hated group]. 

I mean, I don't think he possesses those attributes but I'm biased - did not vote for him, am extremely unlikely to vote for him.  Maybe he understands his base/followers better than most and understands the character he plays is vulnerable to being made to look like a fool in their eyes - so is exceptionally careful of it.  He doesn't care about looking like a fool in the eyes of those who oppose him since they don't matter.

Just speculating - maybe President Trump doesn't think about that stuff at all.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 4, 2017)

@Il Duce -

Overall I agree with you and I still feel better having Trump in the White House vs. Hilary, but recent presidents have trained the general public that a president is supposed to be outgoing and have a fun personality.  Truth be told I didn't like seeing presidents all over TV, but the genie is out of the bottle.

I believe that this is a very truthful statement -


Il Duce said:


> He doesn't care about looking like a fool in the eyes of those who oppose him since they don't matter


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 4, 2017)

An editorial from the National Review on Susan Rice:
Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal

Basically she's a hack.  Trey Gowdy is about to lead a commission to put Susan Rice in jail, I can see it.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 4, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Il Duce -
> 
> Overall I agree with you and I still feel better having Trump in the White House vs. Hilary, but recent presidents have trained the general public that a president is supposed to be outgoing and have a fun personality.  Truth be told I didn't like seeing presidents all over TV, but the genie is out of the bottle.
> 
> I believe that this is a very truthful statement -



Even if that is President Trump's view though - I think there will be times (maybe now) where it does end up having political consequences.  The vitriolic hatred he is generating on the left really limits his legislative options.  He is quickly becoming toxic politically to Democrats - giving him less leverage in things like healthcare with his own party because they know he's not going to cut a deal to get Democratic votes to make up for freedom caucus holdouts or things like that.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 5, 2017)

Democrats are becoming toxic by themselves.


----------



## reed11b (Apr 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Democrats are becoming toxic by themselves.


What, exactly, does that comment add to the discussion?


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Democrats are becoming toxic by themselves.



What I meant by toxic politically is that Democrats who work with (or are seen to work with) President Trump would suffer severe backlash with their electorate.  It's a similar phenomenon a lot of Republicans - especially Tea Party Republicans - experienced under President Obama.  When you look at the AHCA, they accept a lot of parts of the ACA in the bill they couldn't even consider during the Obama administration.  I think we will see - or are already seeing - the same thing with Democrats in this administration.  The political hurdle a Democrat will have to traverse to support something that comes from the Trump whitehouse - regardless of the policy - is very high.  It puts a lot of constraints on what can happen legislatively in terms of cross-party support.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 5, 2017)

I'm a pro governance person, I thought the obstructionist crap that was coming about when the Democrats had the majority was bonkers, but then they did the Nuclear Option.  Which, was shortsighted.  Now we're going to get it again because all of these nitwits that somehow got elected by us have more loyalty to party than their state and electorate.  Feinstein and Franken in the hearings showed me one thing, nothing.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Now we're going to get it again because all of these nitwits that somehow got elected by us have more loyalty to party than their state and electorate.



I see where you are going with this, but I have to slightly disagree.  If the same person had been nominated for SCOTUS under a different Republican (say Pence), there would not be this much disruption.  Dems are going against this candidate more because of their disdain for Trump, then loyalty to party.   

As someone who voted for him I expected more attempts at partnerships.  Love it or hate it, it's what makes Washington tick - the Dems might not be able to stop everything he wants to do, but they can sure make his life difficult - I'm very disappointed so far. 



Ooh-Rah said:


> If current Mr. President would take a cue and let himself be laughed at a bit, it weakens the strength and effectiveness of the liberal attacks. Right now he is taking a cue from the late Dennis Green and hiding in the bunker. It makes him appear self conscious and paranoid.



No one says you cannot be a strong leader and still not be a dick, which causes those opposed to you to root for your failure.   

ETA - and yes, I do think it makes a difference.  If Trump were more likable, the 'hatred' would have toned down by  now and he'd be getting the same pushback that any president gets; especially a Republican.  Trump is taking this shit personal and forgetting that it is 'normal' for Republicans to not feel the love that Dems seem to get.  

This moment from 2005 during a benefit for Katrina survivors still kills me everytime I see it...especially the look on Mike Myers face after Kanye "says his peace".  The network cut to Chris Tucker and he didn't know what the hell to say.  The lesson being, Bush didn't Tweet (or put out a statement), he ignored it and moved on, he acted presidential.  :wall:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 5, 2017)

I think Twitter is a serious problem.  I think he shouldn't be on it like he is.

I guess we could have all seen he was going to go alone.  I could foresee him not even working with the party and this thing burning down awesomely.  He's seriously screwing up now.

But, this isn't just Trump.  And although I think the vitriol would be less, it would still be effing high.  Because that's where we are.

When you've got nasty people leading your party, you're just disgusting.  Pelosi, Feinstein, Harris...oh and they all happen to be from California.  It used to be such a nice place.

ETA: Steve Bannon removed from National Security Council in reorganization

I guess they gave someone a cookie.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 5, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I see where you are going with this, but I have to slightly disagree.  If the same person had been nominated for SCOTUS under a different Republican (say Pence), there would not be this much disruption.  Dems are going against this candidate more because of their disdain for Trump, then loyalty to party.
> 
> As someone who voted for him I expected more attempts at partnerships.  Love it or hate it, it's what makes Washington tick - the Dems might not be able to stop everything he wants to do, but they can sure make his life difficult - I'm very disappointed so far.
> 
> ...



I think that's probably all true but, I do think the Senate Democrats are also motivated by a deep-seated anger over Merrick Garland.  I think, from their perspective, the Senate totally abdicated it's responsibilities for partisan gain - exacerbated by the fact it actually worked.  Looking at statements and interviews for Democratic senators who have lined up behind a filibuster - who didn't seem 100% on board at first (thinking of examples like SEN Coons from Delaware) - the anger/disillusionment/desire to leverage consequences over that breakdown is very real.

As I stated earlier I'm not sure this is the smartest way to make the point and, like anything in politics, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around - but I think it's accurate to say the Republican tactics on Merrick Garland are a major motivating factor for Democratic actions - in addition to opposition to the President.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 5, 2017)

This was an interesting development:

*Trump Removes Stephen Bannon From National Security Council Post*


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 5, 2017)

Yeah, posted that, I think the admin gave the Dems a cookie or something.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Yeah, posted that, I think the admin gave the Dems a cookie or something.



I think much more likely LTG McMaster is getting his house in order.  If he starts making unmasking requests to NSA we'll know he has gone bad though...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 6, 2017)

Huh.

So my local fishwrap wrote a pretty sympathetic article regarding the Meals on Wheels program.  (the program is potentially on the chopping block).

I know people who have benefitted from the program, but did not realized that it was completely cost free to the recipient.    In fact, "Meals on Wheels" is free to anyone over 60 years old who asks for it.  (up to 2 meals per day).  

Maybe the program does not need to go away completely, but perhaps there should be at least 'some' financial vetting ?  The two people I know of who were on the receiving end had plenty of money (and children with money).  Watching both my grandparents die of cancer over the past decade, I have witnessed the length at which people will go to "hide money" from the government to ensure that they can qualify for government programs.  ( and not have to spend their potential inheritance on their mom/dad's healthcare).

Possible cuts to Meals on Wheels could impact 50,000 Minnesotans


----------



## Poccington (Apr 6, 2017)

Nikki Haley's speech last night at a meeting of the UN Security Council was absolutely brilliant.

Really powerful stuff.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 6, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Nikki Haley's speech last night at a meeting of the UN Security Council was absolutely brilliant.
> 
> Really powerful stuff.



I think she was one of his best appointments -- especially for that position.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 6, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh.
> 
> So my local fishwrap wrote a pretty sympathetic article regarding the Meals on Wheels program.  (the program is potentially on the chopping block).
> 
> ...



I did not know that.  Everyone I knew growing up with Meals on Wheels were folks who couldn't get out often and didn't have much.  It doesn't surprise me though.  There were plenty of kids getting two free meals when I was a kid in elementary school whose parents happened to be much richer than mine.  Whether it was pride or ignorance we never got that food assistance, which was probably good as most school lunch facilities ran off of USDA pre-packed meals, and if you think UGRA is bad...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 6, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> There were plenty of kids getting two free meals when I was a kid in elementary school whose parents happened to be much richer than mine.



There is always a scam.  When I was in junior and high school, the kids who got 'free meal' tickets sold those tickets at a discount.  We'd get an extra 'jumbo dog' and fries, they'd get cigarette or snuff money. :wall:


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 6, 2017)

Nunes is stepping aside from the house investigation: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Trey Gowdy and another congressman will be replacing him.  Let's see if Gowdy pursues this investigation like he did with Benghazi.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 7, 2017)

So this got buried deep to the point where only a few of the conservative internet outlets had it.  The best one I could find was the Daily Wire:
Ben Carson Finds $500 Billion (Billion!) In Errors During Audit Of Obama HUD

Ben Carson's audit...520 Billion missing from HUD...that's a lot.


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 8, 2017)




----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 8, 2017)

We'd still have those things... AND Hillary.  Hey, 1 out of 3 ain't bad.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 8, 2017)

new nominee for Army Secretary.

President Trump nominates Tennessee state Sen. Mark Green for Army secretary


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 8, 2017)

Wasn't he the flight surgeon with 160th SOAR when they picked up Saddam?

EDIT: yes he was....  Mark Green (politician) - Wikipedia


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 9, 2017)

Of course, we just fail up in this world.  Being Ambassador to Singapore is legit...not much you can do over there.  McFarland to Exit White House as McMaster Consolidates Power


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 9, 2017)

I'd love to have that job.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 9, 2017)

Somebody needs to pass a budget, apparently.

With no budget, all Army training comes to 'screeching halt' by July


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 9, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Of course, we just fail up in this world.  Being Ambassador to Singapore is legit...not much you can do over there.  McFarland to Exit White House as McMaster Consolidates Power



You can still fuck up an important relationship pretty easily. Personally I don't generally approve of political appointments to ambassador roles but meh, I'm not the Guy In Charge.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 9, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Somebody needs to pass a budget, apparently.
> 
> With no budget, all Army training comes to 'screeching halt' by July



Word has come down to the 19 MSCs in my cohort we have to cancel, or BPT cancel everything scheduled past 28 April.  There's got to be a better way to do this.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 10, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Somebody needs to pass a budget, apparently.
> 
> With no budget, all Army training comes to 'screeching halt' by July


We get here quite too often.


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 10, 2017)

We briefly talked about it earlier- but some projections out there are putting President Trump's first year travel budget to best President Onama's. Not anything new-

...except President Trump's 1st year is set to best President Obama's total for 8 years. Trump on Pace to Surpass 8 Years of Obama’s Travel Spending in 1 Year


And I know, I know- Eisenhower and Grover Cleveland were regular scoundrels of the course! However, President Trump has logged 21 days at Mar a Lago out of his 1st 100.

Let's hope these are all working trips.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 10, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> We briefly talked about it earlier- but some projections out there are putting President Trump's first year travel budget to best President Onama's. Not anything new-
> 
> ...except President Trump's 1st year is set to best President Obama's total for 8 years. Trump on Pace to Surpass 8 Years of Obama’s Travel Spending in 1 Year
> 
> ...



I think he's still around 20 days from 100 - so that's in the first 80 or so.  Also, I read his travel budget is right around President Obama's annual average - again in less than 100 days. 

I'm not sure how much impact the travel budget really has - other than optics and hypocrisy (all the complaining about President Obama playing golf, promising to 'work' instead as President, and all the supposed fiscal ship-tightening) when you factor it in to the real work of government.  I do think the protection strains on the secret service are going to become a huge deal - but that has more to do with the habits and involvement of his immediate family.  If I were strategizing for the secret service I'd be looking at how other kleptocracies manage royal family security.  The Presidential family is making a lot of money off the Presidency - and they weren't hurting for money before - it seems reasonable their personal fortunes gained through those means could be used to offset some of the security costs.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 10, 2017)

So on top of Iraq and Afghanistan and all of the other, smaller things we have going on in the world, we formally started a war with Syria which might make us run afoul of the Russians, and we're also escalating things in North Korea, which might put us in conflict with the Chinese?    Are we going to fight the whole world now?

Well, if we do, let's get it on and get it won because I'm scheduled to retire in a year and a half and I don't want to get stoplossed.  Again.


----------



## AWP (Apr 10, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, if we do, let's get it on and get it won.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Our military is the best in the world if you go up to the O-5 level. Once you hit O-6 and above our peers are in Latin America and Africa. We've forgotten how to win. Any nation that doesn't bloody our nose conventionally and then fall back on asymmetrical warfare wants to lose because we can no more defeat that method than the Jags can win the Super Bowl.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 11, 2017)

I don't like: Obama to Join Merkel for First Overseas Event Since Leaving White House

Rex keeping it stiff!!! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/world/europe/russia-syria-rex-tillerson.html?_r=0

ETA: Sessions ain't playing no games Undocumented Immigrants Who Commit Crimes Face Tougher Policy


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 11, 2017)

Oh Sean, Sean...Sean...Sean...don't you know that NO good can ever come from comparing ANYTHING to Hitler?

Sean Spicer - note to self, never compare anything to Hitler

WASHINGTON — Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, set off an intense backlash on Tuesday when he suggested that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria was worse than Hitler and said incorrectly that Hitler had not used chemical weapons during World War II or against his own people.

Mr. Spicer was attempting to lend gravity to the actions of Mr. Assad, who United States officials believe used sarin gas, a lethal chemical weapon, in an attack on a rebel-held area of Idlib Province last week that killed dozens.

Hitler oversaw a network of extermination camps where gas chambers were used to kill millions of Jews and others deemed to be harmful to the German state.

“We didn’t use chemical weapons in World War II. You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons,” Mr. Spicer said.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 11, 2017)

Spicer a little bit _too_ spicy today.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 11, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Oh Sean, Sean...Sean...Sean...don't you know that NO good can ever come from comparing ANYTHING to Hitler?
> 
> Sean Spicer - note to self, never compare anything to Hitler
> 
> ...




Yeah, I mean everyone knows that it's actually Spicer's boss who is "literally worse than Hitler," right?  /sarcasm


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 11, 2017)

This is a pretty long but I thought incredibly interesting article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/...merican-right-trump-proved-me-wrong.html?_r=0

The historian, Rick Perlestein, lays out the literature review of how historians have looked at conservatism in America - including his own - and how it should be updated and re-looked with the ascension of President Trump to the top of conservative politics.

I recently read Perlestein's three books on the rise of modern conservatism and found them excellent.

If you like reading about history as a process of scholarship or about political history in general it's very interesting.  If you're sensitive about the darker sides of conservatism and President Trump's association to those things - racism, anti-immigrant violence, etc. - this article is probably not something you'll enjoy.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 11, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> This is a pretty long but I thought incredibly interesting article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/...merican-right-trump-proved-me-wrong.html?_r=0
> 
> The historian, Rick Perlestein, lays out the literature review of how historians have looked at conservatism in America - including his own - and how it should be updated and re-looked with the ascension of President Trump to the top of conservative politics.
> 
> ...



Pay Wall.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 11, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> This is a pretty long but I thought incredibly interesting article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/...merican-right-trump-proved-me-wrong.html?_r=0
> 
> The historian, Rick Perlestein, lays out the literature review of how historians have looked at conservatism in America - including his own - and how it should be updated and re-looked with the ascension of President Trump to the top of conservative politics.
> 
> ...



I wonder if President Trump is "at the top of conservative politics" or if he is simply the current leader of the Republican Party.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 11, 2017)

I wouldn't call Trump a conservative.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 11, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I wonder if President Trump is "at the top of conservative politics" or if he is simply the current leader of the Republican Party.



I think it's fair to place the elected President - or even presidential candidate - of the 'conservative' party as being at the top of conservative politics.  There's certainly an argument to be made President Trump is not traditionally conservative, that the Republican party has digressed from conservatism, or that President Trump isn't really the head of several things.  Still, I think when making those cases it's an uphill battle given the history of the party system in the US and the primacy of the Presidency.

Not sure what to do if folks are running into a pay wall.  The link works for me.  I'll try sharing on FB and see if others have better luck.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 11, 2017)

Works 100% here.


----------



## pardus (Apr 11, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Not sure what to do if folks are running into a pay wall.  The link works for me.  I'll try sharing on FB and see if others have better luck.



Link works fine for me too.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 11, 2017)

Linked work fine for me, the post was just TL;DR.  I stopped reading when it started talking about the "2nd Klan."  At least there were no Hitler comparisons.

It might be that Thunder may have read all of the free posts the NYT allowed for this month or something.  That happens to me sometimes.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 11, 2017)

I posted the article to facebook.  Immediately got three 'likes' from three different individuals whose profiles said they were from different cities in Georgia - the one in the former USSR.  Each of them linked a story beneath the article.

I deleted their stories and updated my facebook settings so hopefully I won't become a vehicle by which euro-trolls steal my friends' and families' identities but holy shit - definitely going to have to tighten my internet game.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 12, 2017)

Yeah, I just clicked again, NYT sayeth me reacheth the limiteth.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 12, 2017)

Apparently the Easter Egg Roll is such a tradition we must not stop it, we must swipe at the administration...What’s This About a Controversy Surrounding the Annual White House Easter Egg Roll?

I thought this wasn't a Christian Nation?  Because this is one of those waste and abuse things in my eyes.  But the reality is the liberal media is outraged about nothing.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 12, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Apparently the Easter Egg Roll is such a tradition we must not stop it, we must swipe at the administration...What’s This About a Controversy Surrounding the Annual White House Easter Egg Roll?
> 
> I thought this wasn't a Christian Nation?  Because this is one of those waste and abuse things in my eyes.  But the reality is the liberal media is outraged about nothing.



What? You got Vogue as per of the liberal media? 

Isnt Vogue a social and style magazine? Why don't you calm down?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 12, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> What? You got Vogue as per of the liberal media?
> 
> Isnt Vogue a social and style magazine? Why don't you calm down?


It's the only thing that I haven't been put behind a pay wall this month already.  It's in the NYT, Washington Post, et al.  I first saw it in an Occupy link from an old prof.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 12, 2017)

I'm going to be one hundo percent transparent. A part of me really wants to say DUH!!!!! The other part of me wants to think that the president really believed these things, has been educated, and now has changed his mind. A third part of me thinks that all the things he said were to rally an already fearful base of people to vote for him...

President Trump Reverses on Candidate Trump’s Economic Views


----------



## CDG (Apr 12, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm going to be one hundo percent transparent. A part of me really wants to say DUH!!!!! The other part of me wants to think that the president really believed these things, had been educated, and now had changed his mind. A third part of me thinks that all the things he said were to rally an already fearful base of people to vote for him...
> 
> President Trump Reverses on Candidate Trump’s Economic Views



I saw a blurb the other day talking about how fluid POTUS Trump has been so far.  The paraphrase was something like, "As far as a Trump Doctrine has been developing, it seems to be not being bogged down by doctrine."  It sounded like he had been showing more willingness to listen to advisors than he was expected to.  I hope that is true, and isn't just an administration fluff piece.  I want President Trump to do well, for the sake of this country.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 12, 2017)

CDG said:


> I saw a blurb the other day talking about how fluid POTUS Trump has been so far.  The paraphrase was something like, "As far as a Trump Doctrine has been developing, it seems to be not being bogged down by doctrine."  It sounded like he had been showing more willingness to listen to advisors than he was expected to.  I hope that is true, and isn't just an administration fluff piece.  I want President Trump to do well, for the sake of this country.



I think it's also fair to say he has not been bogged down by his own statements and promises.  I can definitely believe he's not tied to any firm ideology or doctrine.  I just think it may be hard to tell when he's settled on a policy or course of action on any topic - because he's likely to change again without warning.  I'm thinking of Syria, NATO, healthcare, birtherism, HRC jail-time, the IC, one-China policy, Israeli settlements, and wall payments as examples.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 12, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I think it's also fair to say he has not been bogged down by his own statements and promises.


Like every politician before him.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 12, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Like every politician before him.



Nope, President Trump is in a category by himself for statement reversals - I think any look at metrics of statement-to-statement or statement-to-actions will bear that out.  I can see a credible case being made on whether that's a good thing (less tied to ideological rigidity, ability to adjust to changing situations, so fucking crazy the despots of the world are shitting their pants) but the idea his consistency is on par with other elected officials is, in my opinion, batshit crazy.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 12, 2017)

They all lie to you.  Obama said he was gonna do this...didn't.  Bush said he was gonna do this...didn't. 

You can take it as a lie or purely as campaign rhetoric and how things change the moment you become the man.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> There is such a silly thing going on. America elected a guy that was going to demolish safe spaces, say fuck the PC police, drain the swamp and all that. Yet when he may be challenged publicly he retreats into his safe space, or his twitter account.
> 
> Bottom line for me is that POTUS seems like he is afraid of the people. He is afraid of what they think of him, be that a shitty first pitch, or a group of angry liberals booing and making posters. If he is such a tough guy why doesn't he strut out there, fire a strike and peace the fuck out? Wouldn't that say more than a scheduling conflict? Wouldn't going out and doing something Americans do maybe normalize the guy, especially a guy that spends all his weekends at his private resort in Florida?
> 
> .



I agree with you, man.

I was very disappointed he didn't throw out the first pitch. A few weeks after 9/11 another President walked out on the field at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx...Ground Zero was still smoking. This is well worth the 4:30 minutes.


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 13, 2017)

Holy shit, @Ocoka what a great post. 

The more time that passes the more I view President Bush (the 2nd)'s presidency differently.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 13, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Holy shit, @Ocoka what a great post.
> 
> The more time that passes the more I view President Bush (the 2nd)'s presidency differently.



9/11 changed everything, as did the invasion of Iraq. A lot of good things in the Bush Presidency were lost in the years of uproar and infighting. Unfortunate.


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 13, 2017)

Viper1 said:


> 9/11 changed everything, as did the invasion of Iraq. A lot of good things in the Bush Presidency were lost in the years of uproar and infighting. Unfortunate.


And the more distance I get from that time, the more I think differently. Bush the 2nd wasn't a great thinker, wasn't great on his feet, had some serious policy missteps. 

But I liken him now to a "war time consigliere" in La Cosa Nostra. Yeah, he screwed up at a lot of the nuances, but looking back on it, he was a pretty good boss in a situation that was literally unprecedented and one hell of a war time CINC.


----------



## AWP (Apr 14, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> And the more distance I get from that time, the more I think differently. Bush the 2nd wasn't a great thinker, wasn't great on his feet, had some serious policy missteps.
> 
> But I liken him now to a "war time consigliere" in La Cosa Nostra. Yeah, he screwed up at a lot of the nuances, but looking back on it, he was a pretty good boss in a situation that was literally unprecedented and one hell of a war time CINC.



I honestly believe he's a decent human being, one who genuinely cares about people, and woke up on the morning of 9/11 destined for a C or C+ presidency. He then dealt with a shitstorm of his own making in Iraq, but also had Katrina and the recession to fight. Even without Iraq his 8 years would suck and in 200 years this country's had maybe 10 or 12 politicians who could actually handle a post-9/11 world.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 14, 2017)

AWP said:


> I honestly believe he's a decent human being, one who genuinely cares about people, and woke up on the morning of 9/11 destined for a C or C+ presidency. He then dealt with a shitstorm of his own making in Iraq, but also had Katrina and the recession to fight. Even without Iraq his 8 years would suck and in 200 years this country's had maybe 10 or 12 politicians who could actually handle a post-9/11 world.




He rose to the occasion (9/11) better than I ever expected, exemplifying crisis leadership. Rumsfeld was a bad choice in many respects, W got his ass handed to him over the WMD issue as a pretext for invasion and then the ill-fated carrier landing and victory speech on the flight deck...if that wasn't an invitation for every shithead fedayeen and small change terrorist, I don't what was. But I still like him. I like his sense of humor. I like his family, his mom and dad. Just sorry we didn't get UBL during his watch. W...git some. 'Merica.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 14, 2017)

To be honest I'll take W over O every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  O was a great thinker, but I honestly don't feel he was a get shit done guy.  Very hands off with Congress when it came to certain initiatives. It will be truly hard to judge his presidency until we're past the next two in the historical context.  I can say clearly right now though that the invasion of and subsequent occupation of Iraq was a tactical failure in a miss step of what our grand strategy may have been.  Invading Iraq obviously didn't suit it, but I understand the idea behind it.  The tactics used caused a significant failure and an Iraq that isn't exactly our best friend in the region.  Two C+ Presidents in a row...can't wait for this D- to get going.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 14, 2017)

I have always been impressed with what GWB does for wounded warriors, he continues his associations with them through his institute....functions, events, golf, bike rides...etc. Recently did a book of paintings.

President Bush To Publish Book Of Wounded Warrior Portraits


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 15, 2017)

86 days y'all!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 15, 2017)

I think that this article in WSJ is interesting, although directly related to ISIS it shows a drastic shift if how our foreign policy is conducted.  I really hate this quote...wtf are we doing give ISIS carrots?

"The firmer military stance has fueled growing concerns among State Department officials working on Middle East policy that the Trump administration is giving short shrift to the diplomatic tools the Obama administration favored. Removing the carrot from the traditional carrot-and-stick approach, some State Department officials warn, could hamper the pursuit of long-term strategies needed to prevent volatile conflicts from reigniting once the shooting stops."
Trump Gives Generals More Freedom on ISIS Fight​When it comes to ISIS, they need to be wiped out.


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> ​When it comes to ISIS, they need to be wiped out.


Ok. How?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 15, 2017)

Well...first comes shutting off the training of rebel groups.  Then comes resurrecting Curtis Lemay.  And letting Assad take care of the ground work...but the third part is pretty much against US Policy right now if you listen to Nikki Haley.


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well...first comes shutting off the training of rebel groups.  Then comes resurrecting Curtis Lemay.  And letting Assad take care of the ground work...but the third part is pretty much against US Policy right now if you listen to Nikki Haley.


"I have zero to add; just ignore me" would have been cleaner.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 15, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> "I have zero to add; just ignore me" would have been cleaner.



I typed out a few responses, but I think: "Whatever man." Is about the best we're going to get this eve.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 15, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Ok. How?


Large scale invasion and occupation ala Operation Iraqi Freedom. That comes with a massive human and financial cost that no one wants to pay though. 

I have complete faith in Mattis. There are no perfect solutions here but I am confident that he will find plot the best course ahead given all our budgetary and political restraints.


----------



## DasBoot (Apr 15, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> And the more distance I get from that time, the more I think differently. Bush the 2nd wasn't a great thinker, wasn't great on his feet, had some serious policy missteps.
> 
> But I liken him now to a "war time consigliere" in La Cosa Nostra. Yeah, he screwed up at a lot of the nuances, but looking back on it, he was a pretty good boss in a situation that was literally unprecedented and one hell of a war time CINC.


My view is he was a great CinC, not a very good president. Those things tend to be mutually exclusive. Now you have FDR and Lincoln who worked both ends of the spectrum well, then you have someone like our most recent POTUS who (IMO) was actually a very good president but not the best as CinC. I always respected the man when it came to W. Much like Senator McCain on the right or Jim Webb on the left I've always looked at them as leaders who put the country first, regardless of how I felt about their actual policies.


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I typed out a few responses, but I think: "Whatever man." Is about the best we're going to get this eve.


All good. I was expecting 'whatever man' anyway.


----------



## Blizzard (Apr 15, 2017)

DasBoot said:


> ...then you have someone like our most recent POTUS who (IMO) was actually a very good president but not the best as CinC.


Not the best as CinC?!  I assume you're referring to Obama; he fuckin' sucked and wasn't a very good president either.

Good presidents will work to find common ground between two parties and compromise on their positions in the best interest of the American people; compromise is for politicians.  Obama was a divider, a condescending idealist, and largely ineffective.

The one thing Obama has going for him is that he is an articulate bullshitter.  He's a guy that really likes to give the appearance of being smarter than he really is.  He really believes that he is profound.  In reality, he's uninspiring and his speeches never have any real fire.  That's because he's all hat, no cattle.  Every time he spoke, I felt like someone should call Manchester.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 15, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Not the best as CinC?!  I assume you're referring to Obama; he fuckin' sucked, brother.  And he wasn't a very good president either.
> 
> Good presidents will work to find common ground between two parties and compromise on their positions in the best interest of the American people; compromise is for politicians.  Obama was a divider, a condescending idealist, and largely ineffective.


Obama was naiive _because_ he tried to compromise with Republicans, the leader of whom blatantly said that he was going to obstruct every thing that he did.  It's one of the things that upsets most center-left Democrats the most: here was a party with a total lock on both houses of congress _and_ the presidency, and the neophyte president _didn't_ run through every piece of liberal legislation that he could.   If you look at the history of his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, it's so riddled with holes _because _he tried to compromise on significant portions of it.

-Before the senate version left committee, it was amended 160 times - all by republican committee members
-It was originally going to have a public option, which was struck after a filibuster threat
-One of the first incarnations of the bill was single-payer, but republicans were so hyped up by the specter of "socialism" that it was nixed
-He brought key republicans to Baltimore and discussed health care with them for three whole days in 2010, and got totally stonewalled for it

There are a number of other non-ACA related compromises made, especially during his first term.  Tax reform and keeping Robert Gates on as SECDEF, as an example.  Along with the former, he kept the Bush-era tax cuts, and even though he raised the top marginal tax rate (by a staggering 4% ) he also raised the top tax bracket to which that rate would apply.  Compromise after compromise after compromise.  It was incredibly frustrating to watch this guy who campaigned as a charismatic labor liberal turn into another Clintonesque center-left democrat.  

Hell, just look at his judicial branch appointments, including Merrick Garland!  He was an total milquetoast centrist judge that was selected as an appeal candidate to the obstructionist wing of the republicans, and he didn't even get a hearing!  That doesn't even begin to mention the hundreds of lower court nominations that were blocked for nothing more than _reasons_.  I will grant you the last part - he was largely ineffective, but not for the reasons that you think.  

So yeah, the talking point about Obama never compromising is completely unsupported by actual history.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 15, 2017)

So what you're saying is that he failed to bring the team together.  I definitely thought the ACA was a failure, all on his part.  He just let it happen.  

Judicial appointments...holt fawk, Kagan not only looks like a bag lady, she's a bag lady.  The difference between Harriet Myers and her is that she's on the Supreme Court.

Although I voted for him a second time...that 2009 speech at West Point has left a pretty sour taste in the back of my mouth.


----------



## DasBoot (Apr 15, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Not the best as CinC?!  I assume you're referring to Obama; he fuckin' sucked and wasn't a very good president either.
> 
> Good presidents will work to find common ground between two parties and compromise on their positions in the best interest of the American people; compromise is for politicians.  Obama was a divider, a condescending idealist, and largely ineffective.
> 
> The one thing Obama has going for him is that he is an articulate bullshitter.  He's a guy that really likes to give the appearance of being smarter than he really is.  He really believes that he is profound.  In reality, he's uninspiring and his speeches never have any real fire.  That's because he's all hat, no cattle.  Every time he spoke, I felt like someone should call Manchester.


As I said "in my opinion." The point wasn't to derail this and make this about our former President. Granted I find it funny you're ranting about someone being a bullshitter when the entirety of our current POTUS' administration has been one big contradiction after another.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 15, 2017)

Trump needs to stay on the golf course and leave the decision-making up to Jim Mattis. I honestly believe  Mattis would make a great President. There's a lot more to him than a Warrior Monk.


----------



## DasBoot (Apr 15, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Trump needs to stay on the golf course and leave the decision-making up to Jim Mattis. I honestly believe  Mattis would make a great President. There's a lot more to him than a Warrior Monk.


I would vote for Jim (hey he told me to call him that) any fucking day of the week. He will go down with Secretary Powell as "best president who wasn't"


----------



## Teufel (Apr 15, 2017)

DasBoot said:


> I would vote for Jim (hey he told me to call him that) any fucking day of the week. He will go down with Secretary Powell as "best president who wasn't"


Until Mattis 2020!


----------



## Gunz (Apr 15, 2017)

DasBoot said:


> I would vote for Jim (hey he told me to call him that) any fucking day of the week. He will go down with Secretary Powell as "best president who wasn't"



I would've vote for Powell.

Problem is, guys like Powell and Mattis and many others who'd make great presidents is that they're reluctant to drag themselves or their families through the cesspit of a presidential campaign. In other words, they're too smart and too sensible to jump into the stink.

And it's a shame.


----------



## DasBoot (Apr 15, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I would've vote for Powell.
> 
> Problem is, guys like Powell and Mattis and many others who'd make great presidents is that they're reluctant to drag themselves or their families through the cesspit of a presidential campaign. In other words, they're too smart and too sensible to jump into the stink.
> 
> And it's a shame.


100% agree. That's the reason I hold out hope for Sec. Mattis- the mans a bachelor.


----------



## Blizzard (Apr 15, 2017)

DasBoot said:


> As I said "in my opinion." The point wasn't to derail this and make this about our former President. Granted I find it funny you're ranting about someone being a bullshitter when the entirety of our current POTUS' administration has been one big contradiction after another.


Agree on the derail, so I'll put the brakes on there as well (strong non-concur with @Salt USMC's post but that's for another thread).  However, you won't me see defending Trump when it comes to this either; plenty of jackassery to go around.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So what you're saying is that he failed to bring the team together.  I definitely thought the ACA was a failure, all on his part.  He just let it happen.
> 
> Judicial appointments...holt fawk, Kagan not only looks like a bag lady, she's a bag lady.  The difference between Harriet Myers and her is that she's on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Although I voted for him a second time...that 2009 speech at West Point has left a pretty sour taste in the back of my mouth.



I wish you would just STFU sometimes. Realizing when you are in and out of your element is literally the first piece of SA. I'm not a mod or an admin anymore so I can say it.there isn't a person on this this fucking board that comes across as less informed and more arrogant than you. 

Almost no one here likes you, respects your opinions, or cares what you have to say. Nevertheless here you are saying shit that doesn't make sense, has no historical backing, or is easily disputed with the simplest of research. 

I'm a nice guy so I am not going to tell you to go kill yourself with chainsaw, but damnit some of the time I wouldn't be disappointed if you did. Instead of that piece of interesting news, we are left with your vague posts, lack of research, and cringeworthy ideas about government and being a leader. 

Jesus...


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 15, 2017)

And the final tally...



> As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office approaches, now’s a good a time to cut through the fog of misinformation, disinformation, media propaganda, ideological bias and outright hostility that has greeted his arrival in Washington and take a clear-eyed look at how he’s really doing.
> 
> Answer: much better than you think.



Surprised this came out of the publication it did.

http://nyp.st/2oLihoN


----------



## DasBoot (Apr 15, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I wish you would just STFU sometimes. Realizing when you are in and out of your element is literally the first piece of SA. I'm not a mod or an admin anymore so I can say it.there isn't a person on this this fucking board that comes across as less informed and more arrogant than you.
> 
> Almost no one here likes you, respects your opinions, or cares what you have to say. Nevertheless here you are saying shit that doesn't make sense, has no historical backing, or is easily disputed with the simplest of research.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 15, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I wish you would just STFU sometimes. Realizing when you are in and out of your element is literally the first piece of SA. I'm not a mod or an admin anymore so I can say it.there isn't a person on this this fucking board that comes across as less informed and more arrogant than you.
> 
> Almost no one here likes you, respects your opinions, or cares what you have to say. Nevertheless here you are saying shit that doesn't make sense, has no historical backing, or is easily disputed with the simplest of research.
> 
> ...



He represents the majority of the American swing vote.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So what you're saying is that he failed to bring the team together.  I definitely thought the ACA was a failure, all on his part.  He just let it happen.
> 
> Judicial appointments...holt fawk, Kagan not only looks like a bag lady, she's a bag lady.  The difference between Harriet Myers and her is that she's on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Although I voted for him a second time...that 2009 speech at West Point has left a pretty sour taste in the back of my mouth.



From what I can tell from your posts, you don't know what you don't know about the SCOTUS, the qualifications necessary to become appointed to the Court, or judicial decision making at all. 

Justice Kagan was nominated by a sitting President--that you voted for twice.  She was confirmed by Congress to sit on the Court.  And your complaint is based on what she looks like and/or how she dresses?

Have you read her opinions? Do you understand her judicial philosophy?


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 16, 2017)

Some food for thought and the BBC is more far left than any US publication.

The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news - BBC News


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 21, 2017)

heh...thought this was pretty good.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 22, 2017)

CNBC tends not to dig into most of the political weeds when it does reporting on politics.  Not sure what to make of this other than 39 seems a bit young to be appoint Surgeon General: Trump administration replaces US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 24, 2017)

Entire US Senate has been called to the White House for a briefing on NK:
Entire US Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing

This will be interesting.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 24, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Entire US Senate has been called to the White House for a briefing on NK:
> Entire US Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing
> 
> This will be interesting.


This is pretty worrying.  It sounds like the White House is trying to make a case for another war on the Korean peninsula.  I can't really think of a time in recent memory where the _entire_ senate has been requested at the White House for a national security briefing.

Alternatively, since the Senate is responsible for ratifying treaties, perhaps the president managed to work out something with China regarding NK and wanted to brief them.  This sounds less-plausible, especially since I'm not sure why you'd want to summon them to the White House.  Oh, staffers and aides are not allowed to attend.  If this is regarding treaties or foreign policy, that's probably to prevent leaks.

EDIT: Just read over it again.  The House will be briefed as well, though at a later date.  They're definitely trying to get an authorization to declare war.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 24, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> This is pretty worrying.  It sounds like the White House is trying to make a case for another war on the Korean peninsula.  I can't really think of a time in recent memory where the _entire_ senate has been requested at the White House for a national security briefing.
> 
> Alternatively, since the Senate is responsible for ratifying treaties, perhaps the president managed to work out something with China regarding NK and wanted to brief them.  This sounds less-plausible, especially since I'm not sure why you'd want to summon them to the White House.  Oh, staffers and aides are not allowed to attend.  If this is regarding treaties or foreign policy, that's probably to prevent leaks.
> 
> EDIT: Just read over it again.  The House will be briefed as well, though at a later date.  They're definitely trying to get an authorization to declare war.



Can we get them to declare war for Afghanistan and Iraq first before we go marching off towards a bloodbath?


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 24, 2017)

Saw this from the Washington Post and it made a lot of sense: Senate staff perplexed by unusual White House private briefing on North Korea

Instead of being some sort of ramp-up to action plan it's, according to their sources, just President Trump saying 'why don't we have Senators come to us instead of going to them' - kind of the interpersonal power politics of petty narcissism - or to rephrase 'keen business sense in order to get things done and win until you're tired of winning.'


----------



## AWP (Apr 24, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> This is pretty worrying.  It sounds like the White House is trying to make a case for another war on the Korean peninsula.



Strong work.

Cordially,
D. Cheney

You go to war with the Korea you have, not the Korea you wish you had.
Take care,
DHR


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 24, 2017)

We're fighting too many people.  We're going to get in over our heads fighting little, petty side conflicts and someone big and important is going to take advantage.  #Thuycidides


----------



## AWP (Apr 24, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> #Thuycidides



Nice.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 25, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> We're fighting too many people.  We're going to get in over our heads fighting little, petty side conflicts and someone big and important is going to take advantage.  #Thuycidides



I don't disagree, I just think we have been fighting petty side conflicts pretty regularly for the last 130 years - with the big wars the exception not the rule.  I feel like, especially as the Army, we ought to spend some time and resources learning how to win those petty side conflicts.  Instead we seem to want to hold out for the big fights - because it allows us to spend lots of money on big toys, expensive shit, and careers with industry for the brass.  It also means we don't ever really have to get a bad report card for any of our failures to win the small conflicts - since they don't really count, it will just be the big upcoming fight that will count, or WWII - we were great in WWII, why you gotta always bring up old shit like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan or any of that shit that doesn't really count.

I guess the other alternative is not to fight the petty side conflicts.  Not sure that's going to happen unless President Trump replaces SECDEF Mattis with Andrew Bacevich.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 25, 2017)

This is a pretty decent laydown of the 'official' Trump administration promises for the first 100 days - although a number of others were made on the campaign trail and other public comments from President Trump - and where they stand.  Overall it looks like the Trump administration has done about 10% of them, made some effort or demonstration towards another 50% or so but ran into the reality of how they framed the problem, and caved or flipped on the rest.

Trump's 100-Day Plan, Annotated: Where His Promises Stand


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 25, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I don't disagree, I just think we have been fighting petty side conflicts pretty regularly for the last 130 years - with the big wars the exception not the rule.  I feel like, especially as the Army, we ought to spend some time and resources learning how to win those petty side conflicts.  Instead we seem to want to hold out for the big fights - because it allows us to spend lots of money on big toys, expensive shit, and careers with industry for the brass.  It also means we don't ever really have to get a bad report card for any of our failures to win the small conflicts - since they don't really count, it will just be the big upcoming fight that will count, or WWII - we were great in WWII, why you gotta always bring up old shit like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan or any of that shit that doesn't really count.
> 
> I guess the other alternative is not to fight the petty side conflicts.  Not sure that's going to happen unless President Trump replaces SECDEF Mattis with Andrew Bacevich.



Some of the ones we're in, or are about to be in, aren't so petty.  We're fighting in morasses like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and especially in Syria the conflict has the possibility to escalate dramatically.  You and I both served in Korea so we both know what a mess that would be militarily, economically, and humanitarianly (is that a word?) if something kicked off.  We're making noise about Ukraine and posturing in the Baltics.  We even sent troops back to Somalia for some reason.  All of these things cost money, operational capacity, political capital, and of course American lives.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 25, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Some of the ones we're in, or are about to be in, aren't so petty.  We're fighting in morasses like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and especially in Syria the conflict has the possibility to escalate dramatically.  You and I both served in Korea so we both know what a mess that would be militarily, economically, and humanitarianly (is that a word?) if something kicked off.  We're making noise about Ukraine and posturing in the Baltics.  We even sent troops back to Somalia for some reason.  All of these things cost money, operational capacity, political capital, and of course American lives.



Yeah, I definitely agree Korea would be one of the 'big ones' the DoD has been pining/preparing for through doctrine and procurement.  I feel like Syria and Ukraine fall somewhere in between - where RNGW is a great doctrine but we don't have anything comparable.  Not since the Cold War have we really thought about proxy wars - and even then it seems like only echelons above corps were thinking about that stuff, guys on the ground were just paying the consequence of fighting with a hand tied behind their back.  One might argue Iraq morphed into a proxy war with Iran 2005-2010 with EFPs/JAM/JAM SP - but even then we never treated it that way.  But, my larger point is we end up fighting these smaller conflicts - not the major ones we spend our effort manning, training, and equipping for - the majority of our time.

I think you make a very valid argument we shouldn't let ourselves get bogged down in them in the first place - it's a smart strategic argument.  I just think history bears out that Presidents can't help themselves but get involved in them.  President Clinton, the first post-cold war president, didn't really campaign on foreign intervention yet, despite significant political and DoD pushback got deeply involved in the Balkans and Somalia - and would have gotten involved in Rwanda if he had it to do over again (and/or had a DoD that would have supported him).  President GW Bush campaigned on a more 'modest' military posture with 'no more nation building.'  Maybe without 9/11 he wouldn't have changed his stance so dramatically (certainly he wouldn't have had the political capital for Iraq) but the GWOT was/is a rash of interventions across the globe.  President Obama campaigned on pulling us out of most of these conflicts but he escalated operations everywhere but Iraq - and paid a hefty political price for his 'failure' to prevent ISIS in Iraq and 'loss' of Syria.  He limited ground troops but was extremely interventionist from the air.  President Trump, other than saying he had a secret plan whereby he would defeat ISIS in his first 30 days, campaigned on not getting involved in these smaller wars and getting distracted spending blood and treasure solving other countries' messes.  The secret ISIS defeat plan was apparently so secret even they never found out they had been defeated - but President Trump has been every bit as interventionist as his predecessors - albeit by really just letting the military do whatever they wanted (drop MOABs, sail carrier battle groups in whatever direction they like).  It's hard to tell how much is intent and how much is incompetence - but likely a solid helping of both.  But ultimately the narrative is very similar across all these leaders - they get into office and get us enmeshed in foreign conflicts.  Regardless of how smart/moral those choices are - those are the choices they continually make.

My point for the DoD at large and Army in particular is we need to accept reality and start figuring out how to win these smaller conflicts every President is intent on getting us involved in - whether they say so or not.  It's the only humanitarianly thing to do.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 25, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I don't disagree, I just think we have been fighting petty side conflicts pretty regularly for the last 130 years - with the big wars the exception not the rule.  I feel like, especially as the Army, we ought to spend some time and resources learning how to win those petty side conflicts.  Instead we seem to want to hold out for the big fights - because it allows us to spend lots of money on big toys, expensive shit, and careers with industry for the brass.  It also means we don't ever really have to get a bad report card for any of our failures to win the small conflicts - since they don't really count, it will just be the big upcoming fight that will count, or WWII - we were great in WWII, why you gotta always bring up old shit like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan or any of that shit that doesn't really count.
> 
> I guess the other alternative is not to fight the petty side conflicts.  Not sure that's going to happen unless President Trump replaces SECDEF Mattis with Andrew Bacevich.



I would prefer we stay out of petty side conflicts and let are enemies sort themselves.  We go into places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, what do we expect, they've been fighting for generations and beating every opponent playing the long game.  The only way to win is to have the political will to play the long game, that which we do not have for the petty side conflicts.



Il Duce said:


> This is a pretty decent laydown of the 'official' Trump administration promises for the first 100 days - although a number of others were made on the campaign trail and other public comments from President Trump - and where they stand.  Overall it looks like the Trump administration has done about 10% of them, made some effort or demonstration towards another 50% or so but ran into the reality of how they framed the problem, and caved or flipped on the rest.
> 
> Trump's 100-Day Plan, Annotated: Where His Promises Stand



So basically it's the Same Old Shit, Bullshit.  Not that I expected too much different, I wanted it to be different, he worked pretty hard in the 1st 30 days.  But the reality of being the MAN is thus.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 25, 2017)

So, apparently fuck Canadian soft wood...


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 25, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So, apparently fuck Canadian soft wood...



It's retaliation for our fearless leader not willing to compromise on our dairy quota system and reluctance to permit more US dairy into Canada.  Frankly we're fucked unless we acquiesce more to NAFTA negotiations.  Our dollar is tanking even more, foreign business is leaving much of the country and government isn't doing anything to help.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 25, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> It's retaliation for our fearless leader not willing to compromise on our dairy quota system and reluctance to permit more US dairy into Canada.  Frankly we're fucked unless we acquiesce more to NAFTA negotiations.  Our dollar is tanking even more, foreign business is leaving much of the country and government isn't doing anything to help.



I some what grasp what's going on, but find it a bit stupid. It may effect Canuckistan slightly, but the end result will be price hikes in the US for imported and domestic lumber, being passed onto home buyers. We still will need lumber from our northern brethren,  as we cannot harvest enough for domestic consumption. Any tariff placed on canuck lumber will be passed onto the end user. American lumber will not miss out on the chance to hike their prices to turn larger profit due to the increased cost of canuck lumber. Basically an artificial inflation and taxation. 

It won't help the US Citizen, unless Canucks start wheeling and dealing to avoid this bullshit.  

Sucks


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 25, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> It's retaliation for our fearless leader not willing to compromise on our dairy quota system and reluctance to permit more US dairy into Canada.  Frankly we're fucked unless we acquiesce more to NAFTA negotiations.  Our dollar is tanking even more, foreign business is leaving much of the country and government isn't doing anything to help.



Well...relax on our milk so we can supply you, and then you can supply us with plywood...geeze.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 26, 2017)

Pretty comprehensive review of President Trump's first 100 days - including all the context missing from the NPR grade on the administration's first 100 day promises: Trump’s First 100 Days: What Mattered, And What Didn’t

The only thing missing on the 'positive' side in my opinion is the increase in the stock market and consumer confidence in the business sector.  Ross Douthat covers those in his last editorial in the NYTimes.  But, I think this piece does address the idea that President Trump has had a significant impact on opinions and impressions - positively for conservatives and negatively for everyone else.  It's just something that has to be approached with some nuance as those impressions and opinions are not always based in any objective reality - and on some points are explicitly counter to objective reality.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 26, 2017)

One thing that I'm surprised hasn't gotten more attention is the administration's deal with China to buy American coal over North Korean coal.  I'll preface that by saying that I think coal is a terrible energy source, but the president campaigned on resurrecting the coal industry so here we are.

Anyway, the coal deal accomplishes two things: the first is that, obviously, it puts more money into the domestic coal industry.  Second, it puts the squeeze on one of NK's biggest (legitimate) exports.  There's a UN-mandated cap of $400 million on North Korean coal, so that cuts off a major source of the country's income.  Whether this means that other countries pick up the import slack or not, it does mean that the administration has successfully severed a major avenue of support between China and NK, and managed to benefit domestic industry at the same time.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 26, 2017)

Trumps's Tax Plan: White House Unveils Trump’s Opening Tax-Cut Bid

No President seems to be able to execute lasting tax reform.  How the article begs the question: "Who will pay for it?" Uh, the government pays for it by cutting spending.  Balance sheet, etc.

It's interesting: from 7 tax brackets to three.  What's funny about Schumer is that he's attacking a tax cut that helps him since he's wealthy as shit.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 26, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> What's funny about Schumer is that he's attacking a tax cut that helps him since he's wealthy as shit.


That's because he notionally cares about his constituents, who by-and-large are not wealthy.  Meanwhile, the president's proposal to eliminate the alternative minimum tax would greatly benefit him and other very wealthy people.  There's a bit of irony there if you can spot it.

EDIT: And the estate tax.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 26, 2017)

Trump's Tax cuts doesn't help me most of us much, but it doesn't harm us either.  What does harm us is continuing to deficit spend.  We need to wrangle our national debt, the tax plan and budget proposals so far do not truly address those.  I also see this tax plan going nowhere and the budget proposal going nowhere and we will continue to live that CR life.  I wish Congress Critters wouldn't receive a check when we ran on a CR.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 29, 2017)

Trump at NRA convention: 'Eight-year assault' on gun rights is over



> On the eve of his 100th day in office, President Trump rallied a convention of the National Rifle Association by vowing to "never, ever infringe" on Second Amendment rights and declaring his predecessor's alleged "assault" on those freedoms is over.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 29, 2017)

I honestly wonder if all the bluster on NK is simply to draw attention away from the 100 days.


----------



## AWP (Apr 29, 2017)

I'm still confused when I read or hear "President Donald Trump." "This is real? Seriously? Yeah, okay, I know." Two days later: "This is real? Seriously...."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 29, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Trump at NRA convention: 'Eight-year assault' on gun rights is over


I suppose he's channeling Charleton Heston:







TLDR20 said:


> I honestly wonder if all the bluster on NK is simply to draw attention away from the 100 days.



Norks tend to fire a lot of missiles during Republican presidencies it appears.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 29, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Trump at NRA convention: 'Eight-year assault' on gun rights is over



How was there an eight-year assault on guns rights when AAFES (over 208 locations) started selling firearms and Illinois finally got a conceal carry law? NC, SC, and GA it all became easier to purchase weapons, get conceal carry permits, and conceal carry. I know some other states have stricter laws but come on...:whatever:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 29, 2017)

Viper1 said:


> How was there an eight-year assault on guns rights when AAFES (over 208 locations) started selling firearms and Illinois finally got a conceal carry law? NC, SC, and GA it all became easier to purchase weapons, get conceal carry permits, and conceal carry. I know some other states have stricter laws but come on...:whatever:


Come to California and let me tell you a story...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 29, 2017)

I have been otherwise distracted the past couple of weeks and purposely stayed out of the political threads. However, getting back into the game I have to admit I would have loved to have been an aide in the room when Obama received his first $400K speaking fee  check , read this headline about our current President.

Trump: 'I thought it would be easier' - CNNPolitics.com

One has to wonder if he has stopped giggling yet.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 29, 2017)

But wouldn't every President say they missed their freedom and privacy if they were asked? 


Ooh-Rah said:


> I have been otherwise distracted the past couple of weeks and purposely stayed out of the political threads. However, getting back into the game I have to admit I would have loved to have been an aide in the room when Obama received his first $400K speaking fee  check , read this headline about our current President.
> 
> Trump: 'I thought it would be easier' - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> One has to wonder if he has stopped giggling yet.


I guess it does come across as whining a bit.

Wouldn't most presidents say they missed the freedom to maneuver and their privacy? Maybe it does sound like he's whining a bit though.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 29, 2017)

^ not sure how, but I screwed that post up^


----------



## DasBoot (Apr 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I have been otherwise distracted the past couple of weeks and purposely stayed out of the political threads. However, getting back into the game I have to admit I would have loved to have been an aide in the room when Obama received his first $400K speaking fee  check , read this headline about our current President.
> 
> Trump: 'I thought it would be easier' - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> One has to wonder if he has stopped giggling yet.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 30, 2017)

President Trump penned an op-ed in the Washington Post.  It's worth a read.

Opinion | President Trump: In my first 100 days, I kept my promise to Americans

Afterwards, read this analysis of polling on the administrations half-truths and false statements.  They pair nicely.

Opinion | Trump’s lies are working brilliantly. This new poll proves it.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 1, 2017)

We have a continuing resolution to fund the government at least up to September.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Some highlights:
-Fed funding for "sanctuary cities" is maintained
-Extra $15B in defense spending
-Extra $2B for NIH
-Planned Parenthood is funded
-Extra $1.5B for border security
-*No money for the border wall
*
This sounds like a pretty thorough repudiation of the Trump administration's spending priorities.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 1, 2017)

The power of the purse and compromise.  We need a real shut down where the only people getting paid are essential services and everyone else has to go home.  Yeah, it would tank our economy, but this deficit spending shit is getting very annoying.


----------



## Grunt (May 1, 2017)

It is now and has always been embarrassing to me to only be able to "fund our government" for six and seven months at a time. What an outstanding message that sends to the rest of the world about us.


----------



## Centermass (May 3, 2017)

How convenient. 

You just have to chuckle when it comes to timing. Yesterday, after appearing in a news interview, for the first time in a long time, HRC took personal responsibility for losing the election, and then, blamed the FBI and Russia for it. 

Today, Comey is now in the hot seat, testifying before congress and guess what? Feinstein is now on a lengthy tirade about Comey's actions prior to the election and also going off on Russia.  

Because coincedence......and such:wall:


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 3, 2017)

I still find it funny how she thinks she would have won if the election were held just two weeks earlier...


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 3, 2017)

Joint Presser with Mahmoud Abbas...Trump trying to be the peace broker in Israel...fear not the three presidents before him failed.


----------



## Il Duce (May 3, 2017)

I think Nate Silver at 538 makes a pretty convincing case it's highly likely the Comey letter swung the election - filled with caveats i.e. the Clinton campaign made tons of other errors.

This is the article that I think makes the case most compellingly in one place: The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election

I think it's also an interesting analysis of how much of the coverage of the letter and reluctance to admit it's impact stemmed from assumptions about HRC's victory when it released.  I think it's an insight applicable to everyone about cognitive bias - even if you're not convinced of media bias the way it's commonly referenced.

I should add I think this is valuable as historical analysis - trying to understand how and why things happened for historical reference and accuracy.  I don't think it provides an indictment of anyone's legitimacy or any kind of effective political lessons for running the next campaign by itself (only within context).

I'll also add I don't think anything is 'proven' in social science like this.  If you believe the data and science of polling the correlation in timing and shifts alongside the Comey letter is incontrovertible - but causation is impossible to 'prove.'  If you reject polling and the science around it completely (or selectively) then the article and argument will have no effect on you.  If you believe (as the Trump administration claims to) that over 3 million people voted illegally, swinging the popular vote to HRC so none of the data from the election can be believed (except President Trump's victory) I'm not sure what you would make of this if anything.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 3, 2017)

There was a guy who worked in the plans section who prior to his Army career worked for Gallup and he said in August when our new Plans Chief came in that Trump was going to win.  He talked about the science behind polling and that he didn't believe the amount of respondents they had would accurately reflect an electoral victory.

I reject 538 because Nate Silver let his writer put a bean burrito in the final four of their burrito bracket...wtf.

We're so entrenched now on one side or the other that I do not think that letter did a damn thing.  I think his announcement in summer had way more of an effect than the one in October.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 3, 2017)

I think you underestimate the amount of apathetical swing voters. This is true for all countries, not just the US.


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I think you underestimate the amount of apathetical swing voters. This is true for all countries, not just the US.


I am one of those apathetical swing voters. 

Why the holy shit are we still talking about the election? Why is P Trump holding pep rallies? Why are people calling for Colbert to be fired- cause he wasn't PC and said mean things he thought were true in defense of his friend? Boo frickin hoo.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 4, 2017)

I read this today and it made me think of this site, and the vast generalizations that we throw around here:

What Critiques of 'Smug Liberals' Are Missing


----------



## Gunz (May 4, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I read this today and it made me think of this site, and the vast generalizations that we throw around here:
> 
> What Critiques of 'Smug Liberals' Are Missing



TV and radio personalities, comedians, politicians (in general) and movie stars, are _all_ unreliable guides to whatever political affiliation they belong to, liberal or conservative...so I can agree with the writer on that point. And that's because they're all competing for attention, they are ego-driven people anyway, and the loudest and most outrageous voices are the ones that get heard above the din of global media saturation. You and I could sit down and have a reasonable discourse in politics, but reasonable discourse isn't what drives ratings and revenue or gets a person of this ilk the attention they crave.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 4, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I am one of those apathetical swing voters.
> 
> Why the holy shit are we still talking about the election? Why is P Trump holding pep rallies? Why are people calling for Colbert to be fired- cause he wasn't PC and said mean things he thought were true in defense of his friend? Boo frickin hoo.


Because that's what they do, Obama did them, Bush did them, Clinton did them.  And if you don't think they held rallies for speeches following their election...bridge in Brooklyn.

I don't watch late night TV, waste of damn time for anyone.  Could be spent reading a book or some such so I had to look that up.

Getting called "deface the nation" is a sign of the times.  I read mostly print and from any source until the dumb pay wall comes up.  I guess no one watched the speech from the president of the WHCA where he had to state that the press wasn't the enemy of the people...isn't it that when you have to say that you really are?  

In this day and age it's all about being outrageous, it's all clickbait, but clickbait is the only way to make money apparently.  There was a time when journalists actually did reporting rather than opinion, they used to have a section for opinion, but now you get a lot of opinion when you just want the news.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 4, 2017)

What kind of books do you read? It rarely shows.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 4, 2017)

Republican Obamacare replacement bill wins enough votes to pass House

And then there was that.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 4, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Republican Obamacare replacement bill wins enough votes to pass House
> 
> And then there was that.


Rumor is that this is going to get smashed in the senate.  The republicans can only allow 2 'No' votes before it dies.  If it does, that sound you're going to hear is a million attack ads being spun up for the republicans who voted for the house version.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 4, 2017)

They got 20 no Republican votes, shows what the Democrats were able to do so that they couldn't keep party integrity.  I'm actually surprised it got passed.  But the ACA continues to lose allies within the system, AETNA is leaving the market-place in Virginia.

So what we'll be left with is crap, which pretty much shows that although the system we had was fucked up, it's better than it is now.

Also, the preamble to the Constitution states: "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare;" within that context, Defense you pay, healthcare you regulate the industry so that it is affordable.  And the current law is making it unaffordable. 

Pretty sure the Republican bill is not the solution, but and a repeal doesn't get us back the system we had.  So it's just a jolly circle jerk.


----------



## Il Duce (May 4, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Rumor is that this is going to get smashed in the senate.  The republicans can only allow 2 'No' votes before it dies.  If it does, that sound you're going to hear is a million attack ads being spun up for the republicans who voted for the house version.



I think the pain will be in committee.  No way this version of the bill passes the Senate, and unlikely the Senate version will make it through the house.  I think it's still a better outcome for Republicans and President Trump who can now say they passed something.  They'll blame the fact it didn't become law on the generic set of villains - Washington, politics and usual, the media, the swamp, etc. - and just hope voters don't pay attention to what was actually in it (significant loss of benefits and coverage) or how it was passed (remember all the 'read the bill', 'passed on party lines,' 'done in secret,' and all the other criticisms - not to mention the lack of CBO score - the R's had during ACA passage).  But, if the last 100 days have taught us anything I think the Republicans and the administration are likely right in their calculus.  With Trump voters still at a 93% approval rating for him I can't imagine there's any shenanigans in the Trumpcare fight that are going to shake them out of those convictions.


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2017)

@ThunderHorse I know this refrain is getting tired, but I'll throw another 4 bar hook your way- "Just because other people did it, that doesn't make it ok now and that has to stop being an excuse at some point."

Colbert isn't news, he's a late show. It's all opinion. 'News' is Pres Trump has taken more time pandering to religious groups that want influence in politics than he has budget and Russian airspace incursion recently. 'Opinion' is that he should stop getting into late night twitter wars and responding to everyone that hurts his feelings. 

We are officially out of the first 100 days, and I'm cautiously optimistic for P Trump's first action (health care redux) that doesn't involve silly executive orders. The best part for me of his first 100 days is Bannon is more or less gone, Conway isn't on the news every day, and the P Trump apologists schtick has grown so tired people don't voice it as much. So that's cool.


----------



## Sendero (May 4, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> We are officially out of the first 100 days, and I'm cautiously optimistic for P Trump's first action (health care redux) that doesn't involve silly executive orders.



I'm having a hard time understanding why this new health care plan is a good thing.  Physician Atul Gawande has been on Twitter, making some points against it that make sense to me.  Can anyone explain to me the positive merits of the new plan?


----------



## Il Duce (May 4, 2017)

Sendero said:


> I'm having a hard time understanding why this new health care plan is a good thing.  Physician Atul Gawande has been on Twitter, making some points against it that make sense to me.  Can anyone explain to me the positive merits of the new plan?



The NYTimes did a pretty decent quick rundown of winners and losers today: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/...-in-the-latest-gop-health-care-bill.html?_r=0

I think getting much more of a factual breakdown of costs/benefits will have to wait for the CBO scoring.  Most of the opinion articles for/against the initial AHCA/Trumpcare bill a month ago are likely mostly still valid.  This bill largely made tweaks to that one (increasingly funding to the high-risk pool, eliminating much of the pre-existing conditions clauses, and ending the Medicare expansion by 2020) but is otherwise the same.  So, probably the CBO score will be similar - long-term government cost savings and massive increase in uninsured over the next 10 years.  Still, will be interesting to see how the additional incentive changes will affect things - could make their projection on coverage, cost, and the viability of the market much worse.


----------



## Sendero (May 4, 2017)

Thanks, @Il Duce. I'll give that a read.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 7, 2017)

This sucks: Interior Department Releases List of Monuments Under Review, Announces First-Ever Formal Public Comment Period for Antiquities Act Monuments


----------



## TLDR20 (May 8, 2017)

Remember when everyone was so upset that democrats had to "pass the bill to see what's in it?" How is that any different at all with what just happened with the house bill?

Any answers are more than welcome.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Remember when everyone was so upset that democrats had to "pass the bill to see what's in it?" How is that any different at all with what just happened with the house bill?
> 
> Any answers are more than welcome.




There's a massive difference between the ACA and the AHCA.  One is a bajillion pages.  The other is a weekend read for lawyers.
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1628/BILLS-115hr1628rh.pdf

The problem though, is that ACA fucked the system, and the AHCA doesn't remotely fix the system.  It's basically a: hey we did something bill.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


>



Well @TLDR20 , you did say:


TLDR20 said:


> Any answers are more than welcome.



I am actually looking forward to some articulate conversation around this topic as I will be seeing my sister-in-law this weekend and she will be asking the same question ad nauseum.


*ETA -*
Thunderhorse, are you saying the difference between the two bills is simply the number of pages, and that the house and senate don't have an excuse not to read it because of the reduced number of pages?


----------



## DocIllinois (May 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> There's a massive difference between the ACA and the AHCA.  One is a bajillion pages.  The other is a weekend read for lawyers.
> https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1628/BILLS-115hr1628rh.pdf
> 
> The problem though, is that ACA fucked the system, and the AHCA doesn't remotely fix the system.  It's basically a: hey we did something bill.



So, the fact that a bill has less words... makes it better?  More usable?  More authoritative?

Just trying to figure out the point made here.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 8, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> *ETA -*
> Thunderhorse, are you saying the difference between the two bills is simply the number of pages, and that the house and senate don't have an excuse not to read it because of the reduced number of pages?



You can make healthcare regulations succinct.  I understand there's a lot that goes into it.  But if it's to the point where you don't know what's in it until you pass it, that's a problem and that's an actual statement from when PUBLIC LAW 111–148 was being written.
 I also stated that the AHCA is just something being done for the sake of getting something done.  The only thing I like about it are that you can no longer face a tax penalty and that the wealthy aren't getting over-taxed.

@DocIllinois I don't think the AHCA solves the problems of the ACA, just like the ACA has failed to solve the problems of previous healthcare regulations.  I think this garbage, just like the ACA was garbage.  I was an advocate of Hybrid system that had a Single-Payer option.  But that's not what happened as we all know.

ETA-Different subject, I would state I don't agree with the premise of this article and that a lot of things have gotten under control with McMaster as NSA and we're on a path: Washington Loves General McMaster. Trump Doesn't.

However, if McMaster is guiding us on a path towards nation-building in three states he's got to be out of his skull.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 8, 2017)

Unless something changed while I wasn't looking, Washington only loves McMaster because Trump put him in his position.  As far as whether the CinC has faith in him, I can't say with certainty.  However, I will say "That's what you get when you put a modern day officer in a position of authority like that."  If what is said in the oped is true, and the presidential briefs with the NSA are really just a half-simplex affair, that just tells me that for all of his intellect and writing capabilities, McMaster leads like 85% of the other officers in the Army.  In other words, "Shut the fuck up and color, you fucking Cheeto."  

That may be what was needed to get the intel community together, and it damned sure worked for 3ACR, but that doesn't work with everyone, especially someone from the civilian world where people are allowed to ask questions and actually expect an answer.  I didn't expect a second Mattis, but I had expected different (better) from McMaster.  That's what I get for getting my hopes up.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> You can make healthcare regulations succinct.  I understand there's a lot that goes into it. * But if it's to the point where you don't know what's in it until you pass it, that's a problem *and that's an actual statement from when PUBLIC LAW 111–148 was being written.
> I also stated that the AHCA is just something being done for the sake of getting something done.  The only thing I like about it are that you can no longer face a tax penalty and that the wealthy aren't getting over-taxed.
> 
> @DocIllinois I don't think the AHCA solves the problems of the ACA, just like the ACA has failed to solve the problems of previous healthcare regulations.  I think this garbage, just like the ACA was garbage.  I was an advocate of Hybrid system that had a Single-Payer option.  But that's not what happened as we all know.



Already being addressed.

S.1571:  Read the Bills Act

"A Member of Congress, before voting in favor of final passage of any measure (except a private bill), must sign an affidavit, executed under penalty of perjury, that the Member either: (1) was present throughout the entire reading of each such measure, and listened attentively to the reading in its entirety; or (2) before such vote, read attentively each such measure in its entirety."


----------



## Poccington (May 9, 2017)

So Trump has sacked Comey... The fallout from this should be interesting.

Trump fires FBI Director James Comey


----------



## Kraut783 (May 9, 2017)

Weird how the DOJ AG and Deputy AG had recommended it.

Letters here.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...s/document-White-House-Fires-James-Comey.html


----------



## Salt USMC (May 9, 2017)

Well I think the president is just channeling his inner Nixon.  Except, instead of firing the special prosecutor, he's firing the head of the FBI.

I do not believe for a second that this is related to the Clinton investigation.  If it was, then the Trump administration would have let him go shortly after inauguration, not more than three months afterward.


----------



## Il Duce (May 9, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Weird how the DOJ AG and Deputy AG had recommended it.
> 
> Letters here.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...s/document-White-House-Fires-James-Comey.html



Definitely nuts.  Reading Deputy AG Rosenstein's letter - which is the only justification the AG and POTUS give for the relief - he makes the case Comey acted inappropriately against HRC.  Paragraph by paragraph he lays out essentially the same argument the HRC campaign made - Comey should not have held the press conferences that chastised HRC's actions, should not have announced his 'findings' but instead sent them to the then-AG, and most egregiously should not have sent the letter to Congress on what the FBI was doing in regards to Weiner's computer.

Each of those actions were fully supported by the then Trump-campaign - in fact they wanted Comey to go further.  Republicans screamed bloody murder about AG Lynch deciding stuff, thought Comey should have gone further in his press conference (but still played up his harsh words for HRC's behavior), and seized on the letter Comey sent to Congress before the election as 'proof' of the investigation being 'reopened.'

As I posted earlier there's a strong case to be made the Comey letter swung a very tight election to President Trump.  President Trump and Republicans have maintained that to be total bullshit - and the Trump administration has maintained in fact the election was not close - the President won by several million votes in the popular vote as well, because of 3-5 million illegal voters (who apparently all voted for HRC).  The idea President Trump has come around to HRC's position, and now feels Comey acted incorrectly against HRC during the election seems very hard to credit.  Though I guess if you think 3-5 million people voted illegally for HRC in the election President Trump can probably convince you of anything.

I've said before I thought this Russia stuff was embarrassing but unlikely to lead to any smoking gun on the administration.  But, the actions they've been taking are starting to change my mind.  This level of freak-out and cover-up (I can't think of any other credible reason for firing Comey - from POTUS' perspective - than the Russia probe) on Russia makes it seem like there is something to find and the administration is terrified of it.


----------



## Poccington (May 9, 2017)

This whole Russia thing is playing out like a really shit series of Homeland.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 9, 2017)

Sort of Random, but the only other President to fire an FBI Director was Clinton.  I know resignations were asked for of course.

It's also weird, Comey being an Ashcroft protege that he would have so easily been gotten rid of.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 9, 2017)

Besides Hoover (36 years).....Mueller was the only Director to last his full 10 year term, then did 2 more years...which was unprecedented.

heh, Wikipedia already has McCabe on the list.

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation - Wikipedia


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 9, 2017)

One of the more strongly worded letters of termination I have read....


----------



## AWP (May 9, 2017)

House of Cards is back May 30th, though I feel like we've watched a spin off since Jan.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 9, 2017)

So CNN was on at the gym and their panel was stating that he should have resigned as both Republicans, Democrats, and the American people did not have faith in his ability to lead the bureau.  Of course everyone for their different reasons.  I'm surprised at their take for the ten minutes I watched.

So Schumer wanted Comey's head, now he wants a special prosecutor...our government's inability to govern is phenomenal.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 10, 2017)

MG Ricky Waddell has been appointed Deputy Nat Sec Advisor...broken by Politico, I'm actually getting all in with Politico, they're doing great work now. Ricky Waddell named White House deputy national security adviser

Mike Cernovich contends that Waddell was originally appointed without authorization, I don't think he knows how this works.


----------



## CDG (May 10, 2017)

Regardless of how directly related the request and the termination are, the Trump administration had to know the story would break this way.  I'm sure plenty of people will be more than willing to believe Comey's request was the only cause of his firing, and there will be others who will take the complete opposite view.  The truth always lies somewhere in the middle, but we never get the full truth about anything in Washington.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/...0&nl=breaking-news&nlid=79207956&ref=cta&_r=0


----------



## Salt USMC (May 10, 2017)

There are a few quotes coming out from my favorite commentator, "Anonymous Source", which say that the administration essentially had no idea that this would blow up the way that it did.  They assumed that previous criticism of Comey by both Democrats and Republicans would be enough to mollify any concerns about timing, which is silly on its face.
Behind Comey’s firing: An enraged Trump, fuming about Russia

To add another wrinkle to the whole thing: grand jury subpoenas are being handed out as we speak CNN exclusive: Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation  - CNNPolitics.com
At the very least, Flynn is 100% going to jail.  I imagine that Carter Page is probably being subpoenaed as well, and will probably get some kind of  light sentence.  Beyond that is anyone's guess.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 11, 2017)

The White House has become INSANELY leaky after yesterday.  WaPo was able to obtain *thirty* sources to dispute the president's narrative for firing Director Comey
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey



> Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.
> 
> ------
> 
> ...



The president is getting more unhinged by the day, and it's starting to show.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 11, 2017)

On condition of anonymity...aka gossip.  I hate that garbage.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> On condition of anonymity...aka gossip.  I hate that garbage.



Agree to a point.  

I think it depends on the source material...for example, I am more inclined to believe in the validity of an anonymous quote from Wall Street Journal than I am Daily Mail.


----------



## AWP (May 11, 2017)

I'm dying laughing at this whole Comey thing. Last fall one side wanted him fired and another thought he did the right thing.

Now the roles are reversed.

Are we really THAT STUPID as a country?


----------



## Il Duce (May 11, 2017)

AWP said:


> I'm dying laughing at this whole Comey thing. Last fall one side wanted him fired and another thought he did the right thing.
> 
> Now the roles are reversed.
> 
> Are we really THAT STUPID as a country?



I don't know if that's exactly fair - the justification and reasoning the Trump administration and Republicans are giving for firing Comey is that they now (or maybe all along) agreed with Democrats that Comey acted inappropriately during the HRC email affair and should be fired because of it.  At least, that was the totality of the Rosenstein letter both the AG and President cited as their reasoning.

Of course, I think - and there's plenty of evidence - that's a transparent lie.  But, that's the case they're making.

I think the administration may have thought - or thought they could spin (and that's certainly what's happening in conservative media) - Democrats wouldn't balk at the firing because they agreed with everything in the Rosenstein letter, just as you indicated.  I can't decide if it was idiocy on the part of the administration to think that - or if it's solid calculation as they know as long as there is an even infinitesimal logical thread for one of their decisions their supporters will jump on it.


----------



## Topkick (May 11, 2017)

In a message to FBI staff late Wednesday, Comey wrote: “I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or for no reason at all. I’m not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed. I hope you won’t either. It is done, and I will be fine, although I will miss you and the mission deeply.”

Maybe, Comey's  own comments add something to the conversation?


----------



## racing_kitty (May 11, 2017)

AWP said:


> I'm dying laughing at this whole Comey thing. Last fall one side wanted him fired and another thought he did the right thing.
> 
> Now the roles are reversed.
> 
> Are we really THAT STUPID as a country?



Yes. Yes, we are. Nobody would want to conquer us because they have no means to subjugate that many fucking morons.


----------



## Topkick (May 11, 2017)

Maybe HE knew it was the right decision. Just sayin' how would j Edgar have reacted? I think we know it wouldn't be pretty but I haven't decided yet because I dont have the facts.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 11, 2017)

Wouldn't have happened to Hoover, he made sure he had dirt on everyone....EVERYONE.


----------



## Topkick (May 11, 2017)

Comey has dirt on both sides.


----------



## Poccington (May 12, 2017)

Trump admits 'this Russia thing' part of reasoning for firing James Comey

So now he's said that the Russia investigation was part of the reason he decided to fire him, along with the fact he was gonna fire him regardless of whether or not Sessions and Rosenstein made their recommendations.

Someone needs to reign him in, the likes of VP Pence, Spicer and Sanders coming out and pushing the narrative that it was a result of the recommendations he received, in order to try kill some of the uproar and then Trump just blows it all out of the water in one interview. It's madness.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 12, 2017)

I don't think his ego would have let something like that stay secret.


----------



## AWP (May 12, 2017)

I wonder the number of days before we merge this with the Dot thread....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 12, 2017)

AWP said:


> I wonder the number of days before we merge this with the Dot thread....



I nominate this story as exhibit number  ... I don't event know anymore. 

Trump suggests there may be ‘tapes’ of his private conversations with former FBI director (The Washington Post)


----------



## SpitfireV (May 12, 2017)

Classy.


----------



## CDG (May 12, 2017)

Come on POTUS, there's no need for this type of thing.  I was on the fence about his use of Twitter for awhile, but it's getting bad.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 12, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Trump admits 'this Russia thing' part of reasoning for firing James Comey
> 
> So now he's said that the Russia investigation was part of the reason he decided to fire him, along with the fact he was gonna fire him regardless of whether or not Sessions and Rosenstein made their recommendations.
> 
> Someone needs to reign him in, the likes of VP Pence, Spicer and Sanders coming out and pushing the narrative that it was a result of the recommendations he received, in order to try kill some of the uproar and then Trump just blows it all out of the water in one interview. *It's madness.*



The nitty gritty, right there.


----------



## Blizzard (May 12, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I nominate this story as exhibit number  ... I don't event know anymore.
> 
> Trump suggests there may be ‘tapes’ of his private conversations with former FBI director (The Washington Post)
> 
> View attachment 18721


Just when I think he's maybe turning the corner on his behavior by holding himself to a higher standard and self filtering, he does something like this. 

His unpredictability is the only thing predictable about him.  He's either crazy like a fox...or well, maybe just crazy.  They say leadership is lonely at the top but come on...  With his behavior I've got to believe it's going to be increasingly difficult to find high quality people that are willing to work with/for him.


----------



## Il Duce (May 12, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Trump admits 'this Russia thing' part of reasoning for firing James Comey
> 
> So now he's said that the Russia investigation was part of the reason he decided to fire him, along with the fact he was gonna fire him regardless of whether or not Sessions and Rosenstein made their recommendations.
> 
> Someone needs to reign him in, the likes of VP Pence, Spicer and Sanders coming out and pushing the narrative that it was a result of the recommendations he received, in order to try kill some of the uproar and then Trump just blows it all out of the water in one interview. It's madness.



When does it move from 'pushing the narrative' to just flat out being caught in a lie?  I guess the view of political 'spin' is a sliding scale for all of us - depending on our political views.  But, I think this is another clear case of the administration just flat out lying about something.  Just with a much faster flash-to-bang of being found out and changing their tune.


----------



## Devildoc (May 12, 2017)

I am putting this here since I do not believe we have a separate North Korea thread.  An article on the use of gaming theory as applied to the Korean situation:

Conventional Artillery and Nuclear  Missiles in North Korea | RealClearDefense


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 12, 2017)

Couple of things.  Comey was done and probably should have canned him during the transition period.  But...as we like to call Tracy Smith at ASU...President Twitter Twit just can't stay offline...jesus.


----------



## amlove21 (May 12, 2017)




----------



## AWP (May 12, 2017)

I've seen a few defense blogs talk about this interview. Jesus Christ...

Read Donald Trump's Interview With TIME on Being President

Regarding the new USS Ford aircraft carriers:



> You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."
> 
> It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.



What is digital indeed, Mr. President, what IS digital anway?


----------



## amlove21 (May 12, 2017)

AWP said:


> I've seen a few defense blogs talk about this interview. Jesus Christ...
> 
> Read Donald Trump's Interview With TIME on Being President
> 
> ...


Great googly moogly. That was a weird read.


----------



## Il Duce (May 12, 2017)

AWP said:


> I've seen a few defense blogs talk about this interview. Jesus Christ...
> 
> Read Donald Trump's Interview With TIME on Being President
> 
> ...



Slate of all places had a pretty decent explanation of the flap: Everything You Need to Know About the “Digital” “Catapults” Donald Trump Thinks the Navy Doesn't Need

Wouldn't normally be my first choice for an explanation of Navy procurement and operations but pretty decent translation of what the President probably thought to how it actually came out.


----------



## AWP (May 13, 2017)

"You know moderating is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our forum moderating system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use Mods anymore for moderating? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Mods don't have the power. You know the moderating is just brutal. You see members posting and going all over the place, there’s posts, memes, hijacking, and butthurt thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Admins. They have Admins. What are Admins? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with Admins." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned Moderators, Admins complain too much and are never around and it’s no good."


----------



## SpitfireV (May 13, 2017)

I think you need gainful employment.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 13, 2017)

AWP said:


> "You know moderating is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our forum moderating system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use Mods anymore for moderating? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Mods don't have the power. You know the moderating is just brutal. You see members posting and going all over the place, there’s posts, memes, hijacking, and butthurt thrown in the air."
> 
> It sounded bad to me. Admins. They have Admins. What are Admins? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with Admins." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned Moderators, Admins complain too much and are never around and it’s no good."



Wow.  Well done.  All of the points.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 15, 2017)

I'm considering the source (MSN), but ....

So is there part of this that every president does with certain discretion, or is this as ugly as my initial reaction?

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador


----------



## SpitfireV (May 15, 2017)

If you're hardly sharing it within your own government you shouldn't be sharing with the Sov- with Russia. Every President has known that.


----------



## Il Duce (May 15, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I'm considering the source (MSN), but ....
> 
> So is there part of this that every president does with certain discretion, or is this as ugly as my initial reaction?
> 
> Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador



It's as bad as you think.  A President could reveal classified information - then retroactively say it is 'declassified.'  Bush 43 did this with many of the leaks from the VP's office during the run-up and justification for the Iraq War.

The nuance here is that the information was apparently a part of an intelligence sharing agreement with a partner nation.  Meaning, they share intelligence with us but we're not allowed to share it with others without their express permission.  Of course, as the President, he can renegotiate or pull us out of those intelligence sharing agreements.  They're all entered into under executive authorities.

The other disturbing thing (to me) is the leak about this itself.  I don't think there's much, if any, justification for leaking classified information - and I'd count the President's classified statements as in that category, no matter how negative my views of him might be.  But, if you're an intelligence professional - who understands and cares about classification, intelligence oversight, intelligence agreements, and national security - this puts you in a tough spot.  The President has just done something incredibly damaging to all of those things - and contrary to agreements we have entered into in good faith with our allies.  He has done it to an adversary - with their state press present and ours forbidden from the meeting - and if you don't leak it no one will ever know about it (except those present).  I still wouldn't have leaked what happened - but I can see the dilemma the person(s) were in.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 15, 2017)

It's as if the man walks around playing the "I know a secret " game and wants to show off to Russia.

I am sure that the intelligence ally that gave us this information is very pleased that they may have been fingered.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 15, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I'm considering the source (MSN), but ....
> 
> So is there part of this that every president does with certain discretion, or is this as ugly as my initial reaction?
> 
> Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador


I would say yes, and no.

You have Five Eyes stuff, so sharing of classified information with certain allies.  What we have hear is either someone lying to help with the headline or someone willing to be Deep Throat.  Not sure.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I would say yes, and no.
> 
> You have Five Eyes stuff, so sharing of classified information with certain allies.  What we have hear is either someone lying to help with the headline or someone willing to be Deep Throat.  Not sure.



Do you just type anything that comes to mind?


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 15, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Do you just type anything that comes to mind?


Do you have anything to contribute?


----------



## SpitfireV (May 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Do you have anything to contribute?



Let's not quote your latest performance reports. And yes and, I have. 

My posts aren't gibberish though you see.


----------



## Il Duce (May 15, 2017)

The National Security Advisor just released a statement saying the story 'as reported' was false.  The exact words he used were 'no sources or methods were revealed, and no military operations not public knowledge were shared.'  So, if you parse the statement the anonymous source could - and likely is - correct.  The President shared intelligence gained from a partner that was not releasable.

I imagine to someone who knows the full story (and I am not one of them) it's likely a great case study to illuminate the difficulties in our classification system.  It's the same thing HRC ran into in the email scandal.  The IC can be pretty draconian about how things are classified, what can be shared/how it can be shared, and information derived from other sources.  For those on the right when HRC was suffering the fallout from that stuff - newspaper articles on the drone program needing to be 'classified,' failure to mark things properly as 'confidential' - any hint at the nuance and difficulties navigating the classification process was shameful treasonous scumbags covering over blatant corruption.  Now, the roles are reversed entirely.

From what I've heard so far it seems very likely both the anonymous source and NSA are technically correct - both stories line up once the words are parsed.  I would speculate - based on his previous behavior - the President did not intend to share things he wasn't supposed to.  He just doesn't understand, care about, or have the capability to acknowledge any IC rules or regulations.  It seems like much of the stuff he does is not necessarily ill-intentioned - it's just massive ignorance combined with unshakeable confidence and lack of self-reflection.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 15, 2017)

A well-reasoned explanation of why this is A Big Deal from lawfareblog 



> First, this is not a question of “leaking classified information” or breaking a criminal law.
> 
> Second, this is not a garden variety breach, and outrage over it is not partisan hypocrisy about protecting classified information.
> 
> ...



This is more than a partisan issue.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 15, 2017)

Quoting myself from January 7, 2017.



Ooh-Rah said:


> Back on topic -
> 
> <snip>
> Somewhere in the prior election thread I made a post stating that Trump would be a unifier. Specifically that if he turned out to be an immediate train wreck you would see the Dems and Republicans unify in near unanimous agreement and impeach him out of office before he has the opportunity to cause any real damage.
> ...




If the boys and girls who run things in Washington were going to make something happen, this might be the one they choose hang their hat on.


----------



## CDG (May 15, 2017)

It's going to be pretty difficult to justify going after Trump when Hillary's leaks, among many others, have been swept under the rug.  I know it's different, because he's POTUS. I get that.  I am not defending Trump.  I am saying that Washington has looked the other way for a long time about leaks, and paid lip service to national security issues as it relates to politicians.  I don't see this going very far, but I obviously could be wrong.


----------



## AWP (May 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> You have Five Eyes stuff, so sharing of classified information with certain allies.



Are you using this as an example of classification agreements or is there something else to using "Five Eyes" as it pertains to this story?


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 15, 2017)

AWP said:


> Are you using this as an example of classification agreements or is there something else to using "Five Eyes" as it pertains to this story?


The former.  As general sharing of classified data that happens...and quite obviously: Russia isn't NATO, Five Eyes, ABCA etc.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 16, 2017)

CDG said:


> It's going to be pretty difficult to justify going after Trump when Hillary's leaks, among many others, have been swept under the rug.  I know it's different, because he's POTUS. I get that.  I am not defending Trump.  I am saying that Washington has looked the other way for a long time about leaks, and paid lip service to national security issues as it relates to politicians.  I don't see this going very far, but I obviously could be wrong.



Wait what? Didn't trump run on a campaign of promises to go after Hillary? Didn't people shout from the hills about sending her to jail? We just chilling on that now?


----------



## amlove21 (May 16, 2017)

CDG said:


> It's going to be pretty difficult to justify going after Trump when Hillary's leaks, among many others, have been swept under the rug.  I know it's different, because he's POTUS. I get that.  I am not defending Trump.  I am saying that Washington has looked the other way for a long time about leaks, and paid lip service to national security issues as it relates to politicians.  I don't see this going very far, but I obviously could be wrong.


The thing with me is this- IF the story is to be believed (P Trump unwittingly laid out a plot that could give insight to sources and methods) that he shouldn't have- then we are talking about a different issue.

I'll take the administration Kellyanne's own words- he's not a candidate he's the president, and our president wanted to look powerful and display that he was a smart man and in that process he divulged information that could be harmful to the US. To Russia, of all people. While an investigation of his possible collision with Russia just won't go away.

I think this does go very far- problem is, at this point we all feel like this horseshit is normal. We haven't even gotten through the Comey firing yet, now we have to figure out how this mercurial businessman, the savior of the poor political outsiders can't get through a meeting he shouldn't have taken in an office he intimated may be bugged (let's hope so, actually, we'd actually know what he said) without betraying national security.

ETA- phone fat fingers


----------



## Il Duce (May 16, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> A well-reasoned explanation of why this is A Big Deal from lawfareblog
> 
> 
> 
> This is more than a partisan issue.



I thought this article in the Atlantic was the best summary I have seen of what this shows and why it's important: The Terrible Cost of Trump's Disclosures to the Russians

Of course, Eliot Cohen is going to give President Trump zero leeway - he is anti-Trump all the way.  But, that doesn't mean his analysis and points are wrong.  Just that he's in the 'hater' camp to use the President's parlance.



Ooh-Rah said:


> Quoting myself from January 7, 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know on this one.  I think more and more the evidence points to there is very little President Trump can do to lose the approval of his base, and a solid portion of his party's elected officials.  I've read many of his supporters look at any criticism of him - even/especially those supported by evidence - as attacks on them, their intelligence, their world view, and their choices and react with even stronger support.  As someone on the other side of the political aisle I'd love to throw stones but if that's how they look at political issues are they holding up a mirror?  Is that how we all do?  I like to think my opinions and choices are about weighing information and values - but this phenomenon makes it seem like it's more about choosing a 'team' and sticking with it through thick and thin.  It makes politics more of a religion than a philosophy.  I'd like to think only conservatives are guilty and liberals like me are above that shit - but that kind of thinking is exactly the illogical crap that gets you into those problems in the first place 'my brain works differently than those people that are less than me because of their: race, gender, age, national origin, political views, and on and on.'



CDG said:


> It's going to be pretty difficult to justify going after Trump when Hillary's leaks, among many others, have been swept under the rug.  I know it's different, because he's POTUS. I get that.  I am not defending Trump.  I am saying that Washington has looked the other way for a long time about leaks, and paid lip service to national security issues as it relates to politicians.  I don't see this going very far, but I obviously could be wrong.



I would think the opposite.  HRC's email scandal - identified through the Benghazi investigation - caused multiple congressional hearings, a full FBI investigation - with findings made public throughout a tight election, and provided a consistent narrative and rallying cry for candidate-Trump with calls of 'lock her up' and a promise of sending her to jail after the election.  The only hint of feeling differently was in the justification for firing director Comey - and the administration jumped off that lie within the first 48 hours.

How do you say HRC - investigated and castigated, but not found guilty of any crime - is terrible/criminal/treasonous for mishandling classified information that - to the best of investigators knowledge - never made it into foreign/unauthorized hands.  Yet, if President Trump - the same guy screaming about how terrible all that shit was (along with his followers) - gives classified information directly to Russian diplomats, and Russian press let into the meeting with recording devices, that it's not a big deal?

I take your point on the hypocrisy part to forgive HRC - yet castigate President Trump.  But, I think it more than cuts both ways.  I also think there are plenty of people (like me) who thought the castigating Comey gave HRC was right - but also right that she shouldn't/couldn't be prosecuted - yet held their nose and voted for her anyways.  I wonder if President Trump's supporters will also feel he was very wrong - but still deserves support.  Or, if they'll say he didn't do anything wrong because - fake news, media is biased, liberals are assholes, leakers are bad, etc.


----------



## Il Duce (May 16, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The former.  As general sharing of classified data that happens...and quite obviously: Russia isn't NATO, Five Eyes, ABCA etc.



The way this was reported - unless it's fabricated, and if it was the NSA and others would have said that, not their carefully worded reply - this was not an issue of portion marking.  This was an issue of releasing something protected by a codeword or SAP.


----------



## CDG (May 16, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Wait what? Didn't trump run on a campaign of promises to go after Hillary? Didn't people shout from the hills about sending her to jail? We just chilling on that now?



Look man, I already said I wasn't defending Trump.  I didn't say "we should let it go".  What I said, was that Washington has made it NBD to leak classified information over years and years. If this is the one "they" decide to draw the line on, so be it.  




amlove21 said:


> The thing with me is this- IF the story is to be believed (P Trump unwittingly laid out a plot that could give insight to sources and methods) that he shouldn't have- then we are talking about a different issue.
> 
> I'll take the administration Kellyanne's own words- he's not a candidate he's the president, and our president wanted to look powerful and display that he was a smart man and in that process he divulged information that could be harmful to the US. To Russia, of all people. While an investigation of his possible collision with Russia just won't go away.
> 
> ...



I agree with you.  I realize it's different.  The fact that we've come to expect this behavior out of Washington is certainly a bigger problem.  Like I said above, if this is where "they" decide to draw the line, so be it.  There had better be a standard set though.  Also, if POTUS is punished, after HRC was essentially let off the hook, then this country only becomes further divided. Again, I am not defending Trump, nor am I saying we should let this go.  Just saying that people on both sides are looking for excuses to go Leroy Jenkins on political issues.



Il Duce said:


> I would think the opposite.  HRC's email scandal - identified through the Benghazi investigation - caused multiple congressional hearings, a full FBI investigation - with findings made public throughout a tight election, and provided a consistent narrative and rallying cry for candidate-Trump with calls of 'lock her up' and a promise of sending her to jail after the election.  The only hint of feeling differently was in the justification for firing director Comey - and the administration jumped off that lie within the first 48 hours.
> 
> How do you say HRC - investigated and castigated, but not found guilty of any crime - is terrible/criminal/treasonous for mishandling classified information that - to the best of investigators knowledge - never made it into foreign/unauthorized hands.  Yet, if President Trump - the same guy screaming about how terrible all that shit was (along with his followers) - gives classified information directly to Russian diplomats, and Russian press let into the meeting with recording devices, that it's not a big deal?
> 
> I take your point on the hypocrisy part to forgive HRC - yet castigate President Trump.  But, I think it more than cuts both ways.  I also think there are plenty of people (like me) who thought the castigating Comey gave HRC was right - but also right that she shouldn't/couldn't be prosecuted - yet held their nose and voted for her anyways.  I wonder if President Trump's supporters will also feel he was very wrong - but still deserves support.  Or, if they'll say he didn't do anything wrong because - fake news, media is biased, liberals are assholes, leakers are bad, etc.



Where in my post did I say Hillary was terrible/criminal/treasonous? You and TLDR20 both apparently missed the part where I said I was NOT defending POTUS.  I never said it wasn't a big deal, and I never said Hillary was terrible, criminal, or treasonous (in that post ). I was offering an opinion about what I saw as a facet to this issue.  Ardent Trump supporters will lose their minds if Trump faces actual punishment over this, when Hillary was never charged.  They will fail to see the differences, and will make the two the same issue, and the country will be further divided.  That was my point.


----------



## amlove21 (May 16, 2017)

@CDG I know you're not defending Trump on this one, but it's important that we don't frame this as a bipartisan issue at all, exactly like you said. This event stands on its own; so why bring up any other issue  (like HRC) as a means to say, "The other guy wasn't punished for exactly this so don't go crazy." Even if some wacky democrat did something on this level and was completely ignored, P Trump's actions would still be wrong. 

In the end, this conversation is moot anyway, the President said he had 'the right' to share information with Russia for ... reasons.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> In the end, this conversation is moot anyway, the President said he had 'the right' to share information with Russia for ... reasons.



Which brings me to my next natural question....in the world of what considered classified/Top Secret/etc, is the President the final say on "need to know?".  Meaning if he determines that someone (or country) needs to know, is he well within his rights as President to share that information?


----------



## TLDR20 (May 16, 2017)

@CDG I know you said you aren't defending POTUS here. I don't think you are. But when taken in a larger context of conversations on this board, to see anyone rationalize this is surprising.


----------



## Blizzard (May 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> In the end, this conversation is moot anyway, the President said he had 'the right' to share information with Russia for ... reasons.


I'm not going to jump to Trump's defense on this either but at the same time we need to maybe take the story with a grain of salt.

According to McMaster, "At no time, at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known." "I was in the room, it didn't happen," added McMaster.

Trump says he had 'absolute right' to share info with Russia

If the Washington Post wants to call out such stories, they should put names to their sources.  With these types of stories, the media is just as questionable as the President's decision.  The anonymous stuff doesn't carry nearly as much weight.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 16, 2017)

I will say I am 100% against naming sources. You do something like that, the next step is retribution. The step after that is no one coming forward to expose bullshit. Next thing you know we are living in a black hole of information. 

Journalists can and should protect their sources. People should be able to comment anonymously. It is part of our system.


----------



## Blizzard (May 16, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I will say I am 100% against naming sources. You do something like that, the next step is retribution. The step after that is no one coming forward to expose bullshit. Next thing you know we are living in a black hole of information.
> 
> Journalists can and should protect their sources. People should be able to comment anonymously. It is part of our system.


I understand that argument and agree to an extent but there is always someone with an axe to grind and they only have half the story/telling half truths.   Have you ever read a media report on an event that you had first hand knowledge about?  They're usually full of errors; typically as a result of sloppy journalism (which we see a lot of).  Now consider such reports with an anonymous source that no one can follow up with for clarification.   It's problematic.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 16, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> I understand that argument and agree to an extent but there is always someone with an axe to grind and they only have half the story/telling half truths.   Have you ever read a media report on an event that you had first hand knowledge about?  They're usually full of errors; typically as a result of sloppy journalism (which we see a lot of).  Now consider such reports with an anonymous source that no one can follow up with for clarification.   It's problematic.



Sure it is. In this case the President said he did it and said he was allowed to do it. So it is obviously correct in the basic facts. If POTUS was like "fuck no I didn't do shit, prove it" that would be a much different story. In reality he said something more along the lines, "I do what I want" which is much more problematic in a republic like ours...


----------



## Blizzard (May 16, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Sure it is. In this case the President said he did it and said he was allowed to do it. So it is obviously correct in the basic facts. If POTUS was like "fuck no I didn't do shit, prove it" that would be a much different story. In reality he said something more along the lines, "I do what I want" which is much more problematic in a republic like ours...


The devil is in the details, right?  He didn't say that he discussed sources of the intel, collection methods, etc.  That's the important detail in question.  But, you're correct, he does admit to having conversations about it which, technically, he does have the right to do.  Important splitting of hairs.  Confirming what was really said/took place in this case is pretty problematic.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 16, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Journalists can and should protect their sources. People should be able to comment anonymously. It is part of our system.



But....journalism has definitely changed with the inception of the Internet, and certainly blogs.   Gone are the days when an intrepid reporter from NY Times or Chicago Tribune could run a story quoting anonymous sources, and you knew you could trust that story because of the publication it originated from.  Now literally anyone with a blog can play mini-reporter and pass along info that they heard, or read somewhere else, (or simply make up to get clicks) and claim "confidential source".   While it has made me a much more skeptical reader (and viewer for that matter), it does become difficult to know what (and who) to believe.


----------



## Topkick (May 16, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Wait what? Didn't trump run on a campaign of promises to go after Hillary? Didn't people shout from the hills about sending her to jail? We just chilling on that now?



I didn't think for a minute that it would ever happen. Clinton, Inc. is above the law. Disappointing was his statement " she is a good person" immediately after he won the election!


----------



## CDG (May 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> @CDG I know you're not defending Trump on this one, but it's important that we don't frame this as a bipartisan issue at all, exactly like you said. This event stands on its own; so why bring up any other issue  (like HRC) as a means to say, "The other guy wasn't punished for exactly this so don't go crazy." Even if some wacky democrat did something on this level and was completely ignored, P Trump's actions would still be wrong.
> 
> In the end, this conversation is moot anyway, the President said he had 'the right' to share information with Russia for ... reasons.



I agree.  I think the events are separate.  You think they are separate.  D thinks they are separate.  A lot of America does not though.  There's what "should" happen, and there's what will happen.  My point, is about what will happen.  I don't agree with it, but it's still the reality.

As to him saying he had a right to share the info, I don't even know where to start with that one.  So, so wrong.



TLDR20 said:


> @CDG I know you said you aren't defending POTUS here. I don't think you are. But when taken in a larger context of conversations on this board, to see anyone rationalize this is surprising.



I'm not rationalizing anything.  Like I said above, should vs. will.  He was dead wrong.  However, we all know the state this country is in.  This will turn into a bipartisan issue like everything else.


----------



## Poccington (May 16, 2017)

Trump: I shared information with Russia and I had 'absolute right' to do so

I guess this pretty much confirms Trump may have said too much to the Russians and he again displays his willingness to let his staff push out a narrative before he blows it out of the water.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 16, 2017)

This guy man...so uncouth.  Can he just shut up for a couple of days?


----------



## Il Duce (May 16, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Which brings me to my next natural question....in the world of what considered classified/Top Secret/etc, is the President the final say on "need to know?".  Meaning if he determines that someone (or country) needs to know, is he well within his rights as President to share that information?



Not so much 'need to know' but all classifications are derived from the President's authority.  It is 100% legal for the President to share anything he wants - because ultimately he's the authority by which classification is decided.  His subordinates in the IC make the day-to-day rules - but he's the authority under which they do so.

The lawfare blog - quoted by @Salt USMC earlier in the thread - has the best explanation I've seen of all the in's and outs.  Here is the link: Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story

So, not illegal at all - but still very problematic.  They lay out the case in much more detail and better than I could do.  But, anybody that says the President broke the law is wrong.  It's essentially what President Nixon said (and they cite in the blog) 'if the President does it - it's not illegal.'  Of course, it was - and still is - totally illegal for anyone other than the President to do what he did.


----------



## CDG (May 16, 2017)

Yet another twist to the story.  We got the intel from Israel.  I wonder how the Israelis feel about the sharing of information with Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/w...6&nl=breaking-news&nlid=79207956&ref=headline


----------



## Topkick (May 16, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Not so much 'need to know' but all classifications are derived from the President's authority.  It is 100% legal for the President to share anything he wants - because ultimately he's the authority by which classification is decided.  His subordinates in the IC make the day-to-day rules - but he's the authority under which they do so.
> 
> The lawfare blog - quoted by @Salt USMC earlier in the thread - has the best explanation I've seen of all the in's and outs.  Here is the link: Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story
> 
> So, not illegal at all - but still very problematic.  They lay out the case in much more detail and better than I could do.  But, anybody that says the President broke the law is wrong.  It's essentially what President Nixon said (and they cite in the blog) 'if the President does it - it's not illegal.'  Of course, it was - and still is - totally illegal for anyone other than the President to do what he did.



In the end, the CinC is responsible for what does or does not happen. He was voted in to make tough decisions to protect the American people. I also believe we have Israel' s back and McMaster is known to be brutally honest. If Trump shared info with Russia which will help destroy ISIS, as he says, I am all for it. What am I missing? Before you refer to me as a supporter of the religion of Trump, understand that I don't agree with everything he does.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 16, 2017)

"Former Officials"...put your name to it.  Either stand ready in the storm or shut it.


----------



## Blizzard (May 16, 2017)

CDG said:


> Yet another twist to the story.  We got the intel from Israel.  I wonder how the Israelis feel about the sharing of information with Russia.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/w...6&nl=breaking-news&nlid=79207956&ref=headline


So, that's not the President outing Israel.  That's the NY Times and an anonymous "current and a former American official" outing the source.   No one else has publicly stated how or where the info came from.


----------



## CDG (May 16, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> So, that's not the President outing Israel.  That's the NY Times and an anonymous "current and a former American official" outing the source.   No one else has publicly stated how or where the info came from.



I didn't say the President outed Israel.


----------



## Topkick (May 16, 2017)

He said/ she said at this point.


----------



## Blizzard (May 16, 2017)

CDG said:


> I didn't say the President outed Israel.


I know you didn't.  My comment wasn't directed at you; rather just a comment in general about the article and the types of reports that are being published.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 16, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Have they stated what information? He said/ she said at this point. I don't believe there is any evidence yet?



No need to bother with those kind of details, Top.  The next impulsive leadership decision/ distraction to overshadow legislative priorities such as health care and tax reform is enroute.


----------



## Topkick (May 16, 2017)

Yep, but it comes from both sides.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 16, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Yep, but it comes from both sides.



And you're confident in the behavior and decisions that are coming from the top to provide the constancy and expert guidance critical to addressing White House turmoil?


----------



## Topkick (May 16, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> And you're confident in the behavior and decisions that are coming from the top to provide the constancy and expert guidance critical to addressing White House turmoil?


I am confident that there is not as much turmoil as some would like you to believe.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 16, 2017)

Topkick said:


> I am confident that there is not as much turmoil as some would like you to believe.



I'm willing to wait out the long game on that.


*U.S. lawmakers want Trump to explain giving intelligence to Russia*

"President Donald Trump came under pressure on Tuesday from U.S. lawmakers, including some of his fellow Republicans, to give a fuller explanation of why he revealed highly sensitive intelligence information to senior Russian officials at a White House meeting last week."


----------



## Topkick (May 16, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> I'm willing to wait out the long game on that.
> 
> 
> *U.S. lawmakers want Trump to explain giving intelligence to Russia*
> ...



They are doing their job. In my eyes the explanation after the fact is always expected. Congress and Senate always wants to know why..as they should ..that's why they exist. The American people want to know why and these folks are supposed to represent us. Trump should have to explain but it doesn't automatically mean turmoil. Its the system we use.


.


----------



## Il Duce (May 16, 2017)

Topkick said:


> In the end, the CinC is responsible for what does or does not happen. He was voted in to make tough decisions to protect the American people. I also believe we have Israel' s back and McMaster is known to be brutally honest. If Trump shared info with Russia which will help destroy ISIS, as he says, I am all for it. What am I missing? Before you refer to me as a supporter of the religion of Trump, understand that I don't agree with everything he does.



Yeah, that's exactly one of the points they made in the lawfare blog.  I think it's worth a read but to summarize one of the issues is how you see the President's decision.  Did he make an error or does he see this release as a part of a strategy?  Even if it's the wrong strategy - he is absolutely empowered through election to do that.  But, if it was a mistake - just blurting out shit without concern for the trust/agreement it represents it could be interpreted as a violation of his oath of office.

An example they cite in the blog is the President absolutely has the authority and would not be breaking the law (as long as he was the one doing it) to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note, take a picture, and tweet them out.  But, it would raise the very legitimate question if he was actually executing the duties of his office the way he swore to 'uphold and defend.'  It sounded like an extreme example, then I started thinking about the facebook photos of the President having an emergency planning session on North Korea in the Mar-e-Lago dining room and feel like I'm not going to tempt fate by going that far.

Ultimately I guess it's like almost everything when it comes to a President - it comes down to trust.  There is enormous power in the executive - especially in the realms of national security, law enforcement, and intelligence.  The line on trusting their judgment and actions - where you judge it to be - is a matter of interpretation and analysis much more than statute.



ThunderHorse said:


> "Former Officials"...put your name to it.  Either stand ready in the storm or shut it.



I don't think that's at all fair.  There is no way to 'leak' this type of information other than anonymously - without going to jail.

It comes down to the argument about leaking in the first place.  I think this sort of judgment (or misjudgment) from the President is incredibly pertinent to the public.  But, it's secret for a reason.  Just talking about the fact this came up means dangerous secrets are coming to light - not the least intelligence sharing from Israel.  Even if the report is totally wrong the damage is done - trust by other nations for sharing intelligence with the US is harmed going forward, there's no getting around that.  But, I think it's very difficult to hold that judgment against journalists.  It's like saying 'if you report on police abuse people won't trust the police and crime will be worse' - that could be 100% true, yet in order not to report it the journalist would have to trust the institution to reform - without outside reporting/pressure.  I think the history of our republic means journalists will always - and probably should - bias towards the release of information about institutional abuses.

The trick comes in for the leaker themselves - where I think that argument does hold water.  They might feel the public has a right to know and the President is acting unconscionably.  But, that doesn't alleviate them at all from the damage to the national security and intelligence apparatus their leak would entail.  I do think this one case adds a wrinkle in that the President didn't just release the information to Russian diplomats - but also the Russian press.  I think it's way harder to make the case the Russian press deserve the information but the US press does not.

I wouldn't have leaked the conversation but, I can see why someone with a deep commitment to national security and the IC would.  I would not want to work at that level and have to deal with that kind of shit.  I wonder if any of the political side of the administration feel the same way?  Does it weigh on them to have to lie for the President?  LTG McMaster wrote a book on the lack of moral leadership and ability to tell truth to power during the Vietnam war.  I think he is sidling up to a big bowl of irony every morning now.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 16, 2017)

Reading the new posts, made me think of this...I don't know why, but here it is anyway.

NSFW


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 16, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I don't think that's at all fair.  There is no way to 'leak' this type of information other than anonymously - without going to jail.
> 
> It comes down to the argument about leaking in the first place.  I think this sort of judgment (or misjudgment) from the President is incredibly pertinent to the public.  But, it's secret for a reason.  Just talking about the fact this came up means dangerous secrets are coming to light - not the least intelligence sharing from Israel.  Even if the report is totally wrong the damage is done - trust by other nations for sharing intelligence with the US is harmed going forward, there's no getting around that.  But, I think it's very difficult to hold that judgment against journalists.  It's like saying 'if you report on police abuse people won't trust the police and crime will be worse' - that could be 100% true, yet in order not to report it the journalist would have to trust the institution to reform - without outside reporting/pressure.  I think the history of our republic means journalists will always - and probably should - bias towards the release of information about institutional abuses.
> 
> ...



I completely disagree.  You either put your name to it, especially these "former officials" who actually know nothing, because they aren't there.  It's very fair.  You know, since we have those awesome whistleblower protection laws.  All of these leaks from the previous and now current administration do is create problems for governance.  It's bloody annoying.  As far as the intelligence data is concerned, if it's as McMaster stated, that all of what was said is common knowledge due to currents journalism, then it wasn't exactly: "oh my bajesus he gave them secrets."  And why does anyone think there was Russian Press in the meeting past the photo op.

In the end this all looks like shit.  We're eating a shit sandwich.

Now...different topic, not that I can read it because it's behind a pay wall, but the NYT is reporting that Trump urged Comey to close the Flynn investigation.  Now that is fucked up and I don't think will go very far. Donald Trump asked Comey to shut down Flynn probe, NBC News confirms
Times hasn't seen the memo...and it's been read to them.  I don't trust that at all.


----------



## Blizzard (May 16, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I wouldn't have leaked the conversation but, I can see why someone with a deep commitment to national security and the IC would.  I would not want to work at that level and have to deal with that kind of shit.  I wonder if any of the political side of the administration feel the same way?  Does it weigh on them to have to lie for the President?  LTG McMaster wrote a book on the lack of moral leadership and ability to tell truth to power during the Vietnam war.  I think he is sidling up to a big bowl of irony every morning now.


It sounds as though you've made up your decision on what took place albeit based upon anonymity and here say.


----------



## Il Duce (May 16, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> It sounds as though you've made up your decision on what took place albeit based upon anonymity and here say.



Yes, I've made my assessment of what I think happened based on the reporting and statements so far.  It certainly could be wrong, but I think the statements from all sides point to the same narrative.  The President talked about ISIS and our efforts against them in a meeting with the Russian ambassador and limited Russian press.  During the discussion he disclosed intelligence we gained through Israel that was not releasable per our agreement with them.  Someone(s) in the meeting - and possibly others with knowledge of the meeting after the fact, as is common in these sorts of meetings where detailed notes are distributed - released the fact of the Israeli-intelligence disclosure to the Washington Post.  They reported it and the damage control spin has been in full effect on all sides.

It could be something else happened, or key nuances off those basic facts have significant bearing on an interpretation of the events, but I think enough information is out to make those conclusions with a reasonable amount of confidence.

It's certainly true that anything through a filter of media reports - or through a filter of administration, public affairs, or political filter - could have significant inaccuracies or outright lies.  But, part of being a consumer of information is sifting through that stuff and making conclusions.  Elsewise you're just Plato in the cave speculating about shadows.


----------



## Topkick (May 16, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Yes, I've made my assessment of what I think happened based on the reporting and statements so far.  It certainly could be wrong, but I think the statements from all sides point to the same narrative.  The President talked about ISIS and our efforts against them in a meeting with the Russian ambassador and limited Russian press.  During the discussion he disclosed intelligence we gained through Israel that was not releasable per our agreement with them.  Someone(s) in the meeting - and possibly others with knowledge of the meeting after the fact, as is common in these sorts of meetings where detailed notes are distributed - released the fact of the Israeli-intelligence disclosure to the Washington Post.  They reported it and the damage control spin has been in full effect on all sides.
> 
> It could be something else happened, or key nuances off those basic facts have significant bearing on an interpretation of the events, but I think enough information is out to make those conclusions with a reasonable amount of confidence.
> 
> It's certainly true that anything through a filter of media reports - or through a filter of administration, public affairs, or political filter - could have significant inaccuracies or outright lies.  But, part of being a consumer of information is sifting through that stuff and making conclusions.  Elsewise you're just Plato in the cave speculating about shadows.


General McMaster was in the room too. He says it was appropriate. He said/ she said.


----------



## Il Duce (May 16, 2017)

Topkick said:


> General McMaster was in the room too. He says it was appropriate. He said/ she said.



Appropriate doesn't disagree with the anonymous source - it just gives a value judgment.  The fact that LTG McMaster, SEC Tillerson, et al are not disputing the fact of President Trump's disclosure - just it's impact and context - is part of what makes the anonymous sources very believable to me.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 16, 2017)

More outlandish things to be consumed: Trump =asked Comey to consider imprisoning members of the press


----------



## Topkick (May 16, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Appropriate doesn't disagree with the anonymous source - it just gives a value judgment.  The fact that LTG McMaster, SEC Tillerson, et al are not disputing the fact of President Trump's disclosure - just it's impact and context - is part of what makes the anonymous sources very believable to me.



If everyone in the meeting agrees that what Trump disclosed was appropriate, I am done here.


----------



## Il Duce (May 16, 2017)

Topkick said:


> If everyone in the meeting agrees that what Trump disclosed was appropriate, I am done here.



Presumably the anonymous sources were in the meeting.  You can form whatever opinion you like - but I somehow doubt 'everyone in the room is in agreement' as the test for legitimacy, appropriateness, or wisdom is a standard you're likely to apply in other cases.  Everyone sounded in agreement in the room on most of Nixon's Watergate tapes - totally legit I guess in your book now.

If you want to reach for a reason to say President Trump did right and criticism of him is unfair you don't have to reach that far.  His tweets this morning pretty well sum it up 'I'm the President, I can share what I want, this is part of my plan to defeat ISIS in the first 30 days of my Presidency.'


----------



## Poccington (May 16, 2017)

White House rocked by allegation Trump tried to shut down FBI's Flynn probe

Chaffetz has said he'll subpoena the memo.

If the memo actually exists, considering at the minute nobody who's running the story has actually seen it, it's gonna cause mayhem for Trumps administration.

If it doesn't, I'd imagine Trump will cause mayhem for the NY Times.


----------



## Blizzard (May 16, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Presumably the anonymous sources were in the meeting. You can form whatever opinion you like - but I somehow doubt 'everyone in the room is in agreement' as the test for legitimacy, appropriateness, or wisdom is a standard you're likely to apply in other cases. Everyone sounded in agreement in the room on most of Nixon's Watergate tapes - totally legit I guess in your book now.


Perhaps you have a different source but the only people in the room per all reports I've seen (so I'll consider this to be fact until shown otherwise) were: President Trump, National Security Adviser McMaster, Deputy National Security Adviser Powell, and Secretary of State Tillerson.  The only others present were the two Russian diplomats and the photographer from the Russian media.

New details on "inappropriate" info Trump shared with Russia - CBS This Morning - CBS News


			
				CBS News article said:
			
		

> "I was in the room, it didn't happen," McMaster said.
> 
> According to McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and senior White House official Dina Powell were also present during the meeting, but American reporters were barred, with the only pictures provided by Russian state media.
> 
> In paper statements, Tillerson doubled down on McMaster's denial and Powell said "this story is false."


Since all the U.S. members in attendance stated the report is not accurate, are you suggesting the anonymous source was one of the Russians?  Or are you suggesting one of the four is lying and is actually the anonymous source?  Or maybe Trump is right and someone is bugging his office?!


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 16, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Perhaps you have a different source but the only people in the room per all reports I've seen (so I'll consider this to be fact until shown otherwise) were: President Trump, National Security Adviser McMaster, Deputy National Security Adviser Powell, and Secretary of State Tillerson.  The only others present were the two Russian diplomats and the photographer from the Russian media.
> 
> Since all the U.S. members in attendance stated the report is not accurate, are you suggesting the anonymous source was one of the Russians?  Or are you suggesting one of the four is lying and is actually the anonymous source?  Or maybe Trump is right and someone is bugging his office?!


And I highly doubt the photographer was there past the photo op.


----------



## Il Duce (May 16, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Perhaps you have a different source but the only people in the room per all reports I've seen (so I'll consider this to be fact until shown otherwise) were: President Trump, National Security Adviser McMaster, Deputy National Security Adviser Powell, and Secretary of State Tillerson.  The only others present were the two Russian diplomats and the photographer from the Russian media.
> 
> Since all the U.S. members in attendance stated the report is not accurate, are you suggesting the anonymous source was one of the Russians?  Or are you suggesting one of the four is lying and is actually the anonymous source?  Or maybe Trump is right and someone is bugging his office?!



Nope, I'm suggesting at least one of the anonymous sources was in the room.  After re-reading the initial WaPo article they don't specifically state the source(s) were in the room - only they had knowledge of the conversation.  I haven't seen anything to indicate those were the only people in the room - though they were the only ones in the Russian media photograph - as there are almost always people in the room to take notes, answer questions, and run things down - as was indicated by the immediate contact of the heads of the CIA and NSA (as reported in the original article) - to try and contain the damage from the disclosure.

Also, none of the people in the room you're describing are denying the leakers' claim - that codeword protected intelligence from Israel, not authorized for release, was shared with the Russians in attendance.  They've stated only that the characterizing of that release as damaging or inappropriate was/is inaccurate.

President Trump did imply he made tapes of his conversations with Comey - so maybe there is a record of the conversation (other than the one the Russian state media made).  I believe in technical terms it's referred to as 'having your wires tapped' now.

This is the part of the article to me that indicated more people were likely there:

"Lavrov and Kislyak were also accompanied by aides.

A Russian photographer took photos of part of the session that were released by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency. No U.S. news organization was allowed to attend any part of the meeting.

Senior White House officials appeared to recognize quickly that Trump had overstepped and moved to contain the potential fallout. Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, placed calls to the directors of the CIA and the NSA, the services most directly involved in the intelligence-sharing arrangement with the partner.

One of Bossert’s subordinates also called for the problematic portion of Trump’s discussion to be stricken from internal memos and for the full transcript to be limited to a small circle of recipients, efforts to prevent sensitive details from being disseminated further or leaked.

White House officials defended Trump. “This story is false,” said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy. “The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced.”

But officials could not explain why staff members nevertheless felt it necessary to alert the CIA and the NSA."

But, it does not specify how long they were in the meeting.  I also assume you can't have transcripts and notes without staffers there to do it - but maybe LTG McMaster has awesome shorthand.

Bottom line, you are correct - I am making assumptions, but I think they're reasoned and informed.  But, probably everybody thinks that about their assumptions so there you go - impasse.


----------



## Topkick (May 17, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Bottom line, you are correct - I am making assumptions, but I think they're reasoned and informed. But, probably everybody thinks that about their assumptions so there you go - impasse.



And your assumptions are not without reason. This is what we are all being fed, whether its the whole truth or not.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 17, 2017)

US Media: TRUMP GAVE SECRETS TO RUSSIANS
Putin: I'll provide the transcript because you're fucking idiots-https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/17/russian-president-vladimir-putin-says-kremlin-willing-turn-over-transcript-president-trumps-meeting-russians/101783808/

How is it unclear about there being a transcript, these people take notes.  So it's more like minutes than a transcript.


----------



## Il Duce (May 17, 2017)

Topkick said:


> And your assumptions are not without reason. This is what we are all being fed, whether its the whole truth or not.



Yeah, the more I think about this the more it really comes down to an assessment of trust.  I wouldn't characterize it as 'he said/she said' because I don't think it's necessarily about different stories - just differing values you give to the stories.

I've been thinking about what if this happened with a politician I really trusted?  If a President I thought was steeped in honesty, integrity, good judgment, and solid strategic goals - how would I react to a report he/she had shared sensitive information with a semi-hostile foreign power, but one we were struggling to cooperate with against a common enemy.  Especially in a context where that common enemy could end up having a disproportionate impact on national security resources if we were forced/pressured to deploy substantial forces to a problematic AOR?

I don't know, I would I think be concerned from the professional side about how smart a decision that release was but, I think I'd feel like those are the kinds of decisions the President is elected and empowered to make.  I'd be incensed that professionals in the IC would challenge the President's authority and put our intelligence sharing agreements (trust) at risk through unauthorized disclosures.  If there were foreign media in the room for the disclosures maybe I'd mollify my take against the leakers.

So, I guess this is a case where my belief the President's consistent lies and overall lack of credibility make this a significant case against him.  But, if it weren't for that I'm not sure I would think so.

So, if you're somebody who doesn't feel the President has lied or has a lack of credibility, if in fact the opposite - you trust him on all the categories I mentioned before - you would have a totally different take.  It's kind of weird for me to think about - because for the first 48 hours of this thing, and I still have qualms about it - this didn't seem to me to be a very partisan issue.  I guess it comes down to personal partisanship - your direct views on the President himself.


----------



## AWP (May 17, 2017)

I wouldn't give the Russians anything just...because they are Russians. They bully us the world over, are back to their Cold War games, and support the Muj in Afghanistan (party like it is 1979), I wouldn't give them a knock-off recipe for a Bloomin Onion.

I don't care who is in the White House or who said what....it is patently fucking stupid to share anything with the Russians.


----------



## Topkick (May 17, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> So, I guess this is a case where my belief the President's consistent lies and overall lack of credibility



I don't see Trump as a consistent liar. I don't always agree with his behavior or decisions, but I don't see him as a consistent liar. So you are right here too, it depends how we view the president and on our own personal politics.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 17, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Yeah, the more I think about this the more it really comes down to an assessment of trust.  I wouldn't characterize it as 'he said/she said' because I don't think it's necessarily about different stories - just differing values you give to the stories.


Well I'll tell you one thing, the Media has created the atmosphere in which they are not trusted.  I don't trust a damn thing that comes out of the WAPO or NYT when they've done great journalism in the past.  This past year they've proven that they're not out there to do the great stuff anymore.  Trump needs to get off twitter and he's the President.  Do you trust him?  You're saying you don't. But without cited sources with names and documents, the work isn't scholarly enough to use at all.  

Do I trust Trump?  I do.  But I also trust in the government that surrounds him between the Congress and the men and women he's appointed.  

All we get now is Trump hate.  And Maybe we had Obama hate, but the news on my twitter feed is WSJ, Bloomberg, and CNBC...when Obama was president I didn't get bombarded with Obama hate multiple times a day. I'm starting to wonder if it would have been this bad with journalists no matter who the Republican was.


----------



## amlove21 (May 17, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> All we get now is Trump hate.  And Maybe we had Obama hate, but the news on my twitter feed is WSJ, Bloomberg, and CNBC...when Obama was president I didn't get bombarded with Obama hate multiple times a day. I'm starting to wonder if it would have been this bad with journalists no matter who the Republican was.


Less material, less to report, less 'hate'. If there wasn't a new and ridiculous story line every single day, we wouldn't see newer and more ridiculous story lines.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 17, 2017)

So do does everyone remember when Obama hooked the Russkies up with some intel last summer?
WATCH: Mainstream Media Anchors Befuddled When Reminded Obama Leaked Classified Information To Russians


----------



## Poccington (May 17, 2017)

Justice Dept. to appoint special prosecutor for Russia probe

Shit just got real.


----------



## Il Duce (May 17, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well I'll tell you one thing, the Media has created the atmosphere in which they are not trusted.  I don't trust a damn thing that comes out of the WAPO or NYT when they've done great journalism in the past.  This past year they've proven that they're not out there to do the great stuff anymore.  Trump needs to get off twitter and he's the President.  Do you trust him?  You're saying you don't. But without cited sources with names and documents, the work isn't scholarly enough to use at all.
> 
> Do I trust Trump?  I do.  But I also trust in the government that surrounds him between the Congress and the men and women he's appointed.
> 
> All we get now is Trump hate.  And Maybe we had Obama hate, but the news on my twitter feed is WSJ, Bloomberg, and CNBC...when Obama was president I didn't get bombarded with Obama hate multiple times a day. I'm starting to wonder if it would have been this bad with journalists no matter who the Republican was.



This is one of those things I just can't see from the conservative side.  I get accusations of 'bias' defined relatively narrowly - preconceived notions impacting the way stories are talked about, how they're prioritized, and the way they're reported.  But, that's a far cry from 'fake news' or an accusation the mainstream media (if you include Brietbart, Alex Jones, et all in 'media' then you definitely have plenty of fabrications there) is lying in regular reporting (editorials might be a different standard - but those are explicitly opinion pieces so they are interpreting data with a much wider leeway).

I'm not aware of any evidence that the NY Times, Washington Post, or any major newspaper (other than the Enquirer - which President Trump quoted as evidence more than once) is fabricating any stories.  They've certainly reported false information - and printed retractions - but I don't know of any evidence-free articles.  Media also gets things wrong - like prediction on who would win the election.  But they were faithfully reporting the consensus of experts - not making shit up.  Even the much maligned use of 'anonymous sources' (at least maligned when you're not the anonymous source as is frequently the case in the Trump administration) is still real sources.  The information they're reporting is coming to them from credible sources and is vetted with journalistic standards - it can still be wrong, as all politicians learn to manipulate media reports - but that's not at all in the same category as lying or fabricating things.  On the other hand there is ample evidence on story after story of the Trump administration doing exactly that.

I get blaming 'the media' is always a winning strategy for the administration, and maybe conservatives in general.  But, as soon as you get into specifics the case is extremely weak.



Poccington said:


> Justice Dept. to appoint special prosecutor for Russia probe
> 
> Shit just got real.



The more I've thought about this (and I read an Atlantic article a couple weeks ago that said much the same thing) the more I can see why the GOP would think this is a terrible idea - and may be right (from a political perspective).  When I think of a special prosecutor I think of those that plagued the Clintons.  In every one of those cases (at least that come to my mind) a shit-ton of stuff came to light that had nothing to do with the original investigation.  Ken Star was investigating whitewater - which amounted to nothing - but got President Clinton impeached in the house on Monica Lewinsky.  Not a special prosecutor for Benghazi but 7 (or maybe 9) investigations cleared DoS and HRC on Benghazi - but they got her email scandal, the emails themselves out of it.  Even the Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame thing in Bush 43 put a lot of shade on the VP's office and the administration - even if no other charges came out of it.

There's a credible argument to be made a special prosecutor should be feared not for what they're investigating, but for all the other shit they could find outside the scope of their investigation.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 17, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Justice Dept. to appoint special prosecutor for Russia probe
> 
> Shit just got real.



That's a good move by DOJ...both sides of the isle respect him.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 17, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I get blaming 'the media' is always a winning strategy for the administration, and maybe conservatives in general.  But, as soon as you get into specifics the case is extremely weak.


What case?  Based on what evidence?  The hearsay of some anonymous source who probably isn't even employed why the current White House?

I'm of the school that I have to see it, and if you don't have it, how are you to be believed.  Long gone are the days of trusting journalists.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 17, 2017)

Special Counsel appointed.  Ryan on tape (reportedly) saying that Trump is paid by the Russians.  On Sunday, Trump goes to Saudi Arabia for his nine days of meetings and speeches.  Shit is moving fast!

What's the over/under on having a Trump administration in 2018?


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 17, 2017)

Taking the over.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 17, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Special Counsel appointed.  Ryan on tape (reportedly) saying that Trump is paid by the Russians.  On Sunday, Trump goes to Saudi Arabia for his nine days of meetings and speeches.  Shit is moving fast!
> 
> What's the over/under on having a Trump administration in 2018?



I'd be surprised if a Trump 2020 victory didn't = riots on a scale that made his post 2016 victory ones look weak, should he make it that far.


----------



## CDG (May 17, 2017)

The NYT is reporting that Trump aides knew Michael Flynn was under investigation BEFORE he was appointed NSA.  This continues to snowball for the Trump administration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/...breaking-news&nlid=79207956&ref=headline&_r=0


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 17, 2017)

Every time Hilary watches old news clips where she hears someone say she was not qualified to be president because of a few unsecured emails....  I have to imagine at this point she vacillates between amazed frustration over what happened to her candidacy, and outright joy over what the current president is dealing with  in regards to the classified information.


----------



## Topkick (May 17, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> I'd be surprised if a Trump 2020 victory didn't = riots on a scale that made his post 2016 victory ones look weak, should he make it that far.


Trump haters will be sorry if they get what they want and Mike Pence takes the helm.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 17, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> What's the over/under on having a Trump administration in 2018?



 I am done placing wagers on the potential downfall of Donald J Trump. "We" have been predicting that "this" would finally be the thing that takes Trump out of the game since before he was even a formal candidate;  yet he overcomes every single time.


----------



## Il Duce (May 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Every time Hilary watches old news clips where she hears someone say she was not qualified to be president because of a few unsecured emails....  I have to imagine at this point she vacillates between amazed frustration over what happened to her candidacy, and outright joy over what the current president is dealing with  in regards to the classified information.



In some ways I think that's very dangerous for HRC.  HRC was an incredibly flawed candidate that represented establishment competence - in an electorate clamoring for change.  I don't imagine the dynamic is going to change dramatically by 2020.  If HRC - who is much more powerful in the Democratic party than popular - tries to push another run it could lead to a very ugly, debilitating opposition party in 2020.  Incumbents are hard to beat.  I think there's a lot of folks on the left of the aisle counting chickens long before they've hatched.  From what I've seen in polling President Trump has vacillated between 38-45% approval pretty steadily his entire term despite massive scandals.  And, it varies by enthusiasm in his base - not their moving to the other side.  I think he might be tougher to beat if he makes it to 2020 than people think.



Topkick said:


> Trump haters will be sorry if they get what they want and Mike Pence takes the helm.



I agree 100%.  VP Pence could not have gotten elected President in any cycle the last 20 years - but if he takes over from President Trump he'll have all of President Trump's support, plus plenty of good will from across the spectrum for not being mired in the constant stream of shit President Trump has found (or caused) himself to be in.  President Pence is likely to get massive amounts of legislation through on a conservative agenda (though without the economic populism President Trump has talked about or national security isolationism), especially if he does it before the 2018 flip or lessened majorities.  Politically Democrats should be way more scared of President Pence than they should be of President Trump in my opinion.


----------



## AWP (May 17, 2017)

With the leaks, the back-and-forth, the vitriol, and my near total distrust of the media, I have a hard time trusting every story about Trump. I do not like him one bit, but sensational stories day in and day out using the ubiquitous "anonymous source" are getting old and smacks of screaming the sky is falling. Hell, maybe they are 100% factual and devoid of "fake news" or whatever-the-hell-we-call-lies-in-the-media today, but this shitshow is unreal and even my exceptionally cynical side has a hard time believing this mess.

It may come out in the wash someday, but not today.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 17, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Trump haters will be sorry if they get what they want and Mike Pence takes the helm.



Trump haters want Mike Pence to be POTUS??
:-/   

I'm a mile behind the information curve.  Time to ditch this thread and just watch the terrifically slow implosion.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 17, 2017)

Here's a better over/under: Democrats, who do poorly in mid-terms, winning back control of the Congress?

Also, people who think California is secure for the Dems maybe want to tell moonbeam to stop calling his citizens "freeloaders."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 18, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Also, people who think California is secure for the Dems maybe want to tell moonbeam to stop calling his citizens "freeloaders."



Assuming you are talking about Governor Jerry Brown?  Cause you know, using his real name would have been too easy, and I enjoy having to Google have your posts just to get whatever obscure reference you are trying to make.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 18, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Here's a better over/under: Democrats, who do poorly in mid-terms, winning back control of the Congress?



I think that's highly likely.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 18, 2017)

Slight thread drift, but I am looking for a few trusted online sources to read daily.  A friend recommended Foreign Policy | the Global Magazine of News and Ideas.

Any experience with this site, and is it worth the $6/month subscription?


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Assuming you are talking about Governor Jerry Brown?  Cause you know, using his real name would have been too easy, and I enjoy having to Google have your posts just to get whatever obscure reference you are trying to make.


Sadly, because of clickbait, it took me more than  a few minutes to find a source that wasn't quoting Breitbart.  The original source is the OC Register: Gov. Brown defends gas tax, local legislator – Orange County Register

Tax burden in California is getting ridiculous.  Most of it's their own damned fault.

@Ooh-Rah is it $6/month only for the online subscription or does that include the hard copy?  There's a lot of good writing that hits their hard copy.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 18, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Here's a better over/under: Democrats, who do poorly in mid-terms, winning back control of the Congress?
> 
> Also, people who think California is secure for the Dems maybe want to tell moonbeam to stop calling his citizens "freeloaders."


I'm going to use the Montana and Georgia special elections as a barometer for the midterms.  If both Quist and Ossoff win, I think that's a pretty good indicator that the Trump presidency is going to significantly weigh down house republicans in 2018.  Really though, only the house is up for grabs.  There are 33 senate seats up for re-election in 2018, but most of them have democrat incumbents.  If I recall, there's a max of 8 seats that the democrats could gain, and they would need to get half of those PLUS win every democrat senate race in order to retake the senate.  I think that's quite unlikely.


----------



## Il Duce (May 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Slight thread drift, but I am looking for a few trusted online sources to read daily.  A friend recommended Foreign Policy | the Global Magazine of News and Ideas.
> 
> Any experience with this site, and is it worth the $6/month subscription?



I subscribe to that service and really like it.  I don't read every issue cover to cover - as some of the articles are better than others - but I find a lot of the stuff really interesting.  I especially like the article critiques - then letters back and forth arguing over the points.  I get a lot from hearing really smart people argue about important topics - you really get a sense of what meaningful disagreement can yield, versus the largely emotion-driven disagreement I feel like we see everywhere else.  I also really like their periodic 'explainer' pieces.  It's been several years for me since grad school and it's very helpful to get a refresher on key concepts and arguments in international relations and political science.  They did one on the liberal order - as in, what are political scientists referring to when they use that term - that was very helpful.  I think a lot of times when it's referred to in the news people focus in on the word 'liberal' and don't recognize the importance.

Just my $0.02

EDIT: @Ooh-Rah I am totally fucked up.  I subscribe to Foreign Affairs and get that stuff - not Foreign Policy.  My apologies.  This reading shit is hard - that's the 2nd time in a couple months that's happened.  Time to look into some hooked on phonics or something.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 18, 2017)

^^^ @Il Duce might want to look into a crayon supplement for his diet. It seems to be helping the Marines rather well.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 18, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I subscribe to that service and really like it.



@Il Duce - Many thanks for the recommendation!   They offered me an unrefundable lifetime subscription fee, and if someone of your stature, intellect and accomplishments read it, it was a no brainer!  Best $1k I ever spent!!!!


----------



## Dienekes (May 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Slight thread drift, but I am looking for a few trusted online sources to read daily.  A friend recommended Foreign Policy | the Global Magazine of News and Ideas.
> 
> Any experience with this site, and is it worth the $6/month subscription?



I use that fairly often. I get their daily Sitrep and the DefenseNews Early Bird Report. FP does a good job of having some very interesting articles explaining international relations experts' views on things because it comes directly from them but in a way that the non-scholar can understand. I also like their blog channels like Best Defense, Elephants in the Room, Shadow Government, Economy, etc. It really is a great resource.

ETA: Your new subscription post came up as I finished writing.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 18, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> ^^^ @Il Duce might want to look into a crayon supplement for his diet. It seems to be helping the Marines rather well.



Did someone say "crayon"?


----------



## Il Duce (May 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Il Duce - Many thanks for the recommendation!   They offered me an unrefundable lifetime subscription fee, and if someone of your stature, intellect and accomplishments read it, it was a no brainer!  Best $1k I ever spent!!!!



Glad to be of assistance but I have to run, a very nice Bangladeshi IRS agent has called and it turns out I owe the IRS a ton of money.  I need to run out and buy iTunes gift certificates to read to him over the phone so I don't get arrested.  I think I'm really dodging a bullet here.

First though, let me grab a purple and magenta for energy.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Slight thread drift, but I am looking for a few trusted online sources to read daily.  A friend recommended Foreign Policy | the Global Magazine of News and Ideas.



I hear The Havok Journal is pretty good.  ;)


----------



## AWP (May 18, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> This reading shit is hard.



You're ready for a brigade. No question.


----------



## Il Duce (May 18, 2017)

AWP said:


> You're ready for a brigade. No question.



I was thinking healthcare policy - but I'll take it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 19, 2017)

So now we have an "American Official," rather than a "Former White House Official."  Paywall is down for me so I'm actually able to read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

This is some bizarro world shit right there...still waiting for the name of said official who's willing to go to jail.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 19, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So now we have an "American Official," rather than a "Former White House Official."  Paywall is down for me so I'm actually able to read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
> 
> This is some bizarro world shit right there...still waiting for the name of said official who's willing to go to jail.


Dude, the words come from an OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE TRANSCRIPT of the meeting.  Sean Spicer even confirmed it.  This is not some anonymously-sourced statement; this is the White House saying that the president may have admitted to obstruction of justice.

Come on dude.


----------



## Il Duce (May 19, 2017)

I'm not sure those statements amount to obstruction of justice - they just add more proof that President Trump has been saying a bunch of different shit on the Comey thing.

Still, it's pretty telling the topics he chose to speak on with the Russians and the reasoning he gave.  I'm still not convinced of the Russia collusion thing on President Trump's part (parts of his administration, yes) - but he makes it really hard to believe there's nothing there.  I think regardless of what's actually there the administration's - and especially the President's - activities in trying to squelch this thing are going to send some folks to jail.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 19, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I'm not sure those statements amount to obstruction of justice - they just add more proof that President Trump has been saying a bunch of different shit on the Comey thing.
> .


When taken in context of the statements made to Lester Holt, wherein he said that he intended to fire Comey even before the the deputy AG's recommendation came down, it certainly begins to sound like it.


----------



## Il Duce (May 19, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> When taken in context of the statements made to Lester Holt, wherein he said that he intended to fire Comey even before the the deputy AG's recommendation came down, it certainly begins to sound like it.



I think that Lester Holt interview is the perfect encapsulation of President Trump's tendency to lie continuously - and thus at the heart of most of the problems he's had.  The interview is a perfect example of how President Trump starts out with pretty bold untruths (Comey asked for a meeting because he was concerned about..), is called on it by Holt immediately in a non-threatening way to 'clarify' as he knows they'll come up later, and President Trump adjusts to smaller lies, or gives himself wiggle room immediately - but keeps saying things that are false but harder to prove (Comey brought up the investigation, or President Trump brought it up but with caveats about only in a legal way).

It's exactly what journalists who covered President Trump as a real estate magnate the last 25 years have talked about (Fresh Air did a number of great interviews with folks like that during the campaign).  President Trump, during his business career, was an exceptional marketer and promoter - but did so through the tricks of a con artist.  He was a serial exaggerator/fabricator/liar in service to his brand and business - and it generally worked out.

I can definitely see how those skills and tendencies would follow someone into the oval office - I mean, why change if it got you that far?  But, it's untenable in the job from a competency perspective.  Time will tell how tenable it is from a political perspective.  I've read most of the conservative media covered the Lester Holt interview as 'look how much this asshole liberal media guy interrupted the President.'  I'm not sure there is a volume of untruths or scandals that will drop the President below 38% approval - and he's already proven he can win with that.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 19, 2017)

Comey agrees to testify before Senate Intel Committee

Testify in open session?  Huh.

Talking about Trump?  Huh.

1>  I will be watching Twitter as Trump "Live Tweets" the hearings...my god, he really might!

2> I'm certainly not wishing ill will on the man, and let's hope we don't need this meme, but....


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 19, 2017)

I really avoid the politicol discusssions, and I think I can look at Comey like anyone who was just fired from his job, and think, disgruntled former employee.


----------



## Il Duce (May 20, 2017)

But does disgruntled equal wrong, lying, and/or misrepresenting?  I'm sure he's going to go out and fuck the President over royally - but, that doesn't mean the goods he delivers aren't real.

Some of the news coming to light does put his farewell letter in a different light.  He didn't argue at all in it - said the President could do what he did and supports him.  Looked like the classiest and most pro-Trump thing a guy could do at the time.  But, with all the leaks from Comey associates about the information he has documented and stories he can tell - essentially compelling congress to have Comey testify - without him having said a word - he's put in a perfect position to 'reluctantly' let everything loose.  I've read Comey's only demand was that he testify in open, not closed, session.

If he confirms - or adds to - the stuff that's been reported about his meetings and conversations with the President it's going to be very bad for the administration.  But, he's put himself in a position to say 'I'm not against the President, I never criticized him or contradicted him except where I had to in sworn testimony (the 'had my wires tapped' allegation) and I accepted and supported his firing of me without complaint.  But, now that you've compelled me to testify and are asking me directly - here's some bombs on the administration's head.


----------



## Poccington (May 20, 2017)

I've to be completely honest, the one person I genuinely feel sorry for after the past few weeks, is Sean Spicer.

I took the piss out of him myself a few times at the early stages of his time as Press Secretary but these past few weeks must have been rough for him. Trying to defend a President who will generally make him look like a liar an hour later by tweeting something that blows whatever defence Spicer used out of the water.

The pressure he faces to defend a President who continuously throws him under the bus must be insane. I think when he took refuge behind some bushes, before asking for all cameras and lights to be killed before he'd speak to the press was a major sign of him cracking. 

I wouldn't want his job, not in a million years.


----------



## AWP (May 20, 2017)

Admin hat: Thread title changed to better reflect the discussion.
---

Let's say for the sake of argument that Trump's impeached. Gone. Donezies.

- How do the Republicans recover? Pence is in office, can he rebuild confidence in the GOP?
- You have to find a candidate for 2020. Who? Democrats can sit back and position themselves now, but the GOP can't "build" presidential hopefuls with Trump around. Not fully at least so that brings us back to the above: what can Pence do to fix things?
- I figured the Clinton machine wouldn't return, but will she? Third time's the charm or does her own party tell her to sit the rest of them out? This is the same group that sank Sanders' chances for Hillary's and lost the farm. Will the DNC treat her like they treated Sanders in '16?

Impeaching a president is a horrific proposition, but might prove to be necessary in this case. Is the GOP ready to go there and how will they recover?


----------



## SpitfireV (May 20, 2017)

This is like a season of 24 but without so much waterboarding.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (May 20, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I really avoid the politicol discusssions, and I think I can look at Comey like anyone who was just fired from his job, and think, disgruntled former employee.



Payback....:-"


----------



## racing_kitty (May 20, 2017)

AWP said:


> Admin hat: Thread title changed to better reflect the discussion.
> ---
> 
> Let's say for the sake of argument that Trump's impeached. Gone. Donezies.
> ...



My responses are above.  There's no "glass half empty" to this situation.

*Minor edit for clarity


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 22, 2017)

Students walk out of Pence's graduation speech at Notre Dame

That's pretty sad and shows that these people aren't open to ideas.  If the VP or President is your graduation keynote, you sit and listen out of respect for the position.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 22, 2017)

And the award for "Spookiest Photo Op of the Year" goes to Saudi Arabia

(linked because it's a very big pic)
http://stunning.pics/images/32/trump-touching-a-glowing-orb-OlomCM.jpg

Best photoshop: http://i.imgur.com/rQgefFt.jpg


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 22, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> And the award for "Spookiest Photo Op of the Year" goes to Saudi Arabia
> 
> (linked because it's a very big pic)
> http://stunning.pics/images/32/trump-touching-a-glowing-orb-OlomCM.jpg
> ...



Alex Jones may wet himself just a bit when he gets ahold of that one!


----------



## Grunt (May 22, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Alex Jones may wet himself just a bit when he gets ahold of that one!



Is that the orb that makes static electricity that one touches to make their hair stand on end?


----------



## Salt USMC (May 22, 2017)

Agoge said:


> Is that the orb that makes static electricity that one touches to make their hair stand on end?


I'm pretty sure that it's the Palantir


----------



## Gunz (May 22, 2017)

AWP said:


> Admin hat: Thread title changed to better reflect the discussion.
> ---
> 
> Let's say for the sake of argument that Trump's impeached. Gone. Donezies.
> ...




Interesting to ponder. I think Trump is going to be impeached at some point. I think it's been in the cards since the election. Will he be convicted and removed from office? Hard to say. The only other US Presidents to be impeached were both acquitted. Clinton clearly committed a felony (perjury) and was still acquitted because of partisan support.

It's one thing to impeach. It's another to get the votes to have a President tossed out of the White House on his ass. It's never happened.

If it _should_ happen and Pence is elevated to POTUS, he's going to have the almost impossible task of distancing himself from Trump. And with partisan politics as bitter and venomous as they have been the past 17 years, I don't see him able to do much of anything. Another Gerald Ford, riding out the term of his predecessor. In addition to that, we've seen various public displays of disrespect toward Pence, in spite of his decent reputation. They paint him with the same brush and do not seem open to argument. If they think Trump is a liar and a racist, they also think Pence is a liar and a racist.

Post-Trump/Pence, in our imaginary scenario, I see a Democratic landslide provided the Dems nominate somebody other than Hillary. The Clinton Machine may still be a powerful influence behind the scene, but she's damaged goods.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 22, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> In addition to that, we've seen various public displays of disrespect toward Pence, in spite of his decent reputation. They paint him with the same brush and do not seem open to argument. If they think Trump is a liar and a racist, they also think Pence is a liar and a racist.



I believe that the disrespect towards Pence is meant as a message to Trump - if Trump were to go (my money is on resigning before impeachment), both sides of the isle would initially embrace Pence, if for no other reason than Washington would be 'somewhat' back to normal again.  It would get UGLY as 2020 approaches, but my god we are not even 6 months into Trump's first term yet.


----------



## PCRWizard (May 22, 2017)

As a liberal college student, most of the disrespect I see for VP Pence among my peers comes from the things he's said regarding gays - most notably conversion therapy. 

Actually most of the people I talk with think he's an honest and principled guy, just one that happens to have principles some of us *really* have an issue with.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 22, 2017)

PCRWizard said:


> As a liberal college student, most of the disrespect I see for VP Pence among my peers comes from the things he's said regarding gays - most notably conversion therapy.
> 
> Actually most of the people I talk with think he's an honest and principled guy, just one that happens to have principles some of us *really* have an issue with.



I agree with this. His thoughts on women are also concerning to me.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 22, 2017)

Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence


> President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.
> 
> *Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.*
> 
> Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.



What does this week's presidential hangman game spell?

O_s_r_ctio_  of J_ stic_


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 22, 2017)

Pence's record on conversion therapy is not something he stands on, and you have to go back to 2000 to find any written evidence that kinda-sorta support the idea.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/mike-pence-and-conversion-therapy-a-history.html


@TLDR20 - Anything specific regarding women you are referencing, or just on a whole?  Truthfully Pence's stance on things have not been on my radar.   To really dig up the dirt, I went looking for an anti-Pence article and found:  Mike Pence and his team pose ‘biggest threat in a generation’ to women, say campaigners

- He is pro-life and not in support of free contraceptives. 
- He is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.  
- He falls on the religious argument on these...he loses me there.

I'd much rather he say that he believes that the government should not be in the business of supplying free contraceptives and 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are just wrong.

This is not me being a smartass, but what do birth control and abortion have to do with gender equality?


----------



## PCRWizard (May 22, 2017)

I will agree that he has backtracked on that view and being charitable to VP Pence, he *may* not have even meant it at the time. However, he does have a proven track record of opposing sex education, contraception, gay marriage, civil unions, and anti discrimination legislation. (among other things) 

And I mean, this is a big subject but just a short blurb on my opinion - birth control is nice for gender equality because the woman can choose not to have a child and not to be forced to rely on the guy.


----------



## Il Duce (May 22, 2017)

AWP said:


> Admin hat: Thread title changed to better reflect the discussion.
> ---
> 
> Let's say for the sake of argument that Trump's impeached. Gone. Donezies.
> ...



My opinion: I don’t think President Trump gets impeached, he makes it to 2020 and worst-case decides not to run like LBJ.

President Trump has lied almost continuously through his campaign until now – demonstrably about minor and major things in abundance.  He has failed to deliver or reversed himself on more than 80% of his promises.  The deliveries he’s made so far are much more on tone than substance.  He was elected on a populist economic and national-security message, a nationalist view of government power, an appeal to white-identity politics, and an outsider’s promise to combat corruption and bring technocratic competence from the business sector into government management and leadership.  So far, in 120+ days he has reversed himself to making traditional conservative noises and positions on the economy, national security, and government power.  He has been startlingly ineffective in leadership/management/technical competence and has set a new low in 100+ years for corruption.  He’s maintained the façade of white identity politics but other than justice department sentencing guideline changes and the failed muslim ban it’s mostly been talk.

After all that President Trump’s approval rating has never fallen below 38% in even the lowest polling – and isn’t hanging out that low now.  President Nixon dropped to 24% at the nadir of Watergate.  President Trump faces an incredibly hostile media and opposition party that will not give him the benefit of the doubt on anything.  Yet, he’s still only suffering minor shifts in support – which were not high to begin with, but were still enough to get him elected.  If you disagree with my first paragraph it in many ways proves the point.  There is a significant internet and alternative/conservative media counter-narrative to the mainstream one and it has as much traction as it had during the campaign.  Though not as prevalent ‘fake news’ is still a significant part of the narrative – just look to the murdered DNC staffer who according to the alternative media was definitely the wikileaks source (not the Russians) and was clearly murdered by HRC/DNC/Elizabeth Warren in Native American garb.

President Trump’s supporters are not going to budge.  The Republican party has masterfully managed the electoral map since 2010 with gerrymandering, voter suppression, and very effective local rule-setting.  That means Republicans in districts or states President Trump won by more than 5 points get nothing but a primary challenger for siding with Democrats or opposing President Trump – period.  Short basketball players get weeded out in college – politicians who don’t know how to keep getting elected get weeded out shortly after.  It doesn’t matter how egregious the sins of the administration – the majority of Republican elected officials aren’t going to turn on the President until their electorate does.  We’ll see continued criticism from states and districts with closer votes from 2016 but the majority of the red state jokers are going to hold their nose and toe the line.

But, to your hypotheticals:

*- How do the Republicans recover? Pence is in office, can he rebuild confidence in the GOP?*

I think the damage to the Republican brand will last a generation – but I’m not sure how bad the damage is, I think it depends on the voting block.  I think we’re seeing Christian Conservatives, Financial sector (Wallstreet), Energy Industry, and Chamber of Commerce voting blocks pretty lined up on their core concerns.  Christian Conservatives will vote for anyone who puts anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-Muslim policies and judges on the docket.  Wallstreet and chamber of commerce cares about deregulation and tax cuts.  Energy cares about deregulation.  Each of those groups talked about a bunch of stuff before the election – but we’re seeing them line up without the rest of it, with just those policies.

So, I don’t see the Republican brand losing those folks.  I think what they’re losing are college-educated and young people across the board.  Not all of them, just cutting significantly into their margins.  The reason is the necessity of buying a totally alternative narrative in order to get behind President Trump.  You’ve got to sign off on a shit ton of lying, anti-science BS, and casual bigotry.  That’s going to bug a lot of people for a long time.  Still, most people are pretty apathetic.  More people will just get turned off to politics in general than will really become anti-Republican.

VP Pence doesn’t rebuild.  He just doubles down on turn-out from existing supporters.  And that’s been enough to win – especially if there is no successful effort to combat gerrymandering and voter suppression.  It’s been good enough to get Republicans in control of every chamber of national government and 30+ statehouses and governorships.

*- You have to find a candidate for 2020. Who? Democrats can sit back and position themselves now, but the GOP can't "build" presidential hopefuls with Trump around. Not fully at least so that brings us back to the above: what can Pence do to fix things?*

You’ve got to run VP Pence.  The worst crime for a Republican to their base is to try to admit mistakes, missteps, or weakness.  President Trump, even when polling abysmally for competence and honesty, always polls well as a ‘strong leader.’  The Republican base likes bluster and fighting words – you tell them how everyone is against you, nothing is fair, and you’re mad and aren’t going to take it.  Rick Perlstein talked in his book Nixonland at how President Nixon was a master, back to his days in high school, of giving voice to priviledged people who felt oppressed.  He called his group ‘orthogonians’ and it’s been a great strategy (across the spectrum) ever since.

*- I figured the Clinton machine wouldn't return, but will she? Third time's the charm or does her own party tell her to sit the rest of them out? This is the same group that sank Sanders' chances for Hillary's and lost the farm. Will the DNC treat her like they treated Sanders in '16?*

I don’t know, but the Democratic field is very weak.  The DNC, and the Democratic apparatus, was clearly against SEN Sanders – as the RNC was against President Trump – the difference being a single alternative vs over a dozen, and not having your dirty laundry published.  But, that shouldn’t override the reality that HRC beat SEN Sanders almost everywhere most people voted.  Sanders had the most devoted following – but it was a minority of Democratic voters.  Sanders does not represent the majority of the party, only the most enthusiastic minority.  Sanders will lose in the general in my opinion, I’m a liberal and I would struggle to vote for him vs anyone but President Trump.  If the Democrats can’t field a decent generalist candidate (and HRC is not it) they are fucked in 2020.

*Impeaching a president is a horrific proposition, but might prove to be necessary in this case. Is the GOP ready to go there and how will they recover?*

I think the only way the GOP impeaches President Trump is if they think President Pence can navigate through to success.  That works if Democrats impeach the President and Pence gets all of President Trump’s support.  If the GOP participates a lot of Trump partisans are going to punish the GOP – as an example look at what happened to Paul Ryan’s popularity in the party.

If I were a smart Democratic strategist I would say put all your energy into playing up what a great President Pence would be publicly, about how he could do so much better than President Trump, and how he secretly thinks President Trump is a buffoon – and false flag it to be coming from Republicans and independents.  President Trump will go jihad on VP Pence if enough of that gets him spun up and the Republicans won’t have any options in impeachment.

But, nobody every accused the DNC of having smart strategist – at least not since 1992.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 22, 2017)

Pence and Haley in 2020!


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 22, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence
> 
> 
> What does this week's presidential hangman game spell?
> ...


"citing a former senior intelligence official knowledgeable about the situation."

NEXT


----------



## CDG (May 22, 2017)

Michael Flynn has plead the 5th, and refused to hand over documents to Congress.  This whole shitshow just keeps growing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/...2&nl=breaking-news&nlid=79207956&ref=cta&_r=0


----------



## TLDR20 (May 22, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Pence's record on conversion therapy is not something he stands on, and you have to go back to 2000 to find any written evidence that kinda-sorta support the idea.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/mike-pence-and-conversion-therapy-a-history.html
> 
> ...



He won't attend meetings one in one with women, or have lunch with another women because..? If women aren't just tasty seductresses, and are equal, why not take the same independent meetings? I don't have time to find the articles about it now, but call it a due out..


----------



## Kraut783 (May 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> Michael Flynn has plead the 5th, and refused to hand over documents to Congress.  This whole shitshow just keeps growing.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/...2&nl=breaking-news&nlid=79207956&ref=cta&_r=0



He needs to be slapped down, and hard....idiot


----------



## DozerB (May 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> He won't attend meetings one in one with women, or have lunch with another women because..? If women aren't just tasty seductresses, and are equal, why not take the same independent meetings? I don't have time to find the articles about it now, but call it a due out..



Not a bad idea in a city like D.C. No power-hungry staffer can accuse him of sexual harassment or abuse 10 years down the line when it's politically convenient without having other witnesses to confirm or deny. Makes sense to me. Protect your reputation.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> He won't attend meetings one in one with women, or have lunch with another women because..? If women aren't just tasty seductresses, and are equal, why not take the same independent meetings? I don't have time to find the articles about it now, but call it a due out..


 
I've read the articles you will post later. He's fucking smart not to meet with women alone. He avoids false claims of sexual harassment or sexual assault that way. He's one of the only candidates that HASN'T had Gloria Steinem wannabes trot out onto the stage screaming about what a closet perv he is bc he touched or commented on her naughty bits when in private. That's because he's never given them the opportunity. 

Unless and until you've been directly involved in a blatantly false report of sexual harassment (whether as the subject, or having to testify that it's false), I wouldn't expect anyone to understand just how important it is.  This is one tactic that I get behind VPOTUS on 100%.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 22, 2017)

DozerB said:


> Not a bad idea in a city like D.C. No power-hungry staffer can accuse him of sexual harassment or abuse 10 years down the line when it's politically convenient without having other witnesses to confirm or deny. Makes sense to me. Protect your reputation.





racing_kitty said:


> I've read the articles you will post later. He's fucking smart not to meet with women alone. He avoids false claims of sexual harassment or sexual assault that way. He's one of the only candidates that HASN'T had Gloria Steinem wannabes trot out onto the stage screaming about what a closet perv he is bc he touched or commented on her naughty bits when in private. That's because he's never given them the opportunity.



No offense intended, but these are really strange rationalizations.  If someone is so afraid of the opposite gender that they're willing to cut them out entirely, there's something more there than just the specter of false sexual harassment/assault allegations.  I'm not saying that they happen, but avoiding women entirely because you fear that is on par with weirdo Wahhabist rationalizations.


----------



## Grunt (May 22, 2017)

I know several men in professional positions that will not meet with women alone. They aren't afraid of anything except the climate that has been generated in many workplaces. I don't blame them. I also know of female executives that don't meet men alone.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 22, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> No offense intended, but these are really strange rationalizations.  If someone is so afraid of the opposite gender that they're willing to cut them out entirely, there's something more there than just the specter of false sexual harassment/assault allegations.  I'm not saying that they happen, but avoiding women entirely because you fear that is on par with weirdo Wahhabist rationalizations.



Hard disagree, dude. There's a huge world of difference between "I won't meet with you alone," and "You have no place in this world except at home, barefoot and pregnant."

No offense taken, though.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 22, 2017)

@Salt USMC I won't  go so far as to throw a "disagree" your way, but I do agree with @racing_kitty -

There are certain employees I have (female) that I would never consider meeting alone. 

For the reasons that she describes.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 22, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> No offense intended, but these are really strange rationalizations.  If someone is so afraid of the opposite gender that they're willing to cut them out entirely, there's something more there than just the specter of false sexual harassment/assault allegations.  I'm not saying that they happen, but avoiding women entirely because you fear that is on par with weirdo Wahhabist rationalizations.



I won't meet anyone within the company I am employed by, that is the opposite sex, alone.  I have already had the cards thrown for wholly professional one on one interactions. Never again.  You'll learn, eventually.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 22, 2017)

This seems strange to me, as a person that works in a field that is 90% female, has 90% female management, and if I refused to be in a room with a woman alone would be fired. 

To me it is crazy. While it may be partially to avoid sexual harassment claims, no doubt some of it is related to his religious fundamentalism. I don't like it. My opinion.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This seems strange to me, as a person that works in a field that is 90% female, has 90% female management, and if I refused to be in a room with a woman alone would be fired.
> 
> To me it is crazy. While it may be partially to avoid sexual harassment claims, no doubt some of it is related to his religious fundamentalism. I don't like it. My opinion.


Maybe there are good people in your field, or there is some sort of social mechanism that keeps the weirdos away. I dunno man, but I've noticed that crazy tends to be attracted to those who have something to lose. Jealousy or the prospect of advancement will make people say or do anything so they can drag someone down and take their place or gain something from it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This seems strange to me, as a person that works in a field that is 90% female, has 90% female management, and if I refused to be in a room with a woman alone would be fired.



Good call out, and maybe I should have been more clear, but I am in management and have seen what a vindictive woman is capable of. 

There have been times when I've had to have 1:1 private meetings and I have tactfully turned on the audio record function of my iPhone.   Especially true if I am doing a counciling session.

False or not, in my world it only takes an alagation to sink a career.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 23, 2017)

There was a female SFC in my old commo battalion that tried to hem up a male soldier for having morning wood in his PT's during OIF 1.  Seriously. A piss boner was sexually harassing her. 

Another female used to talk mean game, but when someone returned the joke in kind, talking about tits and gravity, she ran to file an EO complaint. 

Yet another female accused her TL of trying to look at her naked in the shower when she popped her head out of the bathroom to speak to him. Problem was, he was standing in the barracks room doorway with eyes averted, her roomie at the door, and me behind her roomie; Clark and I not only had to testify that the accusations were false, but that we weren't coerced into covering for the accused.  The complaint was deemed unfounded, but he never was going to pin his 6 after that. His military career was over because of a lie. 

There's much more, but I'll save that for another day. Suffice it to say, I always told all of my junior soldiers that there's safety in numbers. Protect your career. You're fortunate to not have run into some vindictive cunts, @TLDR20; I pray it stays that way.


----------



## Gunz (May 23, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> There was a female SFC in my old commo battalion that tried to hem up a male soldier for having morning wood in his PT's during OIF 1.  Seriously. A piss boner was sexually harassing her.
> 
> Another female used to talk mean game, but when someone returned the joke in kind, talking about tits and gravity, she ran to file an EO complaint.
> 
> ...




Multiply the risk by 1000 for high profile individuals, especially politicians who might be baited in a honey-trap, or any famous cat with big money. 

That's why Charlie Sheen bangs hookers. But even they can come back and bite you in the ass. Metaphorically speaking.


----------



## CQB (May 23, 2017)

You pay them to go away...


----------



## racing_kitty (May 23, 2017)

CQB said:


> You pay them to go away...



Until they come back 20-30 years later, and plaster you all over the news for not only sexually abusing them, but paying them off to STFU.  Case in point, Dennis Hastert.


----------



## CQB (May 23, 2017)

I do not know the man of which you speak. 1. he did not pay enough. 2. he was a dud bash.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 27, 2017)

Wait/What???

Sources: Comey acted on Russian intelligence he knew was fake - CNNPolitics.com

Washington (CNN)Then-FBI Director James Comey knew that a critical piece of information relating to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email was fake -- created by Russian intelligence -- but he feared that if it became public it would undermine the probe and the Justice Department itself, according to multiple officials with knowledge of the process.

As a result, Comey acted unilaterally last summer to publicly declare the investigation over -- without consulting then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch -- while at the same time stating that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information. His press conference caused a firestorm of controversy and drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.
Comey's actions based on what he knew was Russian disinformation offer a stark example of the way Russian interference impacted the decisions of the highest-level US officials during the 2016 campaign.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that this Russian intelligence was unreliable. US officials now tell CNN that Comey and FBI officials actually knew early on that this intelligence was indeed false.


----------



## benroliver (May 27, 2017)

Ever since I left for basic and AIT it has been a pleasure not listening to politics every day lol.


----------



## amlove21 (May 31, 2017)

Looks like Comey is going to testify- not about the actual investigation, just Pres Trumps alleged request to stop it. Cue circus music.

12 months ago, this is the biggest bombshell in the world. Now? Barely a blip on the radar.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 31, 2017)

How about Kathy Griffin?


----------



## Topkick (May 31, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> How about Kathy Griffin?



No class


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 31, 2017)

Topkick said:


> No class



Maybe she'll have better luck with her post CNN gig:blkeye::dead:.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 31, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> How about Kathy Griffin?



The top she was wearing made her look most Puritanical. Then again, the Puritans were hardly a tolerant group. Kinda fitting, if ya ask me. Serves her right that she's in Dutch with the Secret Service.


----------



## BloodStripe (May 31, 2017)

COVFEVE = Continue on vetting foreigners entering from everywhere?


----------



## Salt USMC (May 31, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> How about Kathy Griffin?


Pretty assholish thing to do.


----------



## Topkick (May 31, 2017)

Send her to gitmo.

Edited- was only joking here.


----------



## pardus (May 31, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Send her to gitmo.



For exercising her 1st Amendment rights?


----------



## Topkick (May 31, 2017)

Just joking man, but that is more than just exercising 1st amendment rights.


----------



## pardus (May 31, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Just joking man



OK.

That's why we have similes, to convey meaning...  

It's all good Top.


----------



## Grunt (May 31, 2017)

She is getting what she earned! Words have consequences and she is suffering from hers. That is the way it is supposed to work. It's called accountability.


----------



## Topkick (May 31, 2017)

pardus said:


> OK.
> 
> That's why we have similes, to convey meaning...
> 
> It's all good Top.



You got me there.


----------



## amlove21 (May 31, 2017)

pardus said:


> For exercising her 1st Amendment rights?


That's the elephant in the room here- there is a large double standard here we all acknowledge as it applies to the President. Even on here, we bristle at anyone disrespecting the office- but isn't that the purpose of free speech? You should be able to voice whatever opinon you want, without fear of reprisal? Isn't that something President Trump wanted to "fix" with America- all this "political correctness" that was ruining the nation gone, and we can call radical islamic terrorists such without fear?

But one decapitated elected official and we all lose our minds.

FOR THE RECORD, everyone, I am one of the biggest advocates for respecting the office of the presidency and I think Kathy Griffin screwed up. She got fired over it and she pushed the lines, and the lines pushed back.

I just wanted to agree with @pardus and raise a though experiment for discussion. (looking back at it, I can't believe I agreed with that guy...)

ETA- I was gonna edit a couple parts here; but I got lazy.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 31, 2017)

Thing is, lots of people think that's "cool"

yet if you had an obama effigy hanging from a tree, you'd think there was thermonuclear warfare and it'd be a hate crime.


----------



## amlove21 (May 31, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Thing is, lots of people think that's "cool"
> 
> yet if you had an obama effigy hanging from a tree, you'd think there was thermonuclear warfare and it'd be a hate crime.


Well, the "Clinton News Network" unceremoniously fired her, the country had immediate backlash, people flipped shit. I am not real sure what people thought it was "cool". Can you provide an example?

And the Obama effigies happened.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 1, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Well, the "Clinton News Network" unceremoniously fired her, the country had immediate backlash, people flipped shit. I am not real sure what people thought it was "cool". Can you provide an example?
> 
> And the Obama effigies happened.



Yeah, there's a lot of idiots out there.  Wasn't cool then, sure as shit ain't cool now, especially with how many followers on twitter/instagram/facebook she has.  

I bet she sells more books though.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 1, 2017)

Bunch of dumb cunts all around and I disagree with that nonsense, all around but like Sasquatch said, left dick head does it, it's ok, it's cool by many, great, she got fired, but because CNN or whomever did not want the backlash but when some fucking retarded right wing hick did Obama's head, it was all over the news, race issues, Sharpton was involved, the typical nonsense. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Just like the retard, Madonna and her nonsense. And keeping up with the 1st. right, it's legal to burn the flag but illegal for me curb stomp some antifa duded head with my size 10w Cippewa boot. This is all nonsense.

M.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 1, 2017)

I knew the effigies happened.... and exactly what I stated, happened because of them. Also, LMGTFY? Pro.  

She wouldn't have done it if she didn't think she'd get away with it. She's no Rosa Parks, riding the unpopular bus out of standing to convictions.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 1, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Thing is, lots of people think that's "cool"
> 
> yet if you had an obama effigy hanging from a tree, you'd think there was thermonuclear warfare and it'd be a hate crime.


There were a TON of those.  Just GIS "obama hanging"


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 1, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> I knew the effigies happened.... and exactly what I stated, happened because of them. Also, LMGTFY? Pro.
> 
> She wouldn't have done it if she didn't think she'd get away with it. She's no Rosa Parks, riding the unpopular bus out of standing to convictions.



To me she is right up there with Ted Nugent, B list celebrities who need to do and say provocative things to remain relevant.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 1, 2017)

Wearing a mask of the sitting  POTUS as a rodeo clown is not a good reason to find yourself on the receiving end of a USSS investigation.  Irreverent?  Fuck yes.  Disrespectful of the office?  A bit.  Threat to national security?  It is if you believe Sharpton & Co., but I vote "No."  Barrel on, ya redneck cunt.

Now, let's hang the sitting POTUS in effigy as part of a protest.  If you're that mad at the man and/or the institution, then you likely don't care that it's disrespectful, so there's that.  Is there anywhere else but America where tying a knot a certain way is considered racist?  What with such a big deal having been made in the past about using a noose (gasp!!!), would it have been less racist to tie a loop around the midsection of the dummy that they were setting aflame?  Is burning a public figure in effigy only unacceptable in the USA, and only when certain people are holding the office?  Pay attention to modern political protests in lesser nations, and you'll see that burning the government figurehead in effigy is not unheard of.  It's only a matter of time before someone either burns a stuffed Trump or a huge ass Cheeto with a toupee.  Is it going to attract the attention of the USSS?  Yes, it will.

Now, let's go ahead and dress like a 75-year-old room mother with Alzheimer's at a run-down Catholic school, and go all ISIS with a somewhat realistic depiction of the sitting POTUS's decapitated head dripping blood while you look all psychotic and start chanting "In the name of Mother Earth."  Yes, I know she didn't chant a damn thing, but I digress.  Disrespectful?  Check.  Threat to national security?  With the kind of lemmings in this day and age, it certainly could be construed as such.  With the proliferation of self-radicalization videos, especially the beheading videos championed by the Caliphate, it could definitely set off a Jarred Loughner wannabe.  The Secret Service isn't going to stop until they know how her dead grandmother's left nipple puckered in 30°F weather, and she brought it on herself.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> To me she is right up there with Ted Nugent, B list celebrities who need to do and say provocative things to remain relevant.



Well, at least the Nuge's music is still worth listening to. I honestly have no recollection whatsoever of anything whats her face ever did of note... and at this point, I really wouldn't care as it's not like she's got anything going that would interest me, so there's no point other than cool points amongst the derp who consider this acceptable behavior.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 1, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Well, at least the Nuge's music is still worth listening to. .



Debateable...


----------



## Topkick (Jun 1, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> But one decapitated elected official and we all lose our minds.



To me, it doesn't matter if its Trump, Obama, or Joe Shit the Ragbag. Its more than "exercising your free speech." Its disrespectful and uncalled for. We shouldn't except this kind of behavior from the left, right, or anywhere in between. We are better than a third world, middle east country with no freakin class.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 1, 2017)

She's just another showboating asshole celebrity who needs to do something outrageous in order to be heard above the roar of noise pollution.

The reaction she got is exactly what she wanted: to be the focus of everybody's media and social media conversation.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 1, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> I knew the effigies happened.... and exactly what I stated, happened because of them. Also, LMGTFY? Pro.
> 
> She wouldn't have done it if she didn't think she'd get away with it. She's no Rosa Parks, riding the unpopular bus out of standing to convictions.


lol you like that?

I agree with all the points made- @racing_kitty @Topkick et al.

Kathy Griffin is a D list celebrity that reached for something she thought was edgy and was completely and totally wrong. Objectively I think it was "wrong" and should have never seen the light of day. I don't think there's a place for it.

But the "GASP! My son Barron saw that photo it's disgusting what about the kids!" schtick sort of falls flat when it comes from a dude with 5 kids by 3 baby mamas that thinks you can grab chicks by the p*%#y cause you have money. There's a good disconnect there because of his job.

It's just a weird thing I guess.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Debateable...



Well yeah, Nickleback _is_ more your forte, so I'd understand _Stranglehold _or _Cat Scratch Fever_ being outside your purview.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 1, 2017)

EVERYTIME something like this happens, I am always reminded of this classic scene from Casablanca.  In regards to how 'outraged' you are, It really comes down to which side of the isle you fall on,. (by "you" I mean the average person and politician)


----------



## Muppet (Jun 1, 2017)

To be honest, this dumb cunt is a nobody and what she did is retarded. With that said, the thing that actually sticks a pencil up my anus sideways is the hypocrisy of the left. When nonsense like this is done, when it was done, the fucking world lost their shit. They claimed race, they wanted heads, so on and so on. It's is just like everything else. Antifa acts the fool, it's ok, because they are fighting facism and the nazis. But when they get slammed, they cry and bitch. I think many of us are tired of seeing the hypocritical idiots play the victim while acting un-American. That's my take, I can be wrong but I really don't think so. 

M.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 1, 2017)

Muppet said:


> To be honest, this dumb cunt is a nobody and what she did is retarded. With that said, the thing that actually sticks a pencil up my anus sideways is the hypocrisy of the left. When nonsense like this is done, when it was done, the fucking world lost their shit. They claimed race, they wanted heads, so on and so on. It's is just like everything else. Antifa acts the fool, it's ok, because they are fighting facism and the nazis. But when they get slammed, they cry and bitch. I think many of us are tired of seeing the hypocritical idiots play the victim while acting un-American. That's my take, I can be wrong but I really don't think so.
> 
> M.


Nah, you're not wrong, you just didn't apply it widely enough. The problem at this point is both sides. I think the problem is literally everyone involved.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 1, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> In regards to how 'outraged' you are, It really comes down to which side of the isle you fall on,. (by "you" I mean the average person and politician)



Many on the left found this despicable too. Even Anderson Cooper condemned it!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 1, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> lol you like that?
> 
> I agree with all the points made- @racing_kitty @Topkick et al.
> 
> ...


Baby Mamas are women you don't marry, and then don't provide child-support to.  Most of the men who call the mother of their child a baby mama get held in contempt of court at child support hearings and sent to jail.  Trump paid his child support and spousal maintenance.

Point is that Baron is the son of the president and apparently some gaping asshole that has a huge following thought it was cool to post that shit all over the internet.  Whereas the gaping assholes in the south didn't have a huge social media following. 

Wasn't good when the effigies happened, not good now.  But I think it's been said.

Different subject though...if everyone thinks the Republicans aren't going to recover, perhaps Hilary should take the plastic bag off of the head of the Democratic Party, because she's definitely suffocating her party.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 1, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Trump paid his child support and spousal maintenance



Yep, and his kids don't seem to be in need of anything


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 1, 2017)

Comedians cross the line, its what they do for a reaction and as an act.

 IIRC, Lenny Bruce was arrested four times for obscenity in his act, banned from England and several US cities, black listed by almost every night club in the US by the end of his life, and expelled from Australia, for instance.


 The fact that a D list comedian is being paid serious attention to by POTUS himself, for any reason, is the best comedy of all here.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 1, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Baby Mamas are women you don't marry, and then don't provide child-support to.  Most of the men who call the mother of their child a baby mama get held in contempt of court at child support hearings and sent to jail.  Trump paid his child support and spousal maintenance.
> 
> Point is that Baron is the son of the president and apparently some gaping asshole that has a huge following thought it was cool to post that shit all over the internet.  Whereas the gaping assholes in the south didn't have a huge social media following.
> 
> ...


Well, debates on the proper use/definition of the term "baby mama" and the likelihood of jail time correlated to those that use the word aside. BTW, that's just a completely retarded statement. Par for the course for you, but it still deserves noting.

Who is saying the Republicans aren't going to recover? What do you mean by Hillary suffocating the Dems?



Topkick said:


> Yep, and his kids don't seem to be in need of anything


They're in need of some ethics briefings and some guidance on holding national level positions. Heyo! Obviously talking about Ivanka, not Baron. But I am definitely talking about the other two, who look like they just got back from a Purge sort of scenario.

I think I am most excited about the Comey deal set for next week. If this political environment has made me hate the news cycle and completely jaded me, I mean, taught me anything, is that it's going to be much ado about nothing.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 1, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Well, debates on the proper use/definition of the term "baby mama" and the likelihood of jail time correlated to those that use the word aside.



Have you ever observed child-support court? It's actually a fairly accurate statement.

Trump has paid his familial obligations.

I suppose you haven't been paying attention to the coverage Hilldawg has been getting on her "I lost, it's Comey's, it's the Russians, it't not that I'm corrupt as fuck, tour."

Yeah, the Comey stuff will be entertaining, and get us nowhere.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 1, 2017)

A lot of Israelis sure seem to like President Trump.  Seeing all kinds of positive posters and signs about him.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 1, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Yeah, the Comey stuff will be entertaining, and get us nowhere.


Let's say there IS a massive bombshell, that Comey can prove. A tape, a certified letter, a note, something that no kidding nails down obstruction of justice.

At this point, I have no faith in the system to hold Pres Trump accountable and I have never had any faith in President Trump to hold himself accountable.

That's a hypothetical though, I don't think the Comey hearing is going to produce anything but flail.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> A lot of Israelis sure seem to like President Trump.  Seeing all kinds of positive posters and signs about him.



A case of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? I've no idea. 
Times change, Ivan used to be Ivan and now maybe calls himself Sergey, seems like there's more of them going by that name. One story I'm more keenly interested in is the intent and extent of Jared Kushner's attempt(s) to establish secret channels with the Russians. This opinion piece has terms I might consider sensationalist (not really), but it is interesting.

Jared Kushner’s Growing Stench of Treason

Above all, let's not lose our sense of humor and proportion, dreadful business that.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> A lot of Israelis sure seem to like President Trump.  Seeing all kinds of positive posters and signs about him.


Going to the Western Wall and being respectful will get you a lot of good will


Frank S. said:


> A case of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? I've no idea.
> Times change, Ivan used to be Ivan and now maybe calls himself Sergey, seems like there's more of them going by that name. One story I'm more keenly interested in is the intent and extent of Jared Kushner's attempt(s) to establish secret channels with the Russians. This opinion piece has terms I might consider sensationalist (not really), but it is interesting.
> 
> Jared Kushner’s Growing Stench of Treason
> ...


FP's headline writer is pretty awesome at clickbait.  But you know, treason requires something like Betrayal.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 2, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> FP's headline writer is pretty awesome at clickbait.  But you know, treason requires something like Betrayal.



A _useful_ way of looking at things, no doubt.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 2, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> The fact that a D list comedian is being paid serious attention to by POTUS himself, for any reason, is the best comedy of all here.




This was a publicity stunt. A D-lister needing a career boost to the C-list. Honestly, I haven't seen Kathy Griffin in anything except an old Seinfeld episode, and she was irritating then. Today, she's playing the victim, whining about "Trump family bullying."

She's squeezing the balls of temporary notoriety for all they're worth.

And incidentally, POTUS is not completely innocent here. He's been very free with his jabs at showbiz personalities and others. By his own demeanor he's lowered the bar. A president should be above this shit.

And Clinton and Obama did the rock star president thing, going on late night talk shows, etc., and IMO they also contributed to the loss of respect for the Office.

Dignity. WTF is _that?_


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 2, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Going to the Western Wall and being respectful will get you a lot of good will



I'm going to go do a little of that myself in about 45 minutes.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 2, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> This was a publicity stunt. A D-lister needing a career boost to the C-list. Honestly, I haven't seen Kathy Griffin in anything except an old Seinfeld episode, and she was irritating then. Today, she's playing the victim, whining about "Trump family bullying."
> 
> She's squeezing the balls of temporary notoriety for all they're worth.
> 
> ...



My daughter is close to Barron's age. If KG had elicited the response from my daughter that she got from Barron Trump, I'd snatch Hillary's crown of White Trash First Lady and KG would be a fucking corpse. This isn't a defense of the CinC, this is me speaking as a parent. Melania is a better woman than me. 

KG deserves every ounce of derision and scorn heaping upon her head.


----------



## AWP (Jun 2, 2017)

Wasting all of this energy on Trump when the country should focus on the real evil in this world:

George R.R. Martin's laziness


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 2, 2017)

AWP said:


> Wasting all of this energy on Trump when the country should focus on the real evil in this world:
> 
> George R.R. Martin's laziness



Mr. Martin feels that POTUS is a petulant child and has called him a con artist, saying, "I think Joffrey is now king in America."

And he's an atheist to boot.  I may call and invite him over for dinner.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 2, 2017)

AWP said:


> Wasting all of this energy on Trump when the country should focus on the real evil in this world:
> 
> George R.R. Martin's laziness


Cross thread misdirection points. SOMEONE GET DOUG STAMPER ON THE PHONE TO ASSASINATE GRRM.


----------



## CQB (Jun 3, 2017)

Trumps climate change stance is interesting as it will take four years to unwind for a start. Protect jobs? I think everyone realizes, particularly in the auto industry, that automation has replaced jobs, and it's small sector of the US economy (1.2%, my guess...service industry anyone?). This one decision, based on an election promise, so called, is an enormous opportunity for China which they will _undoubtedly_ seize, for they understand the consequences of unrestrained economic growth as their government has had to unwind the effects of pollution, thus their strong and continuing support of the Paris Accord. The switch in China to wind and solar has been steady for one reason, they understand that the punters get annoyed when their air and water is fucked. The Party rules and rules well in this regard, and no I'm not a commie, just calling it. As I've said before, POTUS may well resign. This now seems more likely to me anyway, a casual observer as, to put it bluntly on this issue, he's trod on his cock. It has implications internationally in the rise of China and more importantly for the most of you guys domestically.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 3, 2017)

CQB said:


> Trumps climate change stance is interesting as it will take four years to unwind for a start. Protect jobs? I think everyone realizes, particularly in the auto industry, that automation has replaced jobs, and it's small sector of the US economy (1.2%, my guess...service industry anyone?). This one decision, based on an election promise, so called, is an enormous opportunity for China which they will _undoubtedly_ seize, for they understand the consequences of unrestrained economic growth as their government has had to unwind the effects of pollution, thus their strong and continuing support of the Paris Accord. The switch in China to wind and solar has been steady for one reason, they understand that the punters get annoyed when their air and water is fucked. The Party rules and rules well in this regard, and no I'm not a commie, just calling it. As I've said before, POTUS may well resign. This now seems more likely to me anyway, a casual observer as, to put it bluntly on this issue, he's trod on his cock. It has implications internationally in the rise of China and more importantly for the most of you guys domestically.





I will be very surprised if China doesn't sieze this opportunity, along with the EU and other Asian nations.

I can also see US companies and R&D involved in environmentally friendly technologies relocating to countries in need of foreign money and expertise to advance environmental goals. 

Next up on the awesome decision timeline: the current administration taking action to block individual state's environmental initiatives.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 3, 2017)

Lots of signs like this throughout Jerusalem.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 3, 2017)

I actually support bailing on the accord.  It's effect, with selfset goals, and monitary expenditure wouldnt do much but hurt us as a nation. People apprectiate greener companies. Hell, I will be as green as I can be once I start my own transportation business.  Being green is economically intelligent when fuel use is the largest expense in a business.

I am all for private industry throwing money around and individual initiatives towards environmentalism versus EPA directed stupidity. Anything .Gov ends up being hamstrung and mediocre (see VA, ATF, EPA, FMCSA) with little true understanding of what needs to happen and how to actually get to a position that benefits the taxpayers while promoting compliance.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 3, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> I actually support bailing on the accord.  It's effect, with selfset goals, and monitary expenditure wouldnt do much but hurt us as a nation. People apprectiate greener companies. Hell, I will be as green as I can be once I start my own transportation business.  Being green is economically intelligent when fuel use is the largest expense in a business.
> 
> I am all for private industry throwing money around and individual initiatives towards environmentalism versus EPA directed stupidity. Anything .Gov ends up being hamstrung and mediocre (see VA, ATF, EPA, FMCSA) with little true understanding of what needs to happen and how to actually get to a position that benefits the taxpayers while promoting compliance.



From an economic and regulatory standpoint, I'm on board with the intent of this comment.

We have a climate change/ AGW denier in the highest executive seat in the land, though, so the chances of moving forward on environment saving initiatives in any case is bleak.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 3, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Cross thread misdirection points. SOMEONE GET DOUG STAMPER ON THE PHONE TO ASSASINATE GRRM.



Get Rachel to hit him in the head with a brick.


----------



## DasBoot (Jun 3, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Cross thread misdirection points. SOMEONE GET DOUG STAMPER ON THE PHONE TO ASSASINATE GRRM.


or just tell them to meet Frank at a train station...


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 3, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Cross thread misdirection points. SOMEONE GET DOUG STAMPER ON THE PHONE TO ASSASINATE GRRM.


Oh please.  We know that Doug isn't the one killing authors


----------



## CQB (Jun 3, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> I will be very surprised if China doesn't sieze this opportunity, along with the EU and other Asian nations.
> 
> I can also see US companies and R&D involved in environmentally friendly technologies relocating to countries in need of foreign money and expertise to advance environmental goals.
> 
> Next up on the awesome decision timeline: the current administration taking action to block individual state's environmental initiatives.



That would be an interesting development. I'm not up with the US laws on restraining trade but I wouldn't be surprised, I'd be staggered. As to your first point, isn't Jerry Brown doing something in that area?


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 3, 2017)

CQB said:


> That would be an interesting development. I'm not up with the US laws on restraining trade but I wouldn't be surprised, I'd be staggered. As to your first point, isn't Jerry Brown doing something in that area?



Thing I'm staggered about: that our POTUS hasn't made a Twitterblast about how Gov. Brown is a communist sympathizer.  

Or that California is actually a Red state.  Or something about secret blackmail tapes.  Or other reactionary nonsense.


----------



## CQB (Jun 3, 2017)

Everyone knows it's fake news, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 4, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> From an economic and regulatory standpoint, I'm on board with the intent of this comment.
> 
> We have a climate change/ AGW denier in the highest executive seat in the land, though, so the chances of moving forward on environment saving initiatives in any case is bleak.



You just agreed that a governmental angle to it is the worst way, then complained that we won't have a governmental angle to it...... C'mon man.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 4, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> You just agreed that a governmental angle to it is the worst way, then complained that we won't have a governmental angle to it...... C'mon man.



I agreed with you but lamented that, in any case, it isn't looking good for environment friendly actions with the current top leadership.

I don't know the exact probability that, absent a government angle, our current admin. would be hands off if private industry made it's environmental action decisions based upon the weight of scientific evidence, but it's looking fairly small.


----------



## Poccington (Jun 5, 2017)

Civilians killed in London by terrorists... What is the logical course of action for the POTUS to take?

Go onto Twitter of course, use the civilians deaths to try point score about the travel ban, gun control and obviously have a pop or two at the Mayor of London. Oh he managed to squeeze in an offer of his condolences but not before raising his travel ban as a topic first.

How has someone not put the brakes on his Twitter antics? It does him absolutely no favours.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 5, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Civilians killed in London by terrorists... What is the logical course of action for the POTUS to take?
> 
> Go onto Twitter of course, use the civilians deaths to try point score about the travel ban, gun control and obviously have a pop or two at the Mayor of London. Oh he managed to squeeze in an offer of his condolences but not before raising his travel ban as a topic first.
> 
> How has someone not put the brakes on his Twitter antics? It does him absolutely no favours.




I agree 100% about the tweeting. It needed to end way back during the campaign.

As far as the rest, it's a sad characteristic of most politicians--including American presidents from either party--to take full advantage of opportunities, however grim or tragic they may be, to further their agendas. There's plenty of precedence on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Poccington (Jun 5, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I agree 100% about the tweeting. It needed to end way back during the campaign.
> 
> As far as the rest, it's a sad characteristic of most politicians--including American presidents from either party--to take full advantage of opportunities, however grim or tragic they may be, to further their agendas. There's plenty of precedence on both sides of the aisle.



On the second part, I very much agree. The vast majority of politicians are shitbags. For Trump though, he's already up against it, so why make things worse for himself by tweeting the shit he does?

It would've been such an easy win for him to offer his condolences and state that the US was ready to off any help that the UK needed and leave it at that. Why decide to do things like have a pop at the Mayor of London, especially based on a quote which Trump obviously misread.

The Twitter thing is just killing him at a time when he's already up against it.


----------



## CQB (Jun 5, 2017)

I'd say at this point there's not much left to lose.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jun 5, 2017)

The FBI thinks it's found the person who leaked top secret intelligence about Russia

What a winner of a name...

Glad one source of a leak has been arrested. Many more to go.


----------



## CQB (Jun 5, 2017)

I have to agree there. Sheesh, what were her parents thinking?


----------



## Gunz (Jun 6, 2017)

CQB said:


> I have to agree there. Sheesh, what were her parents thinking?



They weren't thinking realistically.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jun 6, 2017)

CQB said:


> I have to agree there. Sheesh, what were her parents thinking?



I'm not sure what reality they were living in.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 6, 2017)

She may be cool with leaking stuff...but she certainly doesn't know to shutdown her Facebook.  She's getting slammed on her last status update.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 6, 2017)

How is she going to do that if she's in custody?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 6, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> How is she going to do that if she's in custody?


Good point.  But point being is why wouldn't you have everything set to private in the first place?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 6, 2017)

Fair point but who knows?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 6, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> I'm not sure what reality they were living in.



They were probably stoned out of their minds the bulk of the time.








 That having been said it explains the thinking flaw that got her ass in hot water.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 6, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Good point.  But point being is why wouldn't you have everything set to private in the first place?



Because one may want to share semicoherent protein bar ramblings with the at large public they have never met?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 7, 2017)

Comey's opening statement has been published by the Senate Int Committee: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

ETA:  Having now read it I seriously wonder why he started documenting conversations he had with the POTUS, when it was not his common business practice with Obama.  Yeah I know, some in here are going to say he was covering his ass.  Yeah, probably, but it's spooky as fuck.  Especially when it could be said that Obama definitely politicized the Department of Justice.


----------



## Poccington (Jun 7, 2017)

Asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation wasn't the smartest move.

The Dems and media will have a field day with that.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I seriously wonder why he started documenting conversations he had with the POTUS, when it was not his common business practice with Obama.  Yeah I know, some in here are going to say he was covering his ass.  Yeah, probably, but it's spooky as fuck.



Is it the fact of the documentation or the reason(s) for it that is spooky? In my job if they placed someone in charge of my Department coming from say, a marketing background, I would document my one on ones in my notes.
Then again, I also document one on ones with subordinates in my notes.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 7, 2017)

Frank S. said:


> Is it the fact of the documentation or the reason(s) for it that is spooky? In my job if they placed someone in charge of my Department coming from say, a marketing background, I would document my one on ones in my notes.



The current POTUS.

The practices of a marketing professional.

I don't know if you meant to elicit an association of common techniques and angles played between those two, but solid work nonetheless.


----------



## Il Duce (Jun 7, 2017)

The implication is pretty obvious - Comey didn't trust President Trump from jumpstreet.  I don't see how a sane person can fault his logic.  Even for his supporters President Trump was a gamble - one most have since doubled-down on and remain largely pleased.

If you're not a staunch partisan loyalist - or personal loyalist - to Trump the man or President Trump - I think the alarm bells for massive sketchiness have got to be going crazy.  If you care about institutions - which, shocker, many of the people who work in non-appointed positions in those institutions do - President Trump is tailor-made to have a tough road earning your trust.  The fact President Trump has gone the opposite way - essentially operating as it's everyone else that needs to earn HIS trust - makes it a bad bet all around.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 7, 2017)

It's pretty simple.  Department of Justice had become extremely politically slanted under 44.  So this idea of political independence is complete BS.  Now, Trump basically gave him an out early on and he didn't take it.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> It's pretty simple.  Department of Justice had become extremely politically slanted under 44.  So this idea of political independence is complete BS.  Now, Trump basically gave him an out early on and he didn't take it.


Oh, word? Did not know that.

Comey is just firing the president up right now. Favorite comment thus far- "Lordy, I hope there are tapes." Cue circus music.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 8, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Oh, word? Did not know that.
> 
> Comey is just firing the president up right now. Favorite comment thus far- "Lordy, I hope there are tapes." Cue circus music.


Considering you don't have a smiley to signify sarcasm, let me hook you up with a recharge of your memory banks Loretta Lynch ‘regrets’ Bill Clinton meeting: ‘I wish I had seen around that corner’


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 8, 2017)

Perception, appearance and demonstration are very different things, it's more than semantics.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Considering you don't have a smiley to signify sarcasm, let me hook you up with a recharge of your memory banks Loretta Lynch ‘regrets’ Bill Clinton meeting: ‘I wish I had seen around that corner’


Lynch saying, "Yeah, I wish I would have thought about how that meeting would be perceived" is proof that the entire DOJ became "extremely politically slanted" under President Obama? That's a weird conclusion to draw from that article.


----------



## Il Duce (Jun 8, 2017)

I'm sure if it turns out Bill Clinton had said to Loretta Lynch 'I hope you can see your way clear to dropping this whole investigation into my wife, she's a great person and it's causing me lots of headaches' Republicans would have responded exactly the same way - 'he's just talking about what he hopes would happen, nothing untoward there.'


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 8, 2017)

It's pretty clear that it was tremendously improper.  It's not even about perception, they met on the tarmac.  Shady as fuck.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 8, 2017)

Burgers for dinner....


----------



## CQB (Jun 9, 2017)

James Clapper was over here last week & rates this mess as bigger than Watergate which was essentially domestic.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 9, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation wasn't the smartest move.
> 
> The Dems and media will have a field day with that.



After Paul Ryan's comment that "he's (President Trump) new at government, so therefore I think he's learning as he goes, and you now know why he's frustrated, because he was told [by Comey] 'nothing is wrong here' and he wants to get things done for the American people."
I wonder if a Performance Improvement Plan is in order, but then, who'd administer it..?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 9, 2017)

If by "Performance Improvement Plan," you mean the complete purging of all federal appointees and elected officials, up to and including the Executive Office, and immediate exile, then yeah, I'd say it's in order. 

Too bad the American populace is too fucking stupid to stop sticking their tongues in the same light socket, much less elect anyone with even a negligible amount of competence.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 9, 2017)

I thought this was a cool breakdown of the coverage during comey's live testimony.

Analysis | 7 telling moments in the cable news coverage of Comey’s hearing


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 9, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I thought this was a cool breakdown of the coverage during comey's live testimony.
> 
> Analysis | 7 telling moments in the cable news coverage of Comey’s hearing


Further evidence that Fox News exists in an alternate universe.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 10, 2017)

Saw this on Facebook and I have to say, wtf is he doing: Barack Obama’s Post-Presidential World Tour is Starting to Get Creepy


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 10, 2017)

Could be _creepier_, as in eating caviar with Putin...


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 11, 2017)

Wait- is Obama actively trying to protect diplomatic relationships creepy, or is the journalist who took the time to write a full story about some dudes euro vacation and his menu choices creepy? 

Either way, we all know that Liverpool House used to be hot, the new 'it' place on the scene, but it's just become really politically slanted since 45 got there.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Saw this on Facebook and I have to say, wtf is he doing: Barack Obama’s Post-Presidential World Tour is Starting to Get Creepy


 
 I find it odd.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 11, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Wait- is Obama actively trying to protect diplomatic relationships creepy, or is the journalist who took the time to write a full story about some dudes euro vacation and his menu choices creepy?
> 
> Either way, we all know that Liverpool House used to be hot, the new 'it' place on the scene, but it's just become really politically slanted since 45 got there.



I might agree but if he is following the President, it's a bit weird. He is no longer president and it seems a bit odd that he would follow an elected president around in what could appear to be an attempt at undermining trumps authority. But we all know how things get twisted.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jun 11, 2017)

I'm no fan of his policies,  but I'd gladly play a round of golf and finish it off as the 19th hole with 44.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 11, 2017)

It's pretty simple, '44 is not the president and going on a world tour like such is undermining the ability of '45 to execute the will of the people.

In the world of stupid posts TLDR20, what was the point of yours?  This is pretty significant.  It's not my headline, but I think what he's doing is fucking stupid.  But you know, he did start the it was all Bush's fault movement.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Saw this on Facebook and I have to say, wtf is he doing: Barack Obama’s Post-Presidential World Tour is Starting to Get Creepy



I've had to read  this several times after getting distracted by the photos of asses in the column on the right. To quote the former president alluded to in the first paragraph, "that was some weird  shit".
It reads more like an opinion piece, as in most of what is inferred is fleshed out by whatever the reader chooses to put in. When you boil it down, however, the main issue of  the day (and months/years ahead) is not a former president seemingly/allegedly throwing shade on the current one, but the extent of Russian penetration and manipulation of American institutions and estates (including real estate, heh! Heh!). Quite the trick.






I just want the fucking pencil to disappear.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 11, 2017)

To be clear, I think heat street is a bonkers editorial site.  I'm more concerned that '44 is palling around with his former peers who are currently still in power.  It's poor form.  He's not the POTUS.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 11, 2017)

Tuesday 9 May, the White House announces the firing of the Director of the FBI. He finds out about it by turning on the TV.

Wednesday 10 May, President Trump meets at the White House with both Sergeys, Lavrov and Kislyak, with Russian media present but no American media.

How's that for appearance and decorum?

To me, who Obama meets, what he does and how pales in significance. To paraphrase: poor form? He's not the POTUS.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 11, 2017)

I don't see where the comparisons to Trump are even relevant. Its just weird if Obama is tailgating the current President and that is what the article is about. But, I do agree that the source seems like a shady organization, so I will take it fwiw.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 11, 2017)

One is of concern, the other is not. My contention is the piece posted is irrelevant to the thread.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 11, 2017)

It does relate to the Trump presidency but I agree that it was bit awkwardly placed.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 11, 2017)

One hit list I'm glad I'll never be on....:-":blkeye:


----------



## Topkick (Jun 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Your post is stupid on multiple levels, but to fully explain the retardedness I have to cross thread.
> 
> You don't seem to fully understand how context works. Say for instance on this forum we have a comedy thread, lots of jokes, memes, funny videos, you bring to it.... stories about SM's abusing animals, domestic violence, and other terrible bullshit.
> 
> ...



Thanks for not throwing the US Cavalry all the way under the bus.:whatever:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 11, 2017)

These weren't available when I was looking for it this morning, guess my search terms sucked, but here's a better source.  Again, yes I would state that '44 is undermining '45.

Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau Had the Most Romantic Dinner Date Ever (Yes, There Were Oysters)

Celine Cooper: Trudeau, Obama and their not-so-private dinner


----------



## Topkick (Jun 12, 2017)

As previously stated, I don't necessarily see a problem with Obama having dinner with a friend. I just don't see the need to use this as an opportunity to bash the current President, which one article does. That's the opportunist media creating the undermining. That's just politics. Writing that Trump is a Boor and a Bully... Trump has lots of friends in high places whom I am sure enjoy his company. Even if Trump had caviar with Putin, maybe something good can come out of it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 12, 2017)

So the Maryland and DC AGs are suing the POTUS.  I'm pretty sure they can't do that.  Here's the press conference: 




I'm drawing correlation with all of those birther lawsuits as precedence for this crap.

I'm quite aware that the executive branch gets sued all the time and the Counsels office is busy as shit with depostiions.  But this is comical.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 12, 2017)

They are suing on behalf of a group of hoteliers who claim damage from Trump's properties.  It'll be up to the district court to see if they have standing.

It's interesting because apparently there's very little case law regarding the emoluments clause of the constitution.  This case could establish ground-breaking precedent.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 13, 2017)

Article of impeachment from Rep Brad Sherman (D-CA 30): http://sherman.house.gov/sites/sherman.house.gov/files/SHERMA_017_xml.pdf


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Article of impeachment from Rep Brad Sherman (D-CA 30): http://sherman.house.gov/sites/sherman.house.gov/files/SHERMA_017_xml.pdf



Okay, you do know that this really has no meaning yet?

Rep. Brad Sherman knows Trump won't be impeached any time soon, but he's trying anyway

_Sherman spokesman Shane Seaver said the congressman decided to circulate the resolution in part to gauge interest from other members. But so far, aside from Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), no other members have publicly voiced support for the formal effort to impeach Trump._

It is posts like the one I quoted above that frustrate me about you in this thread.  I won't go so far as to call you a troll, but how about some commentary?  

Explain the background behind the post instead of just dropping a link and scurrying away.  

Other than to cause a WTF reaction, what possible purpose does that serve?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 13, 2017)

I posted it for members to read direct from the source to make their own mind.

Now, my reaction to representative Sherman is that I'm sure as shit glad he's not my representative.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Article of impeachment from Rep Brad Sherman (D-CA 30): http://sherman.house.gov/sites/sherman.house.gov/files/SHERMA_017_xml.pdf



Hunh.  Didn't see something like that coming.



The dismissal of Comey and attempts to interfere with Flynn's investigation are the grounds.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 14, 2017)

Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say

Our whole government needs to be culled.  Trying to run a special investigation and this think is leaking like crazy.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 14, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Our whole government needs to be culled.



Some appear to agree, though perhaps only in part.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 14, 2017)

Frank S. said:


> Some appear to agree, though perhaps only in part.


Yes, it certainly has not been a slow news day.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 14, 2017)

Obstruction of justice.....:-"


----------



## CDG (Jun 16, 2017)

The Daily Caller News Foundation published a list of attacks on conservatives starting in July 2016 and up to the recent shootings.  Pretty interesting to see things compiled in one list.  From the article: _ In creating the list, TheDCNF reviewed numerous articles detailing attacks and violent threats against conservatives and Trump supporters. While there are examples of anonymous threats, The DCNF chose to include only those that resulted in the cancelling of events and two to members of Congress deemed credible. Some instances of violence between rival protestors were not included as it was difficult to ascertain who initiated the event. _

Now, I realize liberals have been attacked as well.  This post is not about who's done more to whom, or who has actually carried out more attacks.  I posted this because it's happening right now, and if we're ever going to get this country back on track, people have to be held accountable on both sides of the political spectrum.  These attacks are bullshit, carried out by ignorant cowards who can't actually argue any intelligent or meaningful points, so they resort to mass violence.  While I wouldn't actually do it because I don't need the headache, part of me wants to start wearing Trump apparel around and see what happens.

This List Of Attacks Against Conservatives Is Mind Blowing


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 16, 2017)

So as our path towards normalization with Cuba was decried by the right, it is now being reversed by the right.  I really don't like this, I think the power of the American Dollar, although it would have taken decades would have done a lot more than what is about to occur.  Seems the embargo is coming back full speed: Trump slams Obama-era Cuba policy, says it enriches Castro regime

But it's bullshit as we're real cool with some of the worst Human Rights abusers in the world with the GCC.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 17, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So as our path towards normalization with Cuba was decried by the right, it is now being reversed by the right.  I really don't like this, I think the power of the American Dollar, although it would have taken decades would have done a lot more than what is about to occur.  Seems the embargo is coming back full speed: Trump slams Obama-era Cuba policy, says it enriches Castro regime
> 
> But it's bullshit as we're real cool with some of the worst Human Rights abusers in the world with the GCC.



Canada has been propping up Cuba for decades and it hasn't gotten any better for everyday Cubans.  The Cuban government doesn't want normal relations, they just want US tourist dollars.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2017)

Supreme Court ruling on the travel ban:



> The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to implement part of its temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and said it would review lower-court rulings that found the executive actions likely unlawful.


----------



## Dame (Jun 26, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Canada has been propping up Cuba for decades and it hasn't gotten any better for everyday Cubans.  The Cuban government doesn't want normal relations, they just want US tourist dollars.


If we really wanted to fuck up the Cuban government we could send them a bunch of Millennials. Might set the Millennials right as well.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 26, 2017)

Many millennials might assimilate. According to them, the Cuban government model is the way ahead.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 26, 2017)

I think we should send Cuba some baby boomers, they know best how to fuck up an economy...

Might even serve them right.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think we should send Cuba some baby boomers, they know best how to fuck up an economy...
> 
> Might even serve them right.



I am not sure a nation left with only us Gen Xers would be in the best interest.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 26, 2017)




----------



## Dame (Jun 26, 2017)

You don't say.


> Three CNN journalists resign over retracted story about Trump's Russia ties
> Three CNN journalists resign over retracted story about Trump's Russia ties


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 26, 2017)

Dame said:


> You don't say.



re:  3 CNN journalists resign over retracted story about Trump's Russia Ties
re:  Supreme Court gave okay for at least partial immigration ban

One could say that Trump had a very good day...in fact if one was a Trump supporter, one could suggest the media fed house-of-cards was beginning to collapse.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 26, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> re:  3 CNN journalists resign over retracted story about Trump's Russia Ties
> re:  Supreme Court gave okay for at least partial immigration ban
> 
> One could say that Trump had a very good day...in fact if one was a Trump supporter, one could suggest the media fed house-of-cards was beginning to collapse.



There will be, more than likely, at least 3.5 more years of fake news.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 26, 2017)

Topkick said:


> There will be, more than likely, at least 3.5 more years of fake news.



I can admittedly be a little slow.  What do you mean by this?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 26, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Canada has been propping up Cuba for decades and it hasn't gotten any better for everyday Cubans.  The Cuban government doesn't want normal relations, they just want US tourist dollars.



Meanwhile, back at the Canadian border....

Refugees flood Canada from the U.S.

_WINNIPEG, Canada – What started as a mere spike in new refugee arrivals, has become an established trend of refugees illegally crossing the border from the United States to Canada.
And authorities don’t expect that surge to cease anytime soon.

“At the heart of it all, is this real, very deep fear. Fear for their lives. Fear for persecution. Whether it’s in their home country or the United States, or wherever else they might be coming from,” said Rita Chahal, Executive Director of the* Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council – the largest refugee resettlement organization in Manitoba.*_


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 26, 2017)

Dame said:


> You don't say.


Seems Army WTF Moments has higher editorial standards than CNN.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 27, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Meanwhile, back at the Canadian border....
> 
> Refugees flood Canada from the U.S.
> 
> ...


----------



## Topkick (Jun 27, 2017)

Dame said:


> If we really wanted to fuck up the Cuban government we could send them a bunch of Millennials. Might set the Millennials right as well.






Millenials like this?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 27, 2017)

Let's stop using that term you bloody old gits. It fucks me off. You old pricks aren't all the same so don't lump all of us cunts into one stupidly named group.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 27, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Let's stop using that term you bloody old gits. It fucks me off. You old pricks aren't all the same so don't lump all of us cunts into one stupidly named group.



Lighten up Francis, I don't hate all of you whippersnappers!


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 27, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Lighten up Francis, I don't hate all of you whippersnappers!



I'm sorry I can't read ye olde English!


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 27, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Let's stop using that term you bloody old gits. It fucks me off. You old pricks aren't all the same so don't lump all of us cunts into one stupidly named group.



The same happened (is happening) with my own Gen X, mate.  Newer generations are an easy target for the blame of social ills - always have been, always will be. 

A cartoon by Bill Maudlin from 1950.  He was 28 and a WWII vet at the time, writing an essay defending his own generation (the same one later labeled as 'The Greatest Generation') from attacks of "lacking some of the good old American gambling spirit and enterprise," among other things by older folks.     So it goes...


----------



## Topkick (Jun 27, 2017)

lighten up francis - Bing video


----------



## Topkick (Jun 27, 2017)

Yep, us Gen Xers were referred to as Slackers and Latchkey Kids responsible for the moral decline in the US.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 27, 2017)

Topkick said:


> lighten up francis - Bing video



Top, if you're going to mock the young folk with a video, you have to at least show them you know how to embed!


----------



## Topkick (Jun 27, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Top, if you're going to mock the young folk with a video, you have to at least show them you know how to embed!



Sorry but I am a Gen X slacker Thanks for the lookout though!


----------



## Topkick (Jun 27, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Top, if you're going to mock the young folk with a video, you have to at least show them you know how to embed!



Its all meant in good fun. There are plenty of jackasses in my generation.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 27, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I can admittedly be a little slow.  What do you mean by this?



I agree with you that Trump had a good day but the media feeding frenzy will probably continue for 3.5 more years.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 27, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> re:  3 CNN journalists resign over retracted story about Trump's Russia Ties
> re:  Supreme Court gave okay for at least partial immigration ban
> 
> One could say that Trump had a very good day...in fact if one was a Trump supporter, one could suggest the media fed house-of-cards was beginning to collapse.


Good.  CNN is a garbage news outlet.

Disagree about the second part though.  The republican healthcare bill is stalled, and recent SCOTUS "wins" have been incredibly minor.  This administration is close to five months old and has basically accomplished nothing.  His Gallup approval numbers reflect the fact that people are noticing this.


----------



## Dame (Jun 27, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Let's stop using that term you bloody old gits. It fucks me off. You old pricks aren't all the same so don't lump all of us cunts into one stupidly named group.


I was actually offering to send one (or more) of my kids. I know you ain't that age, Francis.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 28, 2017)

Dame said:


> I was actually offering to send one (or more) of my kids. I know you ain't that age, Francis.



Yeah and the whole thing was tongue in cheek.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 29, 2017)

C'mon, Mr. President.....really??

Trump mocks TV host: 'bleeding badly from a face-lift' :: WRAL.com

It's hard to defend you when you are being a douche and all....(even if we would say the same things to our buddies, 1) we ain't POTUS, and 2) we ain't putting it out for the world to see).


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 29, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> C'mon, Mr. President.....really??
> 
> Trump mocks TV host: 'bleeding badly from a face-lift' :: WRAL.com
> 
> It's hard to defend you when you are being a douche and all....(even if we would say the same things to our buddies, 1) we ain't POTUS, and 2) we ain't putting it out for the world to see).



Shameless, shallow, and stupid people are very often more successful in business than their peers.  That includes show business.

These can be difficult personality traits to abandon when they have contributed to getting one to the point they're at.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 29, 2017)

Topkick said:


> I agree with you that Trump had a good day but the media feeding frenzy will probably continue for 3.5 more years.



Maybe, but time will tell.  One thing that I do like about Trump, is that you cannot just publish 'anything' and expect him to just "no comment" on it.  Has Trump ever even said that before?  
If you're going to publish allegations on Trump, you better be prepared to back it up.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 29, 2017)

<Quick comedy pause>

Cannot believe this never got posted back in November, absolutely brilliant and the work to put this together must have been extensive.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Maybe, but time will tell. One thing that I do like about Trump, is that you cannot just publish 'anything' and expect him to just "no comment" on it. Has Trump ever even said that before?
> If you're going to publish allegations on Trump, you better be prepared to back it up.



Agreed. You probably have figured out by now I am one of the "deplorable."  But, he obviously does go overboard at times. The media can say whatever they want because I expect nothing but BS from them, but I feel the president of the US should probably be somewhat of a role model for civility. Mika should not have said Trump was destroying the country or called him a liar because as usual there is no evidence of this. But, I don't particularly agree with the president publicly attacking someone's personal appearance. What do the kids think of their president? When I was a kid, the president was held in the highest esteem.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Agreed. You probably have figured out by now I am one of the "deplorable."  But, he obviously does go overboard at times. The media can say whatever they want because I expect nothing but BS from them, but I feel the president of the US should probably be somewhat of a role model for civility. Mika should not have said Trump was destroying the country or called him a liar because as usual there is no evidence of this. But, I don't particularly agree with the president publicly attacking someone's personal appearance. What do the kids think of their president? When I was a kid, the president was held in the highest esteem.



There is no evidence of him being a liar? In what world are we living in where that is true? I can easily find hundreds and hundreds of easily verifiable falsehoods he has spewed...

Donald Trump's file


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 29, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> There is no evidence of him being a liar? In what world are we living in where that is true



^^^^^^
- This -

And Top,  I too would consider myself a one time "Deplorable", and will continue to fall on my "anyone but Hillary sword", but Mr. President seems to be making it up as he goes along at that genuinely frightens me.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ^^^^^^
> - This -
> 
> And Top,  I too would consider myself a one time "Deplorable", and will continue to fall on my "anyone but Hillary sword", but Mr. President seems to be making it up as he goes along at that genuinely frightens me.



What is Trump making up as he goes along?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 29, 2017)

Topkick said:


> What is Trump making up as he goes along?



We can begin with this laundry list from day 1 of his term in office.

President Trump’s Lies, the Definitive List

I am as frustrated with my Trump friends as I was with my Obama friends the past 8 years.  You can be loyal to "your guy" and still admit that not every decision and statement is brilliant.

With Trump, even more than Obama, there is a direct analogy to the "Emperor Has No Clothes".   I can point you to a very popular and well-run gun board where the site owner will literally ban members who dare speak out against some of the decisions/statement Trump has made. 

At some point we conservatives and Republicans have to get past the "he beat Hillary" mantra, stop being sycophants, and hold our President accountable.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 29, 2017)

Topkick said:


> What is Trump making up as he goes along?


Political appointments, for one.  Just look at the slate of unfilled positions in the executive branch.  Donald Trump nominations list – New White House administration

He's incredibly far behind on appointments - especially in critical positions like Ambassadorships.  Even in critical locations like Qatar we don't have an actual Ambassador.  And it's not because the senate is being obstructionist, the administration hasn't even nominated anyone!  It's incredibly clear that he and his staff are just winging it when it comes to appointments.

Oh, and let's not forget the man he tapped to negotiate the Middle East peace process - his own son-in-law, Jared Kushner.  Why in the world would you appoint a 30-year-old silver spoon shithead to solve one of the most difficult conflicts of the 21st century?  That's just asinine.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> We can begin with this laundry list from day 1 of his term in office.
> 
> President Trump’s Lies, the Definitive List
> 
> ...



I did just give an example of when I don't agree with everything he says or does. I am mostly concerned with his agenda and I feel he is trying to accomplish what he campaigned on.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 29, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> Shameless, shallow, and stupid people are very often more successful in business than their peers.  That includes show business.
> 
> These can be difficult personality traits to abandon when they have contributed to getting one to the point they're at.



Disagree. Shameless and shallow? Maybe. Stupid? No


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 29, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> Shameless, shallow, and stupid people are very often more successful in business than their peers. That includes show business.



Doc, what are you basing that on?  

The successful business leaders I follow, in addition to those who have mentored me in the past, are some of the the most humble, thoughtful and intelligent men and women I know of.

That a pretty damning generalization you are making.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Doc, what are you basing that on?
> 
> The successful business leaders I follow, in addition to those who have mentored me in the past, are some of the the most humble, thoughtful and intelligent men and women I know of.
> 
> That a pretty damning generalization you are making.



I'm in no way using those terms in a derogatory way here.  Quite the opposite, actually.

To be fair, my perspective as an employee and owner is from a startup, entrepreneur environment.


----------



## Il Duce (Jun 30, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Maybe, but time will tell.  One thing that I do like about Trump, is that you cannot just publish 'anything' and expect him to just "no comment" on it.  Has Trump ever even said that before?
> If you're going to publish allegations on Trump, you better be prepared to back it up.



Wait, what?  How have the facts of a criticism of President/Candidate Trump - or 'backing them up' - ever affected his commentary?  He responds to real or perceived sleights with vitriol, innuendo, and lies on a regular basis.  Then, when those responses turn out to be lies, refuses to comment at length - I'm thinking specifically of comments about unmasking, Susan Rice, 3-5 million illegal voters, Comey tapes, having his 'wires tapped' by President Obama, etc.

Also, it's really fascinating how the requirement to 'back up' allegations with facts only applies to those who criticize President Trump - they never seem to apply to Trump himself or his surrogates.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 30, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Also, it's really fascinating how the requirement to 'back up' allegations with facts only applies to those who criticize President Trump - they never seem to apply to Trump himself or his surrogates.



Well you gotta have people...


----------



## Poccington (Jul 2, 2017)

Take a look at @realDonaldTrump's Tweet: Donald J. Trump on Twitter

This is, without a shadow of a doubt, his finest work to date


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 2, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Take a look at @realDonaldTrump's Tweet: Donald J. Trump on Twitter
> 
> This is, without a shadow of a doubt, his finest work to date



IMO, the only further down the electoral college can go in 3 1/2 years is electing an actual adolescent, or perhaps someone with a diagnosed mental disorder causing a significant inability to function in society.

In these cases, I'll kind of miss the current POTUS.


----------



## Poccington (Jul 2, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> IMO, the only further down the electoral college can go in 3 1/2 years is electing an actual adolescent, or perhaps someone with a diagnosed mental disorder causing a significant inability to function in society.
> 
> In these cases, I'll kind of miss the current POTUS.



He retweeted that tweet on the offical POTUS account as well hahahaha.

He is on a different planet.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 2, 2017)

I'm starting to feel like watching Trump's presidency is like watching him play a game of Jenga.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 2, 2017)

"I'd vote for _anybody_ before I'd ever vote for Hillary."

You know how many times I heard variations of that theme? Insert any cartoon character's name for _"anybody"_ and you'll know what half the country was thinking. So we got Daffy Duck. And that's what happens when there's a threat of Hillary (and Bill) Clinton back in the White House.

The Democrats have only themselves to blame for dragging that old ambitious heartless hag out again.


----------



## AWP (Jul 3, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> "I'd vote for _anybody_ before I'd ever vote for Hillary."
> 
> You know how many times I heard variations of that theme? Insert any cartoon character's name for _"anybody"_ and you'll know what half the country was thinking. So we got Daffy Duck. And that's what happens when there's a threat of Hillary (and Bill) Clinton back in the White House.
> 
> The Democrats have only themselves to blame for dragging that old ambitious heartless hag out again.



I love the "Trump's president because America is racist" narrative that pops up online now and then. People on both sides of the aisle can't wrap their heads around the different factors that landed him in the White House, so it is easier to distill their loss/ victory down to some emotional excuse. Both parties are so clueless and so devoid of leadership you'd think the first one to learn the lessons of 2016 could own the country.

Instead we'll get a shitshow, the leadership we deserve, not the leadership we need.


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2017)

AWP said:


> I love the "Trump's president because America is racist" narrative that pops up online now and then. People on both sides of the aisle can't wrap their heads around the different factors that landed him in the White House, so it is easier to distill their loss/ victory down to some emotional excuse.



This is applicable to so many different things.  Try saying that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.  Try arguing that we need immigration reform.  Try advocating for the use of violence when appropriate.  Try *insert a million other things*.  We have intellectually devolved to, "I don't understand, so I'll just get mad and throw pejoratives around at a high volume".  It's on both sides of the ideological/political spectrum too.  Neither side has a majority share in the assclownery.


----------



## AWP (Jul 3, 2017)

Jesus Christ...Savage.

GregGutfeld on Twitter


----------



## Topkick (Jul 3, 2017)

AWP said:


> Jesus Christ...Savage.
> 
> GregGutfeld on Twitter



Is he trying to make the list?


----------



## Gunz (Jul 4, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Is he trying to make the list?



You mean the Vince Foster Memorial Suspicious Suicide List?


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 4, 2017)

David Frum's politics are not mine, but since he's moved to the Atlantic I think he's done a great job of capturing issues in the Trump era.  His latest piece on American exceptionalism is excellent in my opinion: The Souring of American Exceptionalism


----------



## Poccington (Jul 4, 2017)

AWP said:


> Jesus Christ...Savage.
> 
> GregGutfeld on Twitter



[RickJames]Cooooooold blooded![/RickJames]


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 4, 2017)

CDG said:


> This is applicable to so many different things.  *Try saying that the Civil War wasn't about slavery*.


Uhhh.....


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 4, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> David Frum's politics are not mine, but since he's moved to the Atlantic I think he's done a great job of capturing issues in the Trump era.  His latest piece on American exceptionalism is excellent in my opinion: The Souring of American Exceptionalism



Read it on the train home. I agree.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 4, 2017)

I lol'd. It's like a guy talking about baseball at the bar.


----------



## CQB (Jul 5, 2017)

I talked about America with a friend of mine only today & pretty much we've dropped off debating certain points. I glad someone on the home team can be critical as from outside it would look like sour grapes writing an article like that.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 5, 2017)

CQB said:


> I talked about America with a friend of mine only today & pretty much we've dropped off debating certain points. I glad someone on the home team can be critical as from outside it would look like sour grapes writing an article like that.



I saw an article yesterday (Newsweek I think) that something like 65% of Republicans think it's unpatriotic to complain about the President to anyone from another country (up from about 20% of Republicans when President Obama was in office).  The data on Democrats was about the same (only about 20% think it's unpatriotic to do so - relatively unchanged over the Presidents).  It's just one poll - so not necessarily the last word on how people feel.

Still, aside from the partisan angle I think it's an interesting point.  I definitely think it's a different matter to criticize your countries' policies and leaders to folks from another country - or while you are in another country.  I'm not sure how I feel in terms of how 'patriotic' or not it is - I just think it is a different dynamic and should be approached differently.


----------



## CQB (Jul 5, 2017)

Thanks for your reply. You may be thinking of the Economist Special Report on Trumps America which has some interesting stats on who actually pays attention to the policies of either party. 
It can be somewhat difficult to cut through the static with some & my aforementioned friend has walked away from online discussions. Other friends have found similar difficulties with your countrymen face to face in some discussions which aren't aggressive but its that the flexibility of thinking can be restrictive, as exemplified by the Atlantic article & health care. I do hope that the US finds its way as currently I'm not so sure.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 7, 2017)

For crying out loud, I think Trump is bipolar.  To go from his awful tweets re: that chick from Morning Joe to an outstanding speech in Poland.  If they can take away his twitter (I know, not gonna happen) the man has a shot...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 7, 2017)

Saw this post on my Twitter feed this morning. I cannot ever recall seeing anything this aggressive on The Corps tweets before.  It's as if there is a new sheriff in town or something....:-"


----------



## Gunz (Jul 7, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Saw this post on my Twitter feed this morning. I cannot ever recall seeing anything this aggressive on The Corps tweets before.  It's as if there is a new sheriff in town or something....:-"
> 
> 
> View attachment 19114



The Corps can be aggressive now...it is no longer the  force that "runs toward the sound of people in need" nor is the Navy limited to calling itself "a Global Force for Good..." both of those Obama-era kumbaya recruiting slogans. The Corps can now be the shit-stomping American shock force it was meant to be.


----------



## Blizzard (Jul 7, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> The Corps can be aggressive now...it is no longer the  force that "runs toward the sound of people in need" nor is the Navy limited to calling itself "a Global Force for Good..." both of those Obama-era kumbaya recruiting slogans. The Corps can now be the shit-stomping American shock force it was meant to be.


 

"_The armed forces exist to serve the United States by providing the military wherewithal to deter war and, should that fail, to fight and conclude war to the advantage of the United States. *The armed forces do not exist for themselves, as a source of employment, as a market for American industry, or as a social welfare tool for social engineering*_."  -  _Air Force Officer's Guide_


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 7, 2017)

So y'all been following the whole 'United States Space Corps' thing?

I told y'all I'd be the theater commander for operation Mars freedom!

My platoon of intergalactic death ray gunners, shall stab our freedom flag into the high plains of Mars and declare it the space territories of the United States of America.

USA, USA, USA!!!


----------



## Gunz (Jul 7, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So y'all been following the whole 'United States Space Corps' thing?
> 
> I told y'all I'd be the theater commander for operation Mars freedom!
> 
> ...




Fixed it for you


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 7, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Fixed it for you



You're just mad that you are too freaking old to join the real corps...The "United States Space Corps"!:-"


----------



## AWP (Jul 7, 2017)




----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 7, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> The Corps can be aggressive now...it is no longer the  force that "runs toward the sound of people in need" nor is the Navy limited to calling itself "a Global Force for Good..." both of those Obama-era kumbaya recruiting slogans. The Corps can now be the shit-stomping American shock force it was meant to be.


What has it been for the past 14 years?  Did we win Fallujah by singing songs and holding hands?  Marjah?  Come on man.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> What has it been for the past 14 years?  Did we win Fallujah by singing songs and holding hands?  Marjah?  Come on man.



Crayon small X'es on a world map when the other guys are using roller brushes to paint their area of influence.....


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 8, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Crayon small X'es on a world map when the other guys are using roller brushes to paint their area of influence.....


Are you stupid?  Crayons are food, not for map marking!


----------



## Gunz (Jul 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> What has it been for the past 14 years?  Did we win Fallujah by singing songs and holding hands?  Marjah?  Come on man.




I'm not that big of an idiot. I disagreed because you misunderstood me. It doesn't have to pussy-foot around with it's _advertising_, it's _public persona. _With a man like Mattis as SecDef no one has to dilute or downplay the fact that Marines exist to kill and destroy our enemies. Unquestionably, under the Obama administration, the destructive and lethal nature of the armed services was downplayed in public in favor of a kinder, gentler image, which frankly, made me want to puke.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 9, 2017)

Respect: 




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10157026022236509


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 9, 2017)

That's pretty cool.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 9, 2017)

He picked up a cover.  Obviously the best president.


----------



## Topkick (Jul 9, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> He picked up a cover.  Obviously the best president.



Who said he was the best president? Its just cool that a president helped out a Marine. Doesn't matter which president.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 9, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> He picked up a cover.  Obviously the best president.



I just think it was a nice thing to do.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 9, 2017)

Without a doubt President Hillary would've done the same thing.


----------



## AWP (Jul 9, 2017)

The President of the United States stopped TWICE to retrieve an E-3's cover. Whatever we may think of the man, that was a classy thing to do. The Marine? He was solid. 

To make up for it the President will probably tweet out a photo of a Klan meeting or something, but that was an amazing gesture by a CinC. I'm a straight asshole and even I recognize the little things matter.


----------



## Poccington (Jul 9, 2017)

Attempt to interfere in the US election... Become the US' partner in cyber security?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 9, 2017)

Poccington said:


> View attachment 19135
> Attempt to interfere in the US election... Become the US' partner in cyber security?



I suppose it counts as impenetrable if the people you're trying to fight are setting it up?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 9, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Respect:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HE DIDN'T RETURN THAT MARINE'S SALUTE ARGLEBLARGLE!!!

Kidding.  That was a decent thing to do.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 9, 2017)

To those of you whom ever chastised President Obama for being "weak on Russia", read this article.  Read it and realize that our President is selling us down the fucking river to that goddamn snake.  

Trump Handed Putin a Stunning Victory

He's moving our military and trade alliances away from Europe and our traditional allies in ASEAN to cast his lot with Vladimir fucking Putin.  And for what?  Russia has an economy the size of Italy's.  Their imperialist belligerence is sending up alarm bells all throughout Europe and the Middle East, and it's unlikely to stop any time soon.  Oh, and before we forget, they absolutely fucked with our election *AND WILL DO SO AGAIN IN 2020, *but Trump neither cares about their past indiscretions nor seems concerned about the future threat that they pose.  This is absolutely baffling.  What do we get out of this alliance?  Tag-teaming ISIS?  We're throwing away our long-term national interests for a short-term military victory.  It doesn't make any fucking sense.

Please, Trump fans, explain to me why we're casting our lot with Russia.  I'm serious.  It's incredibly worrisome to me and NOBODY seems to be able to explain why we're doing it.


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 9, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> It doesn't make any fucking sense.



Cui bono?


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 9, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Please, Trump fans, explain to me why we're casting our lot with Russia.  I'm serious.  It's incredibly worrisome to me and NOBODY seems to be able to explain why we're doing it.



Because thugs can be good at working those who have poor foresight and judgment.

Not a Trump fan, but that still seemed evident.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 9, 2017)

So I have a question. If you were a climate scientist, and funding is related to grants, and most grants come from the government, why not change your stance towards climate science when the tides of politics change? If it is all political, why not change? Why do so many come out against our governments shift in attitude? Why do they resign? I honestly don't get the "conspiracy" of climate change.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 10, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> So I have a question. If you were a climate scientist, and funding is related to grants, and most grants come from the government, why not change your stance towards climate science when the tides of politics change? If it is all political, why not change? Why do so many come out against our governments shift in attitude? Why do they resign? I honestly don't get the "conspiracy" of climate change.



This is why:  The debate is over.

The evidence supporting the "AGW/ climate change isn't happening" stance is so meager compared to the evidence that supports the fact, the matter has ceased to even be a consistent debate among experts.

So, a scientist either accepts the consensus when discussing the subject or they claim that... something else is a fact.

 I admit its possible that a scientist might believe in 'something else' in the service of receiving grants from a government who are now largely science deniers on this subject.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 10, 2017)

And things just get more interesting: Comey’s private memos on Trump conversations contained classified material

This is a bit of a no duh, and how can you be that dumb sort of thing.


----------



## Poccington (Jul 10, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> And things just get more interesting: Comey’s private memos on Trump conversations contained classified material
> 
> This is a bit of a no duh, and how can you be that dumb sort of thing.



So.....



ThunderHorse said:


> On condition of anonymity...aka gossip.  I hate that garbage.



... What has suddenly changed your opinion on the use of anonymous sources?


----------



## Poccington (Jul 10, 2017)

Donald Trump Jr. in legal danger for Russia meeting about Clinton dirt

Someone needs to take the shovel off Donald Jr before the hole he's in gets any bigger.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 10, 2017)

Poccington said:


> So.....
> 
> 
> 
> ... What has suddenly changed your opinion on the use of anonymous sources?



When it comes to anonymous source, no.  I would prefer to just post links to update the thread but we're required to say something.

All Aboard the SS Leaks, hope they have Tri-Tip.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 10, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> And things just get more interesting: Comey’s private memos on Trump conversations contained classified material
> 
> This is a bit of a no duh, and how can you be that dumb sort of thing.


This report is being misrepresented by conservative media.  Comey, in total, wrote seven memos about his conversations with the President.  Of those, four contained classified information.  The last three were unclassified, and it was only one of those that Comey shared with Daniel Richman, who then shared it with the New York Times.  But conservative media doesn't give a shit about that.  They're blaring out "CLASSIFIED MEMOS!!! LEAKING!!" to the high heavens, which just isn't supported by the facts.  This is fake news.

You can read all about it here: Analysis | Trump accuses James Comey of breaking the law — based on a misleading Fox News report


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 10, 2017)

Well I never considered MSN to be conservative.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 10, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well I never considered MSN to be conservative.


The original article is from The Hill.  Then Fox & Friends got their hands on it and did their usual bullshit song and dance, and because he's a fickle child who cares about this kind of stuff, the President tweeted about it immediately after F&F.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 10, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> This report is being misrepresented by conservative media.  Comey, in total, wrote seven memos about his conversations with the President.  Of those, four contained classified information.  The last three were unclassified, and it was only one of those that Comey shared with Daniel Richman, who then shared it with the New York Times.  But conservative media doesn't give a shit about that.  They're blaring out "CLASSIFIED MEMOS!!! LEAKING!!" to the high heavens, which just isn't supported by the facts.  This is fake news.
> 
> You can read all about it here: Analysis | Trump accuses James Comey of breaking the law — based on a misleading Fox News report



How many of those seven did the government not own?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 10, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> This report is being misrepresented by conservative media.  Comey, in total, wrote seven memos about his conversations with the President.  Of those, four contained classified information.  The last three were unclassified, and it was only one of those that Comey shared with Daniel Richman, who then shared it with the New York Times.  But conservative media doesn't give a shit about that.  They're blaring out "CLASSIFIED MEMOS!!! LEAKING!!" to the high heavens, which just isn't supported by the facts.  This is fake news.
> 
> You can read all about it here: Analysis | Trump accuses James Comey of breaking the law — based on a misleading Fox News report



I skimmed the article, thanks for posting it.



> or, at least, it’s not true that each memo was marked as being classified.



As you know from your professional background, and as the world knows from the Clinton email fiasco, just because it's not marked appropriately doesn't mean it didn't contain classified material.

I've got to assume that if you're the Director of the FBI and you're going to compromise your relationship with the President (if not compromise classified material), you're probably not handing it over with a giant TOP SECRET on the top and bottom margin.  I haven't read the memo yet and I haven't checked the classification guide to make a determination for myself whether I think classified material was compromised, but my gut is that private conversation with the President about national security issues are probably, by definition, classified.


----------



## Poccington (Jul 11, 2017)

Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign

If the email exists, that hole Donald Jr is in just got a whole lot deeper.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 11, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> ... and as the world knows from the Clinton email fiasco, just because it's not marked appropriately doesn't mean it didn't contain classified material.



Especially when the IC does a post-facto review of material (as happened with HRC).  You give the SSOs of the world a document saying almost anything - and they are going to come up with some shit that should be marked classified.  I've dealt with folks from the NSA that think the word SIGINT and the name of any country together equals classified.

The President also has significant leeway in both classifying and declassifying material.  I would imagine when the President commits obstruction of justice he would like that classified.  He's already indicated he looks at leaks that embarrass his administration as the threat - not so much if classified information is involved (he never said the word 'Israel' to the Russians after all).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 11, 2017)

Reading this now, I read something about this woman yesterday and this is a longer look: Trump's Low-Level Russian Connection


----------



## Poccington (Jul 11, 2017)

Donald Trump Jr. replied ‘love it’ when told of Russian effort to help Trump

Well, the emails chain has been published. It doesn't look good.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 11, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Donald Trump Jr. replied ‘love it’ when told of Russian effort to help Trump
> 
> Well, the emails chain has been published. It doesn't look good.



It depends on whether the woman is considered "an agent of a foreign principal" and if the material is seen in the same context as contributions/donation.  In any case, no, it doesn't look good.


----------



## Poccington (Jul 11, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> It depends on whether the woman is considered "an agent of a foreign principal" and if the material is seen in the same context as contributions/donation.  In any case, no, it doesn't look good.



Well, it states in the chain that she is arriving with the info as part of Russia and it's governments support of Mr Trump. Goldstone refers to her as the Russian Government attorney. Goldstone makes it quite clear why she's visiting and who she's visiting on behalf of.

I think Kushner could be following Flynn out the door.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 11, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Well, it states in the chain that she is arriving with the info as part of Russia and it's governments support of Mr Trump. Goldstone refers to her as the Russian Government attorney. Goldstone makes it quite clear why she's visiting and who she's visiting on behalf of.
> 
> I think Kushner could be following Flynn out the door.



I am not saying his goose isn't cooked, but she redacted her credentials and why she was meeting. 

Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr.: I didn't have Clinton info they wanted

At worst he is guilty of violating FARA laws; at best, gross stupidity.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 11, 2017)

The question is, who will work harder to make Trump Jr. look good.  Trump Jr. or Hannity? 

My money's on Hannity.

*Shocker: Donald Trump Jr. Will Be Talking Exclusively to Sean Hannity Tonight*


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 11, 2017)

What if all this hoopla about the Russian interference was exactly what those damn ruskies wanted. Maybe they didn't want to help Trump win, maybe the reason was they wanted to destabilize the US government, the way was  to help him win in the short term and help get a US president in trouble is the long con.

I simply can't imagine any other president being such a fucking doofus about all of this.

Edited for clarity.


----------



## CDG (Jul 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> What if all this hoopla about the Russian interference was exactly what those damn ruskies wanted. Maybe they didn't want to help Trump win, maybe they wanted to destabilize the US government was to help him win in the short term and help get a US president in trouble is the long con.
> 
> I simply can't imagine any other president being such a fucking doofus about all of this.



Putin has always had an eye on the long game.  It was no random confluence of events that led to him becoming the leader of Russia.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 11, 2017)

CDG said:


> Putin has always had an eye on the long game.  It was no random confluence of events that led to him becoming the leader of Russia.



You can argue that about any political party or leader or boy band these days though.


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 11, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> You can argue that about any political party or leader or boy band these days though.



In part at least because for some, all they have to do is show up on the screen. They don't have to know shit or actually do anything. Just fill the suit.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 11, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> You can argue that about any political party or leader or boy band these days though.



Maybe I've read too many Tom Clancy books, but Putin and his KGB background cause me to see him as exceptionally dangerous.  As @CDG said, I give Putin credit for having the patience to have his eye on the "long game".


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 11, 2017)

I'm so confused, is Putin going to destroy the earth or is global warming.....?:-"


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 11, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I'm so confused, is Putin going to destroy the earth or is global warming.....?:-"



Depends on the timing?


----------



## AWP (Jul 11, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I'm so confused, is Putin going to destroy the earth or is global warming.....?:-"



If Syria's air force keeps acting stupid, their carbon footprint will continue to decrease.


----------



## CDG (Jul 11, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> You can argue that about any political party or leader or boy band these days though.



I see your point, but I disagree.  Other politicians/political parties don't have much foresight beyond trying to place a certain person in the seat of power because "it's their turn".  The Democrats and Republicans don't give a shit about America, as long as they personally benefit from their time in office.  Putin, on the other hand, actually does something with his power.  Doubtlessly, he's not in it for selfless reasons, but he has a genuine interest in turning Russia back into a premier superpower. I don't have much faith that any of our current politicians would care what America's overall status is in the world, as long as they personally are taken care of.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 12, 2017)

I think this does a good job of summarizing the Russia-related scandal thread as well as importing the impact of the current crop of revelations: What If It's All True?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 12, 2017)

CDG said:


> I see your point, but I disagree.  Other politicians/political parties don't have much foresight beyond trying to place a certain person in the seat of power because "it's their turn".  The Democrats and Republicans don't give a shit about America, as long as they personally benefit from their time in office.  Putin, on the other hand, actually does something with his power.  Doubtlessly, he's not in it for selfless reasons, but he has a genuine interest in turning Russia back into a premier superpower. I don't have much faith that any of our current politicians would care what America's overall status is in the world, as long as they personally are taken care of.



My point is that there are no random sets of events any more- putting himself in power is not unique to Putin. It's not an example of him playing the long game- rigging elections and manipulating the laws around presidential terms to get himself back into power isn't a 'long game' it's an example of absolute corruption.

Every political party on the planet plays a "long game" when it comes to getting into power, at least in proper democracies like ours. From selecting the "right" people to polling to adjusting policy based on those polls, kneejerk policy depending on the shifting winds right through to the dirty tricks side of things- the blackmail, the dirt files, the leaks, the patsies in the media. These are not random coincidences- they are engineered. The outcome might not be what they want but the process is certainly artificial and not random by any stretch.

You could say he plays the long game in a couple of ways- it's a common trope with him. But how he got into power, stayed in power and revolved back to the face of Russia is not it.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 12, 2017)

Putin has been in politics since 1990, after almost 20 years in the KGB.  Since he's been in politics he's been at the federal level since 1999.  His KGB career (at least the open source stuff) is kinda 'meh' but between the KGB and his 18 years as a politician at the federal level, the man has shown flexibility, resiliency, intelligence, and cunning.  The man is dangerous, and as @TLDR20 said, he may be getting what he wished just by pitting our own political apparatus against itself. 

At the end of the day I am not as concerned about collusion in attempting to sway an election (it is what it is....because I am no hypocrite and we have been fucking others over for 200+ years and now we are victim of our own con) as much as I am concerned that as we are spending so much time and money we aren't focusing on what's happening outside.  That is not to say what's going down is cool, I just want to put it in context and move on.


----------



## AWP (Jul 12, 2017)

The US had its mail stolen and that's bad? Must be nice!
Fraternally yours,
Iran, Guatemala, and Chile


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 12, 2017)

I never thought that irony could be weaponized.  But they did it.  They did it and it killed me.  I am dead from this tweet.


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 12, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I never thought that irony could be weaponized.  But they did it.  They did it and it killed me.  I am dead from this tweet.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 12, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I never thought that irony could be weaponized.  But they did it.  They did it and it killed me.  I am dead from this tweet.



Yeah. Crazy. That and calling most news fake news while simultaneously watching the fake news, either it is real, or the POTUS spends his (very important and limited) time watching fake news...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 12, 2017)

When the WaPo comes out with a measured take I'm surprised, but this one is good: Opinion | The media’s mass hysteria over ‘collusion’ is out of control


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 13, 2017)

Emails go in boxes in closets DJ........


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> When the WaPo comes out with a measured take I'm surprised, but this one is good: Opinion | The media’s mass hysteria over ‘collusion’ is out of control



I read a lot of my news on Real Clear Politics, a clearing house for the day's news drawing from multiple sites and sources.  About half the articles/opinion pieces are "fry Junior!", the other half, "what crime?  There's no crime."  So much polarity.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 13, 2017)

“Don Jr. is why Nigerian email scammers keep trying their luck.”



Donald Trump Jr. is an idiot


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 13, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> “Don Jr. is why Nigerian email scammers keep trying their luck.”
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump Jr. is an idiot


No, that was Podesta.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> No, that was Podesta.



I voted for Trump.

I am still glad he beat Hilary.

At some point it is okay to admit that the emperor wears no clothes.

You don't have to name a comparable democrat, every. single. time.

You can still support your president (I do!) and no one will take your "young Republicans" badge away.

@ThunderHorse , try this without being sarcastic or attempting to be funny:

Name one thing about Obama you liked and respected, OR one thing about Trump that makes you question his fit for the job.


<edited for spelling>


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 13, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I voted for Trump.
> 
> I am still glad he beat Hilary.
> 
> ...



Trump: His Twitter makes me cringe. His lack of tact.  A bunch of other things.  In fact, he says a lot of shit weekly/bi-monthly that I facepalm at.

Obama: Removed DADT, Public Land Management Act ('09), Cuban Thaw, A bunch of other things.  (And to re-state for the record I voted for him twice)


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 13, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign
> 
> If the email exists, that hole Donald Jr is in just got a whole lot deeper.



We're movin' on up, y'all.

*Committee Chair Requests Donald Trump Jr. Testify On Capitol Hill*

Given the standard Trump lack of awareness about what exits the mouth, I'll be interested in the outcome of this one.


----------



## Topkick (Jul 13, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> We're movin' on up, y'all.
> 
> *Committee Chair Requests Donald Trump Jr. Testify On Capitol Hill*
> 
> Given the standard Trump lack of awareness about what exits the mouth, I'll be interested in the outcome of this one.



Do you really think, as a standard, President Trump is not aware of what he says? I mean, he did get elected to the presidency.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 13, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Do you really think, as a standard, Trump is not aware of what he says? I mean, he did get elected to the presidency.



He was elected because he was very good at saying he didn't like what many other people in this country didn't like, or his handlers were good at feeding him information on what a lot of people didn't like, IMO.

That aside, you're right - change "awareness" to "genuine thoughtfulness."


----------



## Topkick (Jul 13, 2017)

Fair enough.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 13, 2017)

It doesn't feel as if anyone is particularly serious about wanting to actually charge Junior with any FARA violation (and, of course, it's way to early since no one knows definitively if he broke the law).  It feels more like the Loyal Opposition want to have a kangaroo court and drag things out, which can be politically just as costly as any real legal proceedings.

I have read the law and I am not convinced he is guilty.  That said, a lawyer (Jonathan Turley) says he did not break any law; another (I can't find his name or article) said he did, so who knows.....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 13, 2017)

Meanwhile at the Hilary camp....

GOP operative who sought Hillary Clinton's emails from Russian hackers killed self in Minnesota, records show

We know it was a suicide because, he said so in his note...

_In the note recovered by police, Smith apologized to authorities and said that “NO FOUL PLAY WHATSOEVER” was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a “RECENT BAD TURN IN HEALTH SINCE JANUARY, 2017” and timing related “TO LIFE INSURANCE OF $5 MILLION EXPIRING


 
_


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 13, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Meanwhile at the Hilary camp....
> 
> GOP operative who sought Hillary Clinton's emails from Russian hackers killed self in Minnesota, records show
> 
> ...



So THAT'S why Putin has such a distaste for her - their similar methods.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 13, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Do you really think, as a standard, President Trump is not aware of what he says? I mean, he did get elected to the presidency.


From yesterday:







He has no idea what he says.


----------



## Topkick (Jul 13, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> From yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Disagree, but maybe you can find a better example than whether something was on or off the record to justify your claim that Trump "has no idea what he says." I think he knows by now that everything is on the record.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 13, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Disagree, but maybe you can find a better example than whether something was on or off the record to justify your claim that Trump "has no idea what he says." I think he knows by now that everything is on the record.



Obviously some stuff is clearly off the record. Which is exactly what @Salt USMC 's post pointed out.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 13, 2017)

I just don't understand what Hillary has to do with POTUS's shortcomings. She didn't win. Comparing her supposed crimes to his are meaningless. 

One person is the corrupt politician everyone hated, who lost for her corruption. The other is actively the president. Excusing the acting person due to the actions of someone who didn't win is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing I can imagine...


----------



## Topkick (Jul 13, 2017)

I get that. In theory, yes, some things are off the record. I think Trump has realized by now that anything he says might be leaked regardless of whether he says its "off the record" or not.


----------



## Topkick (Jul 13, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I just don't understand what Hillary has to do with POTUS's shortcomings. She didn't win. Comparing her supposed crimes to his are meaningless



I do agree with you on this and what I think of Hillary is completely separate from Trump. I will not sidestep any BS from Trump by referring to HRC.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 13, 2017)

I remember a time not long ago when our President wasn't allowed to blame anything on the previous president, something I found stupid then, and find stupid today. But what I see now, for the most part is comparing a bad President Trump to the possible actions of what might have been a Hillary presidency. If the only bar to get above is the fever nightmares of our most conservative, President Trump is doing great...


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Trump: His Twitter makes me cringe. His lack of tact.  A bunch of other things.  In fact, he says a lot of shit weekly/bi-monthly that I facepalm at.
> 
> Obama: Removed DADT, Public Land Management Act ('09), Cuban Thaw, A bunch of other things.  (And to re-state for the record I voted for him twice)


This is gonna get weird- but this was a good response sir.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 13, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Disagree, but maybe you can find a better example than whether something was on or off the record to justify your claim that Trump "has no idea what he says." I think he knows by now that everything is on the record.


Did you actually read that?  He had asked for the previous statements to be made off the record, then wondered why reporters weren't using said statements in their press releases the next day.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 13, 2017)

Or hell, have an entire video


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 13, 2017)

Topkick said:


> I get that. In theory, yes, some things are off the record. I think Trump has realized by now that anything he says might be leaked regardless of whether he says its "off the record" or not.



With journos though there generally is a gentleman's agreement that anything OffTR will not be reported on (or at the very least, accredited to)- because it suits both parties usually. These convos are not normally reported on because it's the same as giving up a source. 

Now reporting on stuff that's been leaked *to* them is another story...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 14, 2017)

So help me out with something.  Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be the FINAL say on shit?
If that's the case, how does some judge in Hawaii have the power to supercede what the Supreme Court has spoken on?

Hawaii judge narrows travel ban in defeat for Trump | Daily Mail Online


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 14, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So help me out with something.  Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be the FINAL say on shit?
> If that's the case, how does some judge in Hawaii have the power to supercede what the Supreme Court has spoken on?
> 
> Hawaii judge narrows travel ban in defeat for Trump | Daily Mail Online



It appears that he's interpreting the wording of the ban, then rendering his conclusion based upon that.

Not an attorney, though, so could be wrong.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 14, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> It appears that he's interpreting the wording of the ban, then rendering his conclusion based upon that.
> 
> Not an attorney, though, so could be wrong.


I get that part, what I am trying to understand is how a solo judge is permitted to over-rule the Supreme Court.  

I've seen this before and am not referencing just this case in particular.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 14, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I get that part, what I am trying to understand is how a solo judge is permitted to over-rule the Supreme Court.
> 
> I've seen this before and am not referencing just this case in particular.



I don't know that it's overruling, but more deciding what the law says and doesn't say, then applying it to the case in front of him.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 14, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I just don't understand what Hillary has to do with POTUS's shortcomings. She didn't win. Comparing her supposed crimes to his are meaningless....



I generally agree, but I think comparing what she got away/didn't get away with to what he is (or isn't, depending on perspective) getting away with is fair game.  If it's a crime out of office, it'll be a crime in office.  I don't think the conversation is meant to be an indictment on her, and she has el zippo to do with anything Trump, shortcomings, or anything else, but how the media is handling their deference in the two is very telling.  But I do think it could be in a separate thread.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 14, 2017)

They will always handle what the president does differently than what anyone else does.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 14, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> They will always handle what the president does differently than what anyone else does.



As well they should.  She (nor anyone else suspicious of illicit activity) should not get a free pass because she is isn't POTUS, though.  I do think it has gone into a sort of anti-HRC mass hysteria, though....time to get on with business.


----------



## Lefty375 (Jul 14, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So help me out with something.  Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be the FINAL say on shit?
> If that's the case, how does some judge in Hawaii have the power to supercede what the Supreme Court has spoken on?
> 
> Hawaii judge narrows travel ban in defeat for Trump | Daily Mail Online



It's not being overruled. You need to read the S. Court opinion again. 

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=3877451-Travel-Ban-16-1436-l6hc

Bottom of Page 13. 

Further, the S. Court left this open to happen and it is the reason why Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote a dissenting opinion, in part.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 14, 2017)

Lefty375 said:


> It's not being overruled. You need to read the S. Court opinion again.
> 
> https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=3877451-Travel-Ban-16-1436-l6hc
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link and the additional info.  I'll go back and read later this afternoon.

There are days I learn more here by accident, than other places by design.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 14, 2017)

Has this come up in here before?

 I don't track much when it comes to POTUS, but the saga of Jim is now on the list.  

*Trump in Paris: The curious case of his friend Jim*


----------



## Poccington (Jul 14, 2017)

Russian-American lobbyist says he was in Trump son's meeting

The hits keep coming for Donald Jr. the past few days.


----------



## Lefty375 (Jul 14, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Thanks for the link and the additional info.  I'll go back and read later this afternoon.
> 
> There are days I learn more here by accident, than other places by design.



I am also wrong a lot and this time is no different. I went to one of my Profs who is a sitting NH judge and asked her how this event could happen. I will be writing out a full response soon. Sorry about that.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 14, 2017)

Lefty375 said:


> I will be writing out a full response soon. Sorry about that.



Nice!  Looking forward to reading it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 14, 2017)

I'm no lawyer, but the US Code looks pretty clear to me on immigration.  The POTUS can shut down immigration from anywhere based on a fart.  This is getting dumb.

What does Judge Watson define as "other relatives"?

Also, I'd like to point out the last official to be impeached was a judge during the Obama administration.  Could happen here.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 14, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm no lawyer, but the US Code looks pretty clear to me on immigration.  The POTUS can shut down immigration from anywhere based on a fart.  This is getting dumb.
> 
> What does Judge Watson define as "other relatives"?
> 
> Also, I'd like to point out the last official to be impeached was a judge during the Obama administration.  Could happen here.


Also not a lawyer, but if you have some time you can read the amicus brief filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the fourth circuit case: http://www.robbinsrussell.com/sites...pdf/FILED CA4 AMICUS BRIEF - IRAP v Trump.pdf

TL;DR version: The EO is predicated on animus towards Islam, and there is precedent in both case law and the constitution that prohibit that.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 17, 2017)

This is a great breakdown - given what we now know about the false denials from the Trump administration, family, and President Trump himself.  Timeline Of Trump And Russia In Mid-2016: A Series Of Coincidences Or Something More?

It strikes me as particularly damning and I find it hard to believe Mr. Mueller and crew aren't putting together something even more substantive.  Still, given the job he did on the NFL Ray Rice situation I don't think anyone should count their chickens with the investigation.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 18, 2017)

Even Drudge is turning on this administration


----------



## Topkick (Jul 18, 2017)

Any thoughts on this? Hypothetical but relevant.

http://www.newsweek.com/if-trump-impeached-who-president-6232

Edited: Link not found

So in summary,  if Trump were impeached or resigned, Mike Pence would be President, followed by Paul Ryan and then a long list of conservatives. Any thoughts?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 18, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Even Drudge is turning on this administration



Drudge hasn't been a big fan of Congress since that particular body started giving away all its constitutionally delegated powers since at least Bush 43's turn in office. I can't blame him. Capital Hill makes Mos Eisley look a lot like the streets of Heaven, maybe two blocks down from God's office. 

Wretched hive of scum and villainy, indeed.


----------



## AWP (Jul 18, 2017)

Topkick said:


> So in summary,  if Trump were impeached or resigned, Mike Pence would be President, followed by Paul Ryan and then a long list of conservatives. Any thoughts?



Pence/Ryan take the crazy down a few hundred levels and keep some of The Donald's programs in place while killing others. The GOP scrambles to repair its image ahead of the 2020 election. Pence bows out, Ryan and Cruz become the frontrunners. The Democrats could trot out a garbage can or box of Girl Scout cookies and remain within 7 points before selecting a VP candidate.


----------



## Topkick (Jul 18, 2017)

On a major issue and Trump campaign promise, Ryan has been chomping at the bit to cut SS and Medicare programs and even military retirement pay without even looking for alternative solutions. I am not sure how Pence stands here but I think Ryan gets his way. They lose votes here in 2020.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 18, 2017)

So do people just love the ACA? Or are people just too dumb to know they had it? It is funny to me that when it was election season people hated ACA, then they realized they would lose their insurance and were like, "wait a damn minute..."


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 18, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> So do people just love the ACA? Or are people just too dumb to know they had it? It is funny to me that when it was election season people hated ACA, then they realized they would lose their insurance and were like, "wait a damn minute..."



I have quite a few patients who begrudgingly got ACA Marketplace insurance because they legally had to, and now use the shit out of it. 

Even when it covers extremely little, or has a deductible that will never be met unless their entire family has brain surgery or something.  

The illusion of help from an insurance company can be a powerful thing.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> So do people just love the ACA? Or are people just too dumb to know they had it? It is funny to me that when it was election season people hated ACA, then they realized they would lose their insurance and were like, "wait a damn minute..."


Healthcare costs doubled here in Arizona overnight due to the ACA, so I don't get your comment.  Aetna left the marketplace in Virginia.

I know a small business owner who's healthcare costs doubled for a shittier package.  ACA sucks.  Republicans aren't providing a solution though.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 19, 2017)

Topkick said:


> So in summary,  if Trump were impeached or resigned, Mike Pence would be President, followed by Paul Ryan and then a long list of conservatives. Any thoughts?


Pence is a bog-standard, if competent, republican.  That actually makes him scarier than Trump, as he's the kind of guy who could leverage a GOP-dominated congress and executive without stepping on his dick every day.  Then again, I'm not sure if that would cause the really disgusting elements of the Trump base to go elsewhere or if they would follow him anyway.  I'm talking about the Bannon wing of alt-right fuckos who yell "MAGA!!  CUCK!!" as they slip into an oxy haze.

Really, after a certain amount of months I would rather Trump not be removed from office if impeachment proceedings go through.  But if it happens around, say, mid-2018, then the re-election campaign is on and all bets are off.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 19, 2017)

The weird thing about President Trump is that the things he is saying he might do in regards to ACA would further kill him and his approval rating. Removing people's subsidies? That will go over really well with people who vote... 30 million or so people, at the minimum use those subsidies, people who don't even understand they have ACA subsidies. It will be a lot of very upset folks.

President Trump is all about him, how he is seen, how he is liked. This will hurt him more than help him.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 19, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Meanwhile at the Hilary camp....
> 
> GOP operative who sought Hillary Clinton's emails from Russian hackers killed self in Minnesota, records show
> 
> ...



Even if the Clinton's have no connection whatsoever with the dozens of suicides and accidental deaths of their former associates, rivals or acquaintances, if I were planning to go up against them, that would be an unsettling thought in the back of my head. And I'd bet the Clinton's don't mind that a bit.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 19, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Even if the Clinton's have no connection whatsoever with the dozens of suicides and accidental deaths of their former associates, rivals or acquaintances, if I were planning to go up against them, that would be an unsettling thought in the back of my head. And I'd bet the Clinton's don't mind that a bit.



I had read that a statistician calculated that the odds were better of winning the powerball three times than having that many acquaintances or people you know die.  I don't know if it was true since I don't know my chi-square from my two-way ANOVA, but it was pretty funny nonetheless.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 19, 2017)

This seems super legit:

Jeff Sessions Treads on the Property Rights of Americans


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This seems super legit:
> 
> Jeff Sessions Treads on the Property Rights of Americans



So much for the presumption of innocence.  Love the logic:  "You can't have bought that (property) with legit money, so we'll seize it as results from criminal enterprise."  Hello, due process??


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 19, 2017)

I'm staying out of this thread until we have a semblance of a competent democracy or a viable alternative to it. Not baiting, just saying why I'm out of this for now.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 19, 2017)

Frank S. said:


> I'm staying out of this thread until we have a semblance of a competent democracy or a viable alternative to it. Not baiting, just saying why I'm out of this for now.



Me too. Until we get a president with a normal haircut.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jul 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This seems super legit:
> 
> Jeff Sessions Treads on the Property Rights of Americans



Ugh.  Don't get me started on the asset forfeiture program. 

When equitable sharing was shutdown, you wouldn't believe the number of state/local agencies that either threatened to leave or straight up left federal task forces.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 20, 2017)

RustyShackleford said:


> Ugh.  Don't get me started on the asset forfeiture program.
> 
> When equitable sharing was shutdown, you wouldn't believe the number of state/local agencies that either threatened to leave or straight up left federal task forces.



Please start... I'd love to hear your opinion.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jul 20, 2017)

While there needs to be a mechanism to seize the fruits of criminal enterprise, no one agency should be able to benefit from the results of a seizure, and assets should not be seized based on assumptions or accusations.  I won't go into the particulars of AF on here other than saying seized assets are never sold until a defendant has been found guilty and exhausted all appeals.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 20, 2017)

*Mueller has expanded the Russia probe to include Trump's business dealings*


"Trump told the New York Times on Wednesday that Mueller would cross a line if he began digging into his finances. "

Hunh.  Why?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 21, 2017)

Even Nate Silver can't get over it: If Hillary Clinton Had Won


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 21, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Even Nate Silver can't get over it: If Hillary Clinton Had Won



I have always said, if you think the GOP with Trump is dysfunctional, the only thing that would have brought them all together was a HRC presidency.  As messed up as Congress is now, imagine how much _less_ would get done?


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 21, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I have always said, if you think the GOP with Trump is dysfunctional, the only thing that would have brought them all together was a HRC presidency.  As messed up as Congress is now, imagine how much _less_ would get done?



I think we're seeing that play out now - and it is not in Republicans favor.  They were fine when opposing President Obama - they could pretend they had all these plans and ideas that were going to make things better.  Was it 50 or more times they voted to repeal the ACA/Obamacare?  Now that they're in power you see zero policy other than limited deregulation and the dismantling of the effectiveness of executive agencies.

Ultimately the alternative is unknowable but I doubt an HRC Presidency would have this kind of trouble bringing her own party in to line.  The question is if HRC had won would any Republicans peel away and vote in her favor?  If you look at the behavior of Republican Congresspeople/Senators in states/districts HRC won I think you've got to at least give it 50/50 odds.

I agree with your sentiment that we were bound to have extreme partisanship whichever of these two won.  But, the courts would also have flipped the other way so I think HRC would have been in a stronger position to continue President Obama's policies than it would seem from a Republican controlled legislature.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2017)

*Sean Spicer just resigned.*

Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary

WASHINGTON — Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, resigned on Friday morning, telling President Trump he vehemently disagreed with the appointment of the New York financier Anthony Scaramucci as communications director.

Mr. Trump offered Mr. Scaramucci the job at 10 a.m. The president requested that Mr. Spicer stay on, but Mr. Spicer told Mr. Trump that he believed the appointment was a major mistake, according to a person with direct knowledge of the exchange.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 21, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I think we're seeing that play out now - and it is not in Republicans favor.  They were fine when opposing President Obama - they could pretend they had all these plans and ideas that were going to make things better.  Was it 50 or more times they voted to repeal the ACA/Obamacare?  Now that they're in power you see zero policy other than limited deregulation and the dismantling of the effectiveness of executive agencies.
> 
> Ultimately the alternative is unknowable but I doubt an HRC Presidency would have this kind of trouble bringing her own party in to line.  The question is if HRC had won would any Republicans peel away and vote in her favor?  If you look at the behavior of Republican Congresspeople/Senators in states/districts HRC won I think you've got to at least give it 50/50 odds.
> 
> I agree with your sentiment that we were bound to have extreme partisanship whichever of these two won.  But, the courts would also have flipped the other way so I think HRC would have been in a stronger position to continue President Obama's policies than it would seem from a Republican controlled legislature.



I think if HRC was El Presidente the DNC would run like a well-oiled machine.  They usually do.  But I think had she won the GOP would be even worse than they were with Obama re: obstructionism.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 21, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> *Sean Spicer just resigned.*
> 
> Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary
> 
> ...



Mr. Scaramucci once did an interview where he equated humans being wrong about a flat earth to scientists being wrong about the reality of AGW and global warming.

Mr. Spicer could hem and haw and look silly, but this new puppet can be a fire hose of misinformation.

I now look forward to information out of this admin. being weirder than a Twin Peaks dream sequence.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 21, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> I now look forward to information out of this admin. being weirder than a Twin Peaks dream sequence.



When I saw the headline I thought to myself, "I'll bring the popcorn..."


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 21, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I think if HRC was El Presidente the DNC would run like a well-oiled machine.  They usually do.  But I think had she won the GOP would be even worse than they were with Obama re: obstructionism.



I see your point for sure.  I do wonder though - because the expectation of most professionals was President Trump was going to lose.  I think if he actually had lost the 3 states that would have flipped it, and were decided by like 150k votes (out of 12 million) in the rust belt, added to HRC winning by 3 million in the popular vote - it would have driven a different narrative.  Namely, that the Republican party was doomed, blah, blah, blah.  True or not it might have motivated some folks to deal a little bit - but again absolutely no way to know.

To me the great irony is President Trump had the same opportunity.  I think the Democratic party was devastated after his unexpected win.  He campaigned on a number of policies Democrats have more or less championed - affordable healthcare, increased manufacturing, better global trade deals, infrastructure spending, anti-corruption/lobbying.  Right after the election he enjoyed close to 60% approval I believe - folks were willing go give him a chance and I think a lot of Democrats in government were ready to deal for the main reason any politician deals - to try and salvage their political future.

Of course, President Trump then began talking and tweeting so that 60% went downhill fast.  Protests ramped up and you've got the morass we've been digging into ever since.  I think it's tough for a President stuck below 40% with sky-high negatives to get much traction - even by people who agree with him/her.


----------



## Topkick (Jul 21, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I see your point for sure.  I do wonder though - because the expectation of most professionals was President Trump was going to lose.  I think if he actually had lost the 3 states that would have flipped it, and were decided by like 150k votes (out of 12 million) in the rust belt, added to HRC winning by 3 million in the popular vote - it would have driven a different narrative.  Namely, that the Republican party was doomed, blah, blah, blah.  True or not it might have motivated some folks to deal a little bit - but again absolutely no way to know.
> 
> To me the great irony is President Trump had the same opportunity.  I think the Democratic party was devastated after his unexpected Winn.  He campaigned on a number of policies Democrats have more or less championed - affordable healthcare, increased manufacturing, better global trade deals, infrastructure spending, anti-corruption/lobbying.  Right after the election he enjoyed close to 60% approval I believe - folks were willing go give him a chance and I think a lot of Democrats in government were ready to deal for the main reason any politician deals - to try and salvage their political future.
> 
> Of course, President Trump then began talking and tweeting so that 60% went downhill fast.  Protests ramped up and you've got the morass we've been digging into ever since.  I think it's tough for a President stuck below 40% with sky-high negatives to get much traction - even by people who agree with him/her.



I was just discussing with a workmate how Trump actually campaigned on some typically democratic stances such as saving social security and Medicare. But Paul Ryan wants to crush those programs and he doesn't like Trump so he will not play well with others. Ryan is not the whole problem with this administration but he is a big part.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 21, 2017)

I think that's one of the tough things about populism - and the party system.  You're kind of forced to work within the framework of your party.  The Trump administration hasn't shown so far they have the ability to draft and push any legislation themselves - they've just been working through what the house or senate drafts for them.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 21, 2017)

Now that Spicer's gone, I'm praying that the parody account, @sean_spicier, stays active. My timeline will be a little more depressing without the fucking morons putting their holier-than-thou, foolish high horses on full display because they can't read a name nor discern a blue check mark.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 21, 2017)

The line has been crossed - POTUS's attorneys are now digging for dirt on Mueller and his prosecutors.

The million dollar question:  Can a sitting, largely unpopular president maintain his place in office by discrediting or smearing every single powerful person who gets under his skin?

Seven months in and he's pulled it off so far; the boy may do it.  Who knows?


----------



## Poccington (Jul 21, 2017)

Sessions discussed Trump campaign-related matters with Russian ambassador, U.S. intelligence intercepts show

If this is true, given the fact that POTUS has already voiced his displeasure at Sessions recusal from the Russia investigation, Sessions is dead in the water.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 21, 2017)

Sean Spicer begs Navy Reserve for multi-year deployment to anywhere remote


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 21, 2017)

I wonder what drill weekends were like for Spicey's command.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 22, 2017)

Good God, man.  Please stop...


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 22, 2017)

He's going to be talking about Hillary until the day he dies.  The man just can't let it go.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 22, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Good God, man.  Please stop...
> 
> View attachment 19221



The highest profile Republican, the highest executive in the land, and supreme operational commander of all U.S. armed forces right there, folks.


----------



## AWP (Jul 22, 2017)

One plus is that every morning for the rest of their lives Democrats will wake up knowing they lost to Donald Trump.


----------



## J.S. (Jul 23, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Good God, man.  Please stop...
> 
> View attachment 19221



I was happy as anyone to see Clinton lose (though admittedly I can't stand Trump) but someone needs to take his Twitter away ASAP. I hate checking political news because of his tweets. "Hurr durr what about the woman who hasn't been remotely relevant for almost a year? What about HER crimes?" His account is like a grotesque caricature of every negative regarding Republicans.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 23, 2017)

I wonder how many of the folks in the Trump White House were names given to him for favors he promised and the folks are incompetent?  

Scaramucci's first presser was pretty solid.

Other than that, GTFO twitter.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 23, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> He's going to be talking about Hillary until the day he dies.  The man just can't let it go.



Not disagreeing with you...but I remember a time when everything bad was being blamed on Bush II.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 23, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Not disagreeing with you...but I remember a time when everything bad was being blamed on Bush II.



Then you must also remember the gnashing of teeth on the right that you have to take responsibility for what is happening now. I don't love "he said, she said" but right now it is super applicable.


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 23, 2017)

AWP said:


> One plus is that every morning for the rest of their lives Democrats will wake up knowing they lost to Donald Trump.


I thought about that the other day- it's fun watching the realization wash over the whole Dem machine day in, day out when they just bash and throw their hands up only to realize _they're talking about the guy that beat you because they're incompetent.
_
All their points are valid- twitter, lack of appointments, zero policy movement, health care, etc etc etc- but they're only highlighting their own failure.


----------



## CQB (Jul 25, 2017)

and


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 25, 2017)

Sessions is getting fired this week


----------



## J.S. (Jul 25, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Sessions is getting fired this week



This is complete unprofessionalism. You're the President and you're shit-talking your own administration's personnel on Twitter? My opinion of Obama (with whom I disagree on nearly every major issue) improves with each new Trump tweet because he largely conducted himself with class.


----------



## AWP (Jul 25, 2017)

J.S. said:


> My opinion of Obama (with whom I disagree on nearly every major issue) improves with each new Trump tweet because he largely conducted himself with class.



I completely disagree with the "class" part. Trump is completely unprofessional though, I can't argue against that position.


----------



## J.S. (Jul 25, 2017)

AWP said:


> I completely disagree with the "class" part. Trump is completely unprofessional though, I can't argue against that position.



Oh I understand, I should've clarified that I was mainly speaking relative to Trump. I personally found Obama to be condescending and patronizing on many occasions, however in terms of social media he was mostly nonconfrontational and stuck to the general Presidential line of "say something nice on holidays, maybe toss in a petition or partisan statement every now and then, but don't attack people over the Internet while you're the highest elected official in the country".


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 25, 2017)

Trump is merely a symptom of the wretched decay and absolute corruption of our political class. All he's done is bring the pustules up to a head as opposed to the red, irritating cysts that their lying, stealing, and general bullshit were before.


----------



## CQB (Jul 26, 2017)

One thing though. As noted I'm not a fan but has anyone noticed the IW angle? Whilst he 'feeds the chooks' in the Australian vernacular he's off doing the main action such as rebuilding sorely needed infrastructure, whilst everyone is distracted by tweets which feeds an already hostile press. Just a thought.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 26, 2017)

CQB said:


> One thing though. As noted I'm not a fan but has anyone noticed the IW angle? Whilst he 'feeds the chooks' in the Australian vernacular he's off doing the main action such as rebuilding sorely needed infrastructure, whilst everyone is distracted by tweets which feeds an already hostile press. Just a thought.



What infrastructure has been rebuilt?  He's promised a trillion dollar infrastructure bill - but so far there hasn't even been one proposed.  The only thing being done outside of the public's notice while we focus on tweets and Russian investigation is deregulation, the implosion of federal institutions, and the enrichment of the first family.


----------



## CQB (Jul 26, 2017)

Good point, & as discussed, it's a thought, a tyre kick if you will.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 26, 2017)

CQB said:


> Good point, & as discussed, it's a thought, a tyre kick if you will.



I agree with you that President Trump is excellent at media manipulation, dominating the story line, and misdirection.  All of his behavior serves to cleave his base closer to him - because once you've committed to saying 'yeah, that's not objectively true but...' you've tied yourself to whatever he decides.  

The thing is, it hasn't really translated to any political accomplishments.  His actions keep him personally popular (within his constituency) but have not created any dynamics to push forward his policies (or at least his stated policies).  In fact, I'd argue his ineffectiveness is one of the things that's driving his success.  If he actually got healthcare passed - and 15+ million of his followers lost healthcare, if he actually started the trade wars and protectionist policies he's talked about - and the modest economic growth continued from the Obama administration started to lag, if he got his tax cuts/budget passed - and the bottom line was a massive windfall for the rich and corporations with a concomitant drop in services and a function government?  I think if any of those actually went through he would have to face their political consequences.  Or, maybe not if everybody is focused on your tweets and obnoxious behavior.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 26, 2017)

I guess that SWCC sailor may have to change career plans....

Trump to reinstate US military ban on transgender people - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 26, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I guess that SWCC sailor may have to change career plans....
> 
> Trump to reinstate US military ban on transgender people - CNNPolitics.com



When I read that the Military was going to be forced to pay for reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, the Trans folks lost my support. 

Enlist as the sex you choose to be, fine. But don't think that once you are in, Uncle Sam should have to foot the bill to physically change you to the opposite sex.

I believe that they pushed this too far with the surgery requirement and that the ban would not have been reestablished had surgery not been part of it.

Edited:  For grammar and phrasing


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 26, 2017)

I feel similarly @Ooh-Rah - I think elective surgery, recovery, and administrative adjustments are not costs DoD should bear as a matter of policy - but I don't think that's the same as saying no one who identifies as transgender should be allowed to serve in any capacity.

I think this is a political move - and a smart one.  It forces Democrats to be on the wrong side of working-class whites on cultural issues, since the Republicans are proving to be on the wrong side of them on healthcare.  President Trump won this demographic handily, it helped propel him to victory, but traditional Republican policies hurt him with this group.  This way he's pushed a winner for Republicans - cultural issues - to the forefront of the debate.  We'll see how much any of this carries into the 2018 election cycle.


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 26, 2017)

So, anyone ever seen a President straight up belittle an Attorney General, on Twitter _while both parties were in the same building? 
_
I want to say its comical or some variation of that, but it's not. Mr. President, fucking quit it. Grow up. Do some work.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 26, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I feel similarly @Ooh-Rah - I think elective surgery, recovery, and administrative adjustments are not costs DoD should bear as a matter of policy - but I don't think that's the same as saying no one who identifies as transgender should be allowed to serve in any capacity.
> 
> I think this is a political move - and a smart one.  It forces Democrats to be on the wrong side of working-class whites on cultural issues, since the Republicans are proving to be on the wrong side of them on healthcare.  President Trump won this demographic handily, it helped propel him to victory, but traditional Republican policies hurt him with this group.  This way he's pushed a winner for Republicans - cultural issues - to the forefront of the debate.  We'll see how much any of this carries into the 2018 election cycle.



I agree completely. I am all for them serving,   and identifying however they want, but the surgeries are elective. No need for the government to be forced to pay for it.


----------



## Kaldak (Jul 26, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I agree completely. I am all for them serving,   and identifying however they want, but the surgeries are elective. No need for the government to be forced to pay for it.



Ditto. I still haven't been able to wrap my head around the fact that the government paid for a convicted criminal to under go therapy, aka Bradley/Chelsea Manning.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 26, 2017)

A study by the Rand corporation released last year puts the maximum cost for treatment of serving transgender service members at a little over $8 million.  By comparison, the military spends about $84 million annually on ED meds. (Source: The Pentagon spends 5 times more on Viagra than transgender services)

The cost is a pittance and makes for a terrible argument.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 26, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> A study by the Rand corporation released last year puts the maximum cost for treatment of serving transgender service members at a little over $8 million.  By comparison, the military spends about $84 million annually on ED meds. (Source: The Pentagon spends 5 times more on Viagra than transgender services)
> 
> The cost is a pittance and makes for a terrible argument.



I would agree, however think of what the military does at MEPS. The whole point is to disqualify people with pre-existing conditions that would hinder performance or lead to the military incurring the costs of your treatment. This is one of those conditions if you require the surgery, or if they are forced to perform it.

ED can be caused by TBI, PTSD, back and neck injuries, and many other things that are service related.

I get your point but I think it is misguided.

ETA: I think barring them from service is different than saying you won't pay for Surgery.  Not paying for Surgery is fair IMO. Barring them from service is less so.


----------



## CQB (Jul 26, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I agree with you that President Trump is excellent at media manipulation, dominating the story line, and misdirection.  All of his behavior serves to cleave his base closer to him - because once you've committed to saying 'yeah, that's not objectively true but...' you've tied yourself to whatever he decides.
> 
> The thing is, it hasn't really translated to any political accomplishments.  His actions keep him personally popular (within his constituency) but have not created any dynamics to push forward his policies (or at least his stated policies).  In fact, I'd argue his ineffectiveness is one of the things that's driving his success.  If he actually got healthcare passed - and 15+ million of his followers lost healthcare, if he actually started the trade wars and protectionist policies he's talked about - and the modest economic growth continued from the Obama administration started to lag, if he got his tax cuts/budget passed - and the bottom line was a massive windfall for the rich and corporations with a concomitant drop in services and a function government?  I think if any of those actually went through he would have to face their political consequences.  Or, maybe not if everybody is focused on your tweets and obnoxious behavior.



My point entirely, It's bread & circuses. I'm not too concerned with a tax cut (or more specifically a cut in the tax rate) as this can act as an economic stimulant and is to expected from a GOP president for as I've said before the GOP always do the God, flag & tax cuts for the rich routine. If services are privatised, this can also be economically sound as Thatcher demonstrated previously. I'm not up with the health care debate but I'm not aware of anything to replace the current one. But if none of this occurs...


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 26, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> The cost is a pittance and makes for a terrible argument.



When you ONLY look at the pennies involved in administering hormones and the ol' nip and tuck, then sure. It's when you start to factor in how long they will be nondeployable postoperative, assuming there are no complications arising from the surgery, as well as other issues, that the real cost becomes known. 

Just because the postoperative troop is no longer gender dysphoric doesn't mean that he or she is also cured of other comorbid psychological issues (depression, etc). From a study documenting long-term follow up of postoperative trans people in Sweden (source found at the NIH.gov website), postoperative trans people are at a higher risk of suicide. That doesn't mean transsexualism is a disease; rather, it isn't an unfair assumption to make that they don't continue treatment for other issues that may continue to be present after gender reassignment. 

In order to be deployable, that soldier has to be stable, and in good health. How many years of a four-year hitch could be spent nondeployable because of complications due to noncompliance with postoperative medical care? A definite answer can't be given, but odds are "too many" would suffice. 

I've seen some genuine fuck-ups at various Army hospitals that I wouldn't let cut on an Oscar Meyer wiener, much less reroute the reproductive plumbing. Factor in the likelihood of the chain of command applying pressure to recoup and perform just like any other worthless broke dick that's malingering at a WTU, and medical noncompliance is virtually assured. 

It's better that they transition either before enlistment or after ETS. I say this as someone who has served with, and supported, two different soldiers that elected to transition after ETS. 

Plus, @TLDR20 made a good point about preexisting conditions at MEPS.


----------



## Philopalope (Jul 26, 2017)

I might've missed it from the few articles I read on the reinstatement of the No Transgenders policy but what does this mean for Active duty personnel?  Are they just barring transgenders from enlisting or are they going to start discharging them from AD as well?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 26, 2017)

I was of the impression that those actively serving would have to exist in accordance with their chromosomes (XX/XY), not necessarily get kicked out


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 27, 2017)

It should be noted this whole thing came as a total surprise to the Pentagon.  Even if you agree with the policy - incredibly ineffective and fucked up way to implement it.  Very likely the ultimate policy - which will take time to develop and implement - will look very different.

But, it's served its immediate purpose - we've stopped talking about the Healthcare debacle, the President attacking his own AG on twitter - when he's the dude's boss and could tell him to do the shit he's criticizing him for, and the Russia investigation that has the administration shitting their pants.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 27, 2017)

I tell you what, Trump certainly brought out of the closet every SJW friend I thought I didn't have with this decision.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 27, 2017)

Sadly, also lost in the shuffle was the arrest of the Florida Poodle's IT clerk, Imran Awan, at Dulles while trying to rejoin the rest of his family in Pakistan. 

For those who may not know, he and his sons have been under investigation for ages with regards to data breaches and whatnot during the 2016 primaries. It's a big mess, complete with smashed computers recently seized by the FBI, and his boss (Debbie Wasserman Schultz) threatening the police unless they give it back. 

But, y'know, Trump. A name almost as versatile as my favorite expletive.


----------



## Philopalope (Jul 27, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I tell you what, Trump certainly brought out of the closet every SJW friend I thought I didn't have with this decision.



I guess it just depends which stance you take.  If a person is qualified to serve I don't think it's really that big of a deal to say go ahead and do it, but I can understand if people don't want the military funding their physical operations and hormone treatments.  Especially if it's while they are AD which puts them out for recovery for an unspecified amount of time.


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 27, 2017)

The big question which @racing_kitty sort of eluded to- the presidents decision says that trans can't serve in any capacity. It doesn't stop at 'if you're trans we aren't paying for the surgery'.

So the active duty trans folks, right now, surgery or not are in violation of that order. And since there hasn't been a follow on official statement- errr, tweet, there's no clarification.

I don't necessarily have an opinion on the trans issue per se, but I do have a pretty strong opinion about weak, ill-thought half baked orders put out to me (a military guy that this directly affects) via Twitter.

Wait, does that make me an SJW???

And today, in a far flung country in Africa, hundreds of women and children will die of a massacre, or poverty, or something. But yeah, some dude that sold data from Pakistan tried to go home. I guess it depends on what you care about in your news cycle.


----------



## Dienekes (Jul 27, 2017)

While he needed a new talking point in the media to cover up his shit, this will ultimately backfire on Trump and make him look weak. Congressional Republicans COULD see this as a chance to both expand their power relative to him, and recruit a more liberal younger base by just passing a law saying that transgender people can serve. "Hey we don't care what you identify as or do in your spare time. We just want to be fair to everyone and worry about much more important things to ensure the safety of our country and its citizens." Now, are they that smart? Unlikely...


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 27, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> While he needed a new talking point in the media to cover up his shit, this will ultimately backfire on Trump and make him look weak. Congressional Republicans COULD see this as a chance to both expand their power relative to him, and recruit a more liberal younger base by just passing a law saying that transgender people can serve. "Hey we don't care what you identify as or do in your spare time. We just want to be fair to everyone and worry about much more important things to ensure the safety of our country and its citizens." Now, are they that smart? Unlikely...



I saw a news report on this - I think in Politico - that talked about what a surprise his announcement was to the Pentagon.  Apparently the President had been in a discussion with several conservative congresspeople about defunding surgery for trans people from the budget - as a tradeoff for support of the border wall.  The President decided to go even further.

The funny/horrifying thing about his tweets - at least by this report - was in the 9 minutes between the tweets the situation room in the Pentagon was freaking out.  Reportedly folks had briefed the President on options with North Korea and they thought his next tweet might be announcing some sort of strike DoD was supposed to conduct on North Korea.

If you believe that report - and it seems very plausible to me given the President's behavior - that's the state of our national security apparatus.  The President claimed to have a secret plan to destroy ISIS in 30 days and that the Obama administration Pentagon was stupid for announcing plans against ISIS because it cost us the 'element of surprise.'  The President has claimed the element of surprise against the Pentagon - still working on ISIS I guess.

Edit: Ok, traced back to the original news source on the Pentagon worries.  First reported by Buzzfeed: Trump Says Transgender People Cannot "Serve In Any Capacity" In The Military

Buzzfeed is certainly not a neutral site when it comes to politics - but I'd put their accuracy in the same realm as mainstream news.  Which, though far from perfect, is pretty good.  Understand those that buy the 'fake news' and 'biased media' argument won't feel the same.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> First reported by Buzzfeed: Trump Says Transgender People Cannot "Serve In Any Capacity" In The Military
> 
> Buzzfeed is certainly not a neutral site when it comes to politics - but I'd put their accuracy in the same realm as mainstream news.  Which, though far from perfect, is pretty good.  Understand those that buy the 'fake news' and 'biased media' argument won't feel the same.



Well, there is fake news, and there's biased news.  But, yeah, if you can separate the shit from the shinola from any agency you can get good, real news.


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 27, 2017)

Just got an Air Force wide email sent from the CSAF that basically said,

"Uh, hey guys. Er, girls. Or, neither. Whatever. Anywhoo, I understand you're all pretty confused by the trans order thingy, and uh, to be honest, us too.

SOOOOOOOOO, yea. Have a great day!"

Actuall message traffic reads-
_"I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement on the transgender policy by the President.  There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance.

 In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect.  As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions."
_
"After consulting with my generals..." 

O RLY?


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 27, 2017)

"I will be the best at military" - candidate Trump.  

Promise kept libtards...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 27, 2017)

Ran across this amicus brief, TL,DR- supposedly the DOJ is stating you being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation is not protected under the Civil Rights Acts.
Amicus Brief, Department of Justice


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 27, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> But yeah, some dude that sold data from Pakistan tried to go home. I guess it depends on what you care about in your news cycle.



The fact that he and his relatives stole information on House members, and possibly used it for blackmail, at the time that the DNC was refusing the FBI's offer to investigate the hack on their system, that is being blamed on Russia. 

You're right, I care about the wrong things.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> "I will be the best at military" - candidate Trump.
> 
> Promise kept libtards...




Thank God I didn't vote for Trump but voted _against_ Hillary.  I kept her out of the White House. Yay! Now I'll stick my head back in the sand. Wake me up Tuesday Nov 8 2020.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 27, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Ran across this amicus brief, TL,DR- supposedly the DOJ is stating you being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation is not protected under the Civil Rights Acts.
> Amicus Brief, Department of Justice



They are correct.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 27, 2017)

Don't blame me, I voted for Konos.  Kang 2020!


----------



## DasBoot (Jul 27, 2017)

Where's Colin Powell when you need him?


----------



## Blizzard (Jul 27, 2017)

^ He's too smart to step into this shit storm.


----------



## Dame (Jul 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Don't blame me, I voted for Konos.  Kang 2020!


Mattis!

Yeah, I know he won't run/is too old/blah blah. But a girl can dream.


----------



## Poccington (Jul 27, 2017)

Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon

The Mooch is a bit mad isn't he?


----------



## Teufel (Jul 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I saw a news report on this - I think in Politico - that talked about what a surprise his announcement was to the Pentagon.  Apparently the President had been in a discussion with several conservative congresspeople about defunding surgery for trans people from the budget - as a tradeoff for support of the border wall.  The President decided to go even further.
> 
> The funny/horrifying thing about his tweets - at least by this report - was in the 9 minutes between the tweets the situation room in the Pentagon was freaking out.  Reportedly folks had briefed the President on options with North Korea and they thought his next tweet might be announcing some sort of strike DoD was supposed to conduct on North Korea.
> 
> ...


General Dunford is making it clear to his subordinates (all of us) that the DOD follows orders, not tweets.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Don't blame me, I voted for Konos.  Kang 2020!


*KODOS*


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 27, 2017)

Interesting points about the transgender ban in this article



> What do we make of all of this? Is there a point of rationality we can grasp onto while everyone else screams louder and louder?
> 
> I argue that there are a few issues to consider from the perspective of military readiness, and maybe a few other thoughts on our socio-political sphere, as well.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 28, 2017)

One of my Army buddies posted this on FB, and I totally agree with it...

What do you do when the ceo of your company simply tweets something like, "we are getting rid of your department?" Nothing more, nothing less.

Ok so does that mean everyone in that dept is fired effectively immediately? Is there a date in the future? Does that mean they just arent hiring anyone else in that dept? Does that mean once they finish their contracts they are terminated? Do those people get a severance package? Do they lose the benefits they'd otherwise be entitled to?

Whether you agree or disagree with whether trans people should be in the military is irrelevant to what I'm saying. What you would struggle to dispute is that the "order" isn't some half cocked plan with little to no thought put into implementation or execution. Ya know, the kind of order given by a ceo with dementia.


----------



## Dienekes (Jul 28, 2017)

I truly wonder if anyone has had the balls to say to the President, "Sir, please delete your Twitter account and let the marketing/image professionals in the White House do their jobs." Or even "Mr. President, when you're finished defeating the mainstream media via Twitter, could you maybe step into the situation room for a sec?"


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 28, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> One of my Army buddies posted this on FB, and I totally agree with it...
> 
> What do you do when the ceo of your company simply tweets something like, "we are getting rid of your department?" Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> ...



This is absolutely right on.  But, I think it also opens up another problem with the administration.  I think this decision is super fucked-up - in tone, presentation, substance, etc. - but it's (what passes for) a Presidential decision.  I think it's very bad for the country - and bad for the government - to essentially say 'yeah, the boss is talking crazy again so let's just hold off on following his instructions - let's see if he calms down, gets his shit together, stops being a moron, whatever.'  I've worked in organizations that were like that - and they were always dysfunctional - where people decided they weren't going to follow the boss's instructions.  I've always felt like you owe it to the boss to be straight up with him/her instead of slow-rolling or ignoring them.  If you can't do that you owe it to them to resign.

But, when looking at the situation the government is in now what choice do you have?  If you're Mattis or Dunford do you upend thousands of your troopers lives, repurpose money, change strategies or any of the other shit because the boss is mouthing off?  If you're the DOJ do you launch (or terminate) investigations off it?  But, if you start ignoring stupidity/incompetence/bad policy on one platform where does it stop?

Sometimes watching this administration I feel like my definitions of leadership, strength, and effectiveness are 180 degrees from at least 40+ percent of the population.

I saw somebody post on FB - quoting someone else - 'It's Team of Rivals, but for morons'


----------



## Grunt (Jul 28, 2017)

@Il Duce, I think that many today mistake managers for leaders and there is a difference -- at least IMO. The administration comes across as being in more turmoil than any I have seen in the last few administrations.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 28, 2017)

Agoge said:


> @Il Duce, I think that many today mistake managers for leaders and there is a difference -- at least IMO. The administration comes across as being in more turmoil than any I have seen in the last few administrations.



I am generally anti most DNC agendas, but Clinton's and Obama's White House, while far from perfect, was generally pretty disciplined and ran well.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 28, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I am generally anti most DNC agendas, but Clinton's and Obama's White House, while far from perfect, was generally pretty disciplined and ran well.


 
So did both Bushes and even Reagan's compared to this one.  Seems like even Carter would score higher marks.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 28, 2017)

The Muccc was right about Priebus, but John Kelly? Trump names John Kelly new White House chief of staff


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 28, 2017)

Dienekes said:


> I truly wonder if anyone has had the balls to say to the President, "Sir, please delete your Twitter account and let the marketing/image professionals in the White House do their jobs." Or even "Mr. President, when you're finished defeating the mainstream media via Twitter, could you maybe step into the situation room for a sec?"


LOL nopes.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 28, 2017)

This is what happens when you value loyalty over competence and surround yourself with sycophants.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 28, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> This is what happens when you value loyalty over competence and surround yourself with sycophants.


Idk...it's pretty obvious Reince wasn't loyal, and Spicer wasn't competent.  More or less a bunch of bumbling idiots he accepted as part of patronage.  Aka, normal shit.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 28, 2017)

More Marines in higher positions of authority? Sounds like they are writing MCDP 1 into the national strategy.


----------



## pardus (Jul 28, 2017)

Teufel said:


> More Marines in higher positions of authority? Sounds like they are writing MCDP 1 into the national strategy.



Crayola stock just increased 41,000%


----------



## Kaldak (Jul 28, 2017)

pardus said:


> Crayola stock just increased 41,000%



What's the sales increase for color by numbers? :-"


----------



## Teufel (Jul 28, 2017)




----------



## AWP (Jul 28, 2017)

Trump's administration has lost more people than NASA's shuttle program. WTF?


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 28, 2017)

AWP said:


> Trump's administration has lost more people than NASA's shuttle program. WTF?


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 29, 2017)

Teufel said:


> More Marines in higher positions of authority?



Step one to the end of the Army?


----------



## Poccington (Jul 29, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Idk...it's pretty obvious Reince wasn't loyal, and Spicer wasn't competent.  More or less a bunch of bumbling idiots he accepted as part of patronage.  Aka, normal shit.



The Mooch is Trumps new favourite toy and has thus far proven himself to be anything but competent. I mean, the White House Director of Communications allowed himself be on the record as saying Steve Bannon tries to suck his own cock. That is arguably the very definition of a bumbling idiot.

His competence doesn't matter though because he can stand in front of cameras, smile and say the media is wrong, the Democrats are wrong, Trump is right and the shitshow of the last 6 months has been everyone elses fault.

Trump wants loyalty and yes men. Competence is secondary.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 29, 2017)

Poccington said:


> The Mooch is Trumps new favourite toy and has thus far proven himself to be anything but competent. I mean, the White House Director of Communications allowed himself be on the record as saying Steve Bannon tries to suck his own cock. That is arguably the very definition of a bumbling idiot.
> 
> His competence doesn't matter though because he can stand in front of cameras, smile and say the media is wrong, the Democrats are wrong, Trump is right and the shitshow of the last 6 months has been everyone elses fault.
> 
> Trump wants loyalty and yes men. Competence is secondary.


Oh, he's quite a bumbling idiot.  I'm just point out that if Priebus was primary leaker you have serious issues.  Doing historical patronage in dolling out positions within the White House is crippling this administration...amongst other things.  

And Bannon looks like one of those guys anyways...


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 29, 2017)

Alright! The great thing about this dude is fresh optimism. Anyone wanna convince me Kelly is better than Preibus and the Mucc is better than Spicy? I'm all ears. 

Oh, and if this administration would see fit, can we please do something resembling policy, movement on national directives, and progress? K thx bai


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 29, 2017)

DasBoot said:


> Where's Colin Powell when you need him?



While he was a superb military tactician, we don't agree on politics.


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 31, 2017)

The Mooch is loose!! That didn't take long.


----------



## AWP (Jul 31, 2017)




----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 31, 2017)




----------



## Teufel (Jul 31, 2017)




----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 31, 2017)

I still can't believe that cunt is 53 years old.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 1, 2017)

I saw an Onion headline about GEN Kelly taking over as the Chief of Staff: 'US Forces re-take control of the whitehouse.'


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 1, 2017)

Seriously, WTF is going on in the WH?!  It's become parody of itself.  Nothing is surprising anymore.  Guess they're going with a scorch the earth policy.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 1, 2017)

I've seen a few places reporting Trump Jr. and presidential advisors wanted him to come clean initially about his meeting with the Russians.  But, President Trump himself dictated the statement about it being 'only about adoption' - which was proven bullshit when the emails were released.  Gets towards that narrative of the cover-up being worse than the crime.  Still, I really start to see why the President is shitting his pants over the Meuller investigation.  Seems like a strong case to fire the AG and replace him with a recess-appointment that can quash the investigation.

I honestly think the President could survive all the collusion stuff.  Even with all the circumstantial and back-and-forth the 'but we're idiots' defense will provide enough cover for Republicans to back the President and he'd be alright.  I think the real danger to the President is all the financial stuff they're going to (or already have) uncovered.  It's not an accident the President's tax returns are the only secret they seem capable of keeping IMO.


----------



## CQB (Aug 1, 2017)

Mebbe, but correct me if I'm wrong, but POTUS isn't legally obliged to reveal his tax return. Not a  fan, just playing devils avocado.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 1, 2017)

CQB said:


> Mebbe, but correct me if I'm wrong, but POTUS isn't legally obliged to reveal his tax return. Not a  fan, just playing devils avocado.



That's right, it's not a legal requirement for a candidate or President - just a tradition since President Nixon.  However, President Trump has gone to some lengths to ensure his tax returns remain secret.  He first claimed during the campaign that he couldn't release them due to an audit but would once that was done - that was a lie, IRS has no such policy he could have released them.  He then claimed he would release them after the election as there was nothing to hide, no shady business deals, no relationship to the Russian state.  After the election he said he might release them in the future - and has continued to claim nothing shady going on.

Tons of reporting on President Trump's shady business dealings and financial ties to states (in probable violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution) - which tax returns would go a long way towards answering, in addition to a lot of (likely false) claims about charitable giving - which have been documented extensively in reporting on the 'charitable' Trump foundation.

Just my opinion, I don't think adhering to the law is what is keeping the President from releasing his tax returns - and I don't think he'll ever release them willingly, it will require legal action.  I think, more than anything else, that's what scares the President about the Mueller investigation.  I doubt he's worried about collusion - difficult to prove even with a ton of evidence - I think he's shitting his pants about financial malfeasance.


----------



## CQB (Aug 1, 2017)

You may be right and as you've outlined and is agreed, there's no requirement. As I've said, no fan, just devils avocado. To address one of your previous points, infrastructure takes quite a length of time to get under way due to the size of projects so to cast aspersions is a little hasty. How is that going over there? I ask as I have no news, just strategic announcements. (we do get some news in the antipodes). This would be good for the USA; jobs, an economic fillip and growth, all from The Donalds' playbook, but is it happening, or will it happen in the near future?


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 1, 2017)

I'm not sure what you mean on infrastructure.  In the US in order for the government to build things - like infrastructure - money has to be allocated from congress.  That requires a bill to be introduced, passed, and signed by the President - so far zero of those steps have occurred.

I think when you look at President Trump's 'playbook' in terms of his history it's an exaggeration to say he's a 'builder' and a 'job creator' - more that he is a marketer, licenser, and skilled at acquiring - the offloading to others - debt.  But, that's in business, time will tell in politics.

Given the difficulties with the ACA repeal - which should have been the least controversial legislative item on the President's agenda - I think infrastructure is a long way off.  It's much more popular with Democrats than Republicans and the President's ability to reach across the aisle is, I think, pretty weak.  Most Democrats would be tarred and feathered for shaking his hand at this point.  Part of that is partisanship but a big part is also the President has become pretty toxic through his actions and demeanor to anyone on the left.

However, in terms of the economy it's pretty much going the same way it was under President Obama.  Economic and jobs growth is about the same - slow but steady.  The stock market and conservative (which is a big portion of business owners and CEOs) confidence in the economy have gone way up - and those are directly attributable to the President (though there is disagreement about their relative value and their impact on the economy).  The major changes the President has enacted to the economy through appointments, tone, and executive action are a decrease in regulations, insecurity in the healthcare market, insecurity in international trade agreements, and a decrease in immigration of all types (but most significantly in illegal immigration).  I think it will take some time to see the full impact of each of those on the economy - but it's likely to be mixed.  

Again though, all of that is in my opinion.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 1, 2017)

link to article



> Across the country, members of the US military were shocked this week to learn that millions of American liberals suddenly find it politically expedient to act like they care about who joins the armed services.
> 
> Earlier this week, social media platforms across the country lit up with the news about President Trump’s ill-advised Twitter-borne announcement of a “total ban” on transgendered personnel serving in the US military.
> 
> ...


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> link to article



Not great satire, but surprising how many logical fallacies can fit into 500 words.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 1, 2017)

So people aren't comparing the President's decision on transgendered personnel to the treatment of ED?


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> So people aren't comparing the President's decision on transgendered personnel to the treatment of ED?



Is that the core of his 'satire' argument?  Just seemed like a typical Alex Jones yelling about stuff.  You have to already take the position the world is filled with horrific elitist liberals who condescend to everyone else and are the sole producers and consumers of any news you don't like.  Tons of people like that - but it's not really satire, just typical raging.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 1, 2017)

The book deals that Baron is gonna get.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> So people aren't comparing the President's decision on transgendered personnel to the treatment of ED?


I see what you did there


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 1, 2017)

Great read on the reason professed by Donald Trump Jr. for the 'inconsequential meeting' with Russian agents. Again, no collusion, no ill intent, just a good boy trying to help his Pa win an election. 

Bill Browder's Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 2, 2017)

Christopher Wray appointed FBI Director after confirmation vote of 92-5 today.

No wonder I thought Comey was weird...dude was 6-8, why wasn't he balling on the court or the grid-iron.  Conspicuous as hell.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 2, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Great read on the reason professed by Donald Trump Jr. for the 'inconsequential meeting' with Russian agents. Again, no collusion, no ill intent, just a good boy trying to help his Pa win an election.
> 
> Bill Browder's Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee


I prefer this explanation: Kushner: Trump campaign too disorganized to collude with Russia

Basically, Kushner: "We were too stupid and dysfunctional to collude with Russia."
That's a...uh...defense, I guess


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 2, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I prefer this explanation: Kushner: Trump campaign too disorganized to collude with Russia
> 
> Basically, Kushner: "We were too stupid and dysfunctional to collude with Russia."
> That's a...uh...defense, I guess



I think the testimony @amlove21 posted shows the very deep financial concerns the Russian government has - and how those are integral to their diplomatic, espionage, and national security activities.  I think the collusion angle on election meddling has always been problematic - not least because of what Kushner says, the Trump campaign and now administration can't get organized to do much politically.  But, they absolutely can get organized (and have done so since before the election) to enrich themselves.  Russia - it's money, resources, contacts, and influence - are likely to be a very significant part of that.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 8, 2017)

Well! Retweets containing reports of classified information, outright lying about stupid, throwaway phone calls, still no appointees or health care. 

Been a busy 5 days or so.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 8, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Well! Retweets containing reports of classified information, outright lying about stupid, throwaway phone calls, still no appointees or health care.
> 
> Been a busy 5 days or so.



YOU ARE FAKE NEWS.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 8, 2017)

Trump warns North Korea: Threats will be met with 'fire and fury'

Diplomacy 101. He speaks like a Japanese anime villain.

"WE MEET YOU WITH LASER DOOM ANGST!!!"


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 8, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Trump warns North Korea: Threats will be met with 'fire and fury'
> 
> Diplomacy 101. He speaks like a Japanese anime villain.
> 
> "WE MEET YOU WITH LASER DOOM ANGST!!!"



Rhetoric aside, he did manage to get his UN team to get sanctions against NK with a 15-0 vote.  That's really no small task.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 8, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Rhetoric aside, he did manage to get his UN team to get sanctions against NK with a 15-0 vote.  That's really no small task.



Nikki Haley has been one of the standout performers in the Trump Administration. However, her work isn't made any easier when her boss comes out sounding like Kim Jong-Un with an American accent and dodgy hair.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 8, 2017)




----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 8, 2017)

Oh my god. That fits so well.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 9, 2017)

"What up big talk big mouth big game...pump the Tech I'm takin aim..."  -- Three 6 Mafia


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 9, 2017)




----------



## amlove21 (Aug 9, 2017)

Next time I say something stupid to someone at work, I am going to tell them, "That was improvised." Not "I misspoke", or "My b, didn't mean it that way." Just, "It was improvised."

I mean, it's not like President Trump's comments were directed at a nation state with nuclear weapons or ICBM's that actually work or anything. And I am SURE that the Pres is ready to lob a couple tactical nukes over at NK, just like he threatened- anything less would weaken our perceived will in the international geopolitical realm.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 9, 2017)

NK has demonstrated ICBM capability, and they have detonated nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean they have a nuclear tipped ICBM. That being said, I'm not a fan of a psychopath Kim Jung Un having the ability to send nukes anywhere and everywhere.  I think, although it will be nasty, it's time to deal with that problem. And I won't be shocked if it happens within 6 months. About 3-4 years ago, the talk was that the government believed NK was about 5 years away from having a Nuke tipped ICBM.  It's also the policy of the US Government that NK never be allowed to achieve that. The UN security Council voted unanimously to sanction NK's exports of raw materials and sea foods by a third, unless they disarm and stop their tests, etc. This is effectively NK last chance to come to the table and get right. 

As for Trump and his BS comment's.  Don't let him grab you by the emotional pussy like that...:-"


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 9, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> As for Trump and his BS comment's.  Don't let him grab you by the emotional pussy like that...:-"


LOL, smartass.

Well, 6 months ago we were saying they didn't have ICBM capabilities either. So let's not be so cavalier about being sure what one does/does not have.

As far as being emotional- I know who is being emotional in this equation, it's the dude that sounds like a bad anime video game villain when he goes off script.

Even his body language was total beta male. Arms crossed, over the top posturing, threats that are nearly incapable of follow-through. He literally sounded like a little kid threatening some other little kid with a fake older brother. I mean, he realizes we dropped 2 nuclear bombs right? Like, do we have a nuke that the world hasn't seen before? Is there more "fire and fury" somewhere we've just been waiting to unleash?


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 9, 2017)

Good luck "dealing" with that problem. Those caves will hold off anything short of another nuke- and that might be a bit counterproductive.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 9, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Is there more "fire and fury" somewhere we've just been waiting to unleash?



Maybe it's a specialized STD to bring their ladies to their knees and their soldiers to the drip line....oh wait, "fury" not furry. Shit my bad.

Yes Trump needs to knock off the BS outlandish comments and tweets. I just don't think is going to do that. I think he feels that he was elected on his use of "call it like it is" outlandish style. In reality he was elected because the dems put crooked Hillary Clinton as their nominee.

Hopefully Trump will heed the advice of the amazingly qualified DOD heads and General officers he has placed in key positions.

I still think we attack NK within 6 months, but I've been wrong once before.:-"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 9, 2017)

Fox was out there beating the war drums at lunch.  Like STFU I'm trying to enjoy the Women's Rugby World Cup.


----------



## AWP (Aug 9, 2017)

We blasted "rightfully so IMO) a president for setting a red line in the sand and then doing nothing. I'm curious to see where this situation goes.

The horror of nukes aside, I love the irony of the US/ Russia or PK/India nuke issue where everyone expects one or the other to use them, but now we're reduced to the US/ NK as the new hotness (pun intended).


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 10, 2017)

Marine love/worship of the good general aside, I feel like Mattis is the only adult in the room.

So much for Kelly being able to reign Trump in and "control" him a bit.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 10, 2017)

No one should be able to "control" the President of the United States.

That said, I wish he'd control himself a bit better...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 10, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> No one should be able to "control" the President of the United States.



Okay, poor choice of wording on my part.  But my hope/expectation was that General Kelly would have a strong enough personality that President Trump would respect/listen to him when Kelly gave him advice/thoughts about backing off the tweeting and almost "king-like" off the cuff pronouncements.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 10, 2017)

Fire and fury.  Shock and awe.  Meh....so much rhetoric.

No one, I mean _NO ONE_, wants a nuclear-armed NK, hence the 15-0 UN SC vote.  I bet the more G2 that comes out about the state of their program the more serious other countries are going to get.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 10, 2017)

Dude had his brother whacked with Sarin, I'd say he's an irrational cunt and needs to get kicked down some notches.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 10, 2017)

Oh yeah and what's your master plan?


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 10, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Oh yeah and what's your master plan?



WOPR will know what to do:


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 10, 2017)

I could marry you right now.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 10, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Oh yeah and what's your master plan?



Dude, stop being so damn cheeky about "what's the plan". Do you really think we don't have plans to deal with North Korea? Do you really think that super smart military strategist have not looked at every possible situation or scenario when it comes to NK?

The United States Military has contingencies and war plans for every place and country in this world. We have rooms full of Col's dreaming up all kinds of stuff trying to be promoted, I've bet we have contingencies for New Zealand, why, because you never fucking know. But to think that you would believe we wouldn't have plans for NK, who has been an enemy for over half a century, is mind boggling to me. You think we would station 30k troops across the DMZ and just tell them shoot back if you have too? The greatest military in the history of the world, and you think North Korea is some kind of problem for us? Really?

The reason I didn't respond to this, is because I like you and didn't want to bust your balls. But being that you have done it twice now.



SpitfireV said:


> Good luck "dealing" with that problem. Those caves will hold off anything short of another nuke- and that might be a bit counterproductive.



What kind of war do you think it's going to be bud? You think we are even going to attempt to play a conventional game with a nuclear armed threat? Listen to the statements made by SecDef, POTTS, and General Milley. This ain't going to be some kind of shock and awe type event where we blow up some government buildings while CNN records from afar. If we move to open combat with NK we are going to remove them from the planet, as in that will become the new study grounds for the effects of nuclear war with the United States of America. That's all that they will be able to do with that waste land.

FYI: We've had plans to nuke NK since Gen McArthur.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 10, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I've bet we have contingencies for New Zealand,



I spit out my coffee!  LMFAO!


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 10, 2017)

Well, certainly having delivery capability is bad enough; the idea of a nuke attached to the pointy end of a rocket scares the bejeezus out of a bunch of folks.  Japan and South Korea are getting vocal:

U.S. Allies Warn North Korea Against Firing Missiles at Guam


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 10, 2017)

Unlike the US and North Korea, we're all friends here.  Let's be unlike the current political situation and dial back the rhetoric a bit.

I don't know what other peoples' personal plans are to deal with North Korea, but my plans are to offer my full support to whatever plan the Commander in Chief announces.  

I personally think it would be terrible to go to war with North Korea for any number of reasons, which I'm happy to articulate if anyone wants to know.  But I also kind of wonder if it might be worth it to go ahead and get it over with now ("now" as in "for the next 25 years or so") than continue to let this problem fester and grow.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 10, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> But I also kind of wonder if it might be worth it to go ahead and get it over with now ("now" as in "for the next 25 years or so") than continue to let this problem fester and grow.



Four years ago next month I had shoulder reconstruction surgery.  Up until the day of surgery, it wasn't chronically painful; it would just be painful every now and then, or if I moved my arm just 'so'.  The morning of my surgery I asked the surgeon (who used to be one of the team orthos for the NY Giants) what would happen if I kicked the can since it was annoying me but not real serious.  She said "It is annoying now.  That's why we fix it now.  If you don't fix it now, it will get worse and worse, and be a far more complicated surgery, and the outcomes could be worse."

That is the analogy I use with my wife when she asks me about what I think about what is going on in Korea.

To be sure, it is a shit sandwich with zero easy answers.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 10, 2017)

We as a nation have expended our credibility with Iraq and post-Osama Afghanistan.  I get that. But the Kim dynasty has been working to get nukes for longer than some of our members have been alive. Each Kim coming closer than the last, and crazier than the last. 

You know who else used rhetoric like SECDEF did in making a statement telling the Norks to lay off the nukes or suffer annihilation? You guessed it, Bill Clinton. That raging conservative warmonger. 

The point is, Kim has threatened a US territory. He's threatened neighboring countries. Diplomacy has not worked with the dynasty, and it will not work except to give other parties involved something to feel good about when we do go hot with them. Not if, but when. He's going to get the first lick in, and at that point all bets are off.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 10, 2017)

@SpitfireV I didn't mean my comments to be offensive, and if you took them as such I apologize. I was trying to point out that we have been planning for this showdown for a long time.

@Marauder06, I agree with your post. I think there will be incredible loss on both NK and SK to include terrible repercussions throughout the region. 

Most significant would be the inevitable loss of Seoul, and the surrounding metro and it's estimated 25 million in population. The devastating effects that on the economy and trade with SK, and the stressing of relationships between US and China and Russia.

That being said, a NK with a significant stock pile of nuclear ICBM's and a psychopath leader like Kim Jung Un is wholly unacceptable. It would cause permanent instability in the region, for us and the rest of the world. It would limit our future options with dealing with their hissyfits, and would jeopardize trade through the the Pacific. 

Not even getting into the likelihood that they would share their technology and weapons with other nations such as Iran. It's just not a world I want to see. 

I'm all for a peaceful negotiations of disarmament of NK, but I think that ship has sailed and it's now a matter of stop them before they build significant stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Just my $.02


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 10, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> ... a NK with a significant stock pile of nuclear ICBM's and a psychopath leader like Kim Jung Un is wholly unacceptable. It would cause permanent instability in the region, for us and the rest of the world.



These things are really getting the world's attention.  SK and Japan are getting nervous.  China is nervous.  Everyone is nervous.  China has said as much as they have no influence on NK:

China seethes on sidelines amid latest North Korea crisis

A nuclear-armed NK cannot stand.  Everyone knows this.  What they don't know is what to do about it.

So "fire and fury" isn't strong enough.....

Trump doubles down on 'fire and fury' warning to North Korea: 'Maybe it wasn't tough enough'


----------



## ShadowSpear (Aug 10, 2017)

This almost ended up in the GoT thread. #fireandfury

Instagram post by Doc • Aug 9, 2017 at 11:25pm UTC


----------



## Gunz (Aug 10, 2017)

There was a time when the PRC would send a million Chinamen across the Yalu to help North Korea. That was when NK leadership was committed to something resembling Communism...before Daddy Kim got completely off the fucking bus with _Juche_ and the collapse of the USSR. I doubt very much if either Russia or the PRC is willing to get into a World War coming to the defense of that certifiable fucking lunatic bastard...


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 10, 2017)

I know I'm a nobody here, but I think the presidents remark is right on here. I honestly don't believe that the American public really understands the existential threat that nuclear armed rouge states like NK and Iran pose to us as a species. Trumps rhetoric, while not the most eloquent, is how we should have responded to NK posturing years ago. Due to political bickering, pettiness, and weakness on a global front, we are now having to deal with the resulting fallout of international and domestic weakness that led us here. I'm going to be completely blunt here, but the American public is quite frankly retarded when it comes to acknowledging that other countries loathe us to the point of nuclear annihilation. Heck, the rest of the 1st world is even more retarded and often coddles the same enemies that would see them and the USA burn.

To hastily and maybe incorrectly quote Free, "jesus buttfucking cinnamon titty christ". The way I see things, if it weren't for rogue puppet states run by mental patients (like NK, Iran, & Pakistan for starters) we'd have orbital elevators and all kinds of cool stuff. But no, instead we've let this cancer on our species fester and spread. Now we are left off cleaning up China's friggin mess, which they are going to leverage in some way to try and screw us over. But hey, if you try to explain this conundrum to the rest of the free world they'll say, "oooh...dancing with the stars is on" or "I'm like, trying to watch Justin Beiber... lol". I dunno, I just doubt that the majority of people are going to understand, much less read, the epic prose that SecDef Mattis released or grasp how world events affect them.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 10, 2017)

POTUS has a weak ass shit talking game. Mattis has a world class shit talking game.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 11, 2017)

Whelp, looks like the Chinese are gonna try and fuck us. Saw a story on their main news agency saying that the trouble with the DPRK is due to the statement by our POTUS and make us out to be the antagonizers in this debacle.


----------



## AWP (Aug 11, 2017)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Whelp, looks like the Chinese are gonna try and fuck us. Saw a story on their main news agency saying that the trouble with the DPRK is due to the statement by our POTUS and make us out to be the antagonizers in this debacle.



China pledges neutrality - unless US strikes North Korea first



> “If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime, and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so,” reported the Global Times, a daily Chinese newspaper controlled by the Communist Party.



Pretty awesome state of affairs. Taken at face value, we sit here and hope NK doesn't use the bomb or go to war with China to prevent its use?


----------



## Gunz (Aug 11, 2017)

R.Caerbannog said:


> I know I'm a nobody here, but I think the presidents remark is right on here. I honestly don't believe that the American public really understands the existential threat that nuclear armed rouge states like NK and Iran pose to us as a species. Trumps rhetoric, while not the most eloquent, is how we should have responded to NK posturing years ago. Due to political bickering, pettiness, and weakness on a global front, we are now having to deal with the resulting fallout of international and domestic weakness that led us here. I'm going to be completely blunt here, but the American public is quite frankly retarded when it comes to acknowledging that other countries loathe us to the point of nuclear annihilation. Heck, the rest of the 1st world is even more retarded and often coddles the same enemies that would see them and the USA burn.
> 
> To hastily and maybe incorrectly quote Free, "jesus buttfucking cinnamon titty christ". The way I see things, if it weren't for rouge puppet states run by mental patients (like NK, Iran, & Pakistan for starters) we'd have orbital elevators and all kinds of cool stuff. But no, instead we've let this cancer on our species fester and spread. Now we are left off cleaning up China's friggin mess, which they are going to leverage in some way to try and screw us over. But hey, if you try to explain this conundrum to the rest of the free world they'll say, "oooh...dancing with the stars is on" or "I'm like, trying to watch Justin Beiber... lol". I dunno, I just doubt that the majority of people are going to understand, much less read, the epic prose that SecDef Mattis released or grasp how world events affect them.



 I agree completely, in spirit at least, with what you've written here. Yes, NK does present a clear and present danger to the allies we are obligated to protect and defend. But Trump is using Kim's own language of rhetorical threat and bluster, and I'm not sure that's the best way to go about it. 

I would rather see POTUS, any POTUS, follow Teddy Roosevelt's policy, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Reagan was very good at conveying the image. So was JFK, so was Nixon.



AWP said:


> China pledges neutrality - unless US strikes North Korea first
> Pretty awesome state of affairs. Taken at face value, we sit here and hope NK doesn't use the bomb or go to war with China to prevent its use?



The trick then is for NK to toss the first frag. Maybe a page out of the Gulf of Tonkin and we cover our ass with the PRC.


----------



## AWP (Aug 11, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> The trick then is for NK to toss the first frag. Maybe a page out of the Gulf of Tonkin and we cover our ass with the PRC.



We've invaded countries over less and with less evidence....


----------



## Gunz (Aug 11, 2017)

AWP said:


> We've invaded countries over less and with less evidence....



Hell yeah  I'm sure our buddies at the CIA can come up with all kinds provocations we didn't know about.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 11, 2017)

@AWP I don't know why but I just feel like we are being played by the PRC and it unsettles me. It's like we always have to take the high road while our adversaries get to run amok. Recently been thinking of the PRC as more successful variant of the GOT character Littlefinger. Plots and subplots.

@Ocoka Looking back at my statement you're right about a more restrained leader being better in this situation. I guess we'll see what happens with the DPRK as this thing moves forward. I dunno man, I just get the feeling that all of this is working in favor of the PRC and it's objectives to reclaim the past glory of the Chinese. At the end of the day, China scares that crap out of me especially as it starts to solidify it's place as a global powerhouse and near peer adversary. Fingers crossed that they lose at their own game.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 11, 2017)

R.Caerbannog said:


> @AWP I don't know why but I just feel like we are being played by the PRC and it unsettles me. It's like we always have to take the high road while our adversaries get to run amok. Recently been thinking of the PRC as more successful variant of the GOT character Littlefinger. Plots and subplots.
> 
> @Ocoka Looking back at my statement you're right about a more restrained leader being better in this situation. I guess we'll see what happens with the DPRK as this thing moves forward. I dunno man, I just get the feeling that all of this is working in favor of the PRC and it's objectives to reclaim the past glory of the Chinese. At the end of the day, China scares that crap out of me especially as it starts to solidify it's place as a global powerhouse and near peer adversary. Fingers crossed that they lose at their own game.



I would feel a lot more comfortable about the theory that China is playing on us if they did not have the mess with India going on right now. I think that is one reason they're concerned about a conflict in North Korea, then they will have two potential conflicts on their borders.

I think inasmuch they don't want to get splattered, I just think they don't care. Unless of course it affects them.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 11, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I would feel a lot more comfortable about the theory that China is playing on us if they did not have the mess with India going on right now. I think that is one reason they're concerned about a conflict in North Korea, then they will have two potential conflicts on their borders.
> 
> I think inasmuch they don't want to get splattered, I just think they don't care. Unless of course it affects them.


Didn't know that they had issues in India, definitely gonna have to read into it. Sweet!
Add on: Just checked Xinhua and the main page doesn't seem to have any info on it. I see something on CNN though.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 11, 2017)

R.Caerbannog said:


> @Ocoka Looking back at my statement you're right about a more restrained leader being better in this situation. I guess we'll see what happens with the DPRK as this thing moves forward. I dunno man, I just get the feeling that all of this is working in favor of the PRC and it's objectives to reclaim the past glory of the Chinese. At the end of the day, China scares that crap out of me especially as it starts to solidify it's place as a global powerhouse and near peer adversary. Fingers crossed that they lose at their own game.



I'm not really sure that's the case.  We paid off Iran to not do something that they're still doing and we paid them.

China is trying to peck a fight with India.  Wild Stuff.

I don't remember a lot of these during O's presidency-

Chelsea Handler on Twitter


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 11, 2017)

He is talking about Military action in Venezuela now too.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> He is talking about Military action in Venezuela now too.



Yeah, that came out of nowhere.  North Korea we knew was festering.

Venezuela?  Really??


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 11, 2017)

Then there's this crap from Rosie...

ROSIE on Twitter


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 11, 2017)

Venezuela's like Iran - an authoritarian government will cause the nation to eat itself alive and outside intervention will serve no purpose for us.


----------



## AWP (Aug 11, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I would feel a lot more comfortable about the theory that China is playing on us if they did not have the mess with India going on right now. I think that is one reason they're concerned about a conflict in North Korea, then they will have two potential conflicts on their borders.



I have long held the view that we should dump our friendship w/ Pakistan infavor of one with India. I think if Afghanistan wasn't in play we could. A partnership w/ India would offset PK's stupidity and provide us with a rather robust counterbalance to China. China's already working w/ PK, so it is only a matter of time before India is slowly pushed aside. India gives us another, and better, option for forward deployed forces or at least friendly ports and airports from which to operate. The odds of us turning the tide on their purchase of Russian airframes is small, but their aviation industry is capable of producing aircraft variants if we licensed them. Given its nava; presence it could also allow us to work together on new ship designs or provide a better place to sell older Ticonderoga and Burke ships. We could also, maybe, work out a deal for F-35 purchases. India also has strong ties with our partners in the Persian Gulf (the UAE comes to mind).

If it wasn't for Afghanistan and our reliance on PK's ports, I think a move towards India is a no-brainer. Of course, given my extreme dislike of PK, I'd invade and eliminate that cesspool from the face of the planet, but that's another rant.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 11, 2017)

@AWP I have said the same thing for a long time.  India is much more stable, they are a solid trade partner, and have really been shoulder-to-shoulder with the US in a lot of military ops.  It makes a lot of sense for many reasons.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 11, 2017)

Disagrees re India and reply to Diamondback coming tonight. On phone; annoying to type long messages.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 11, 2017)

I would take India every day of the week and twice on Sundays over Pakistan.  But I suspect there will be a war with both of them soon and would prefer to be pretty far away at that time.


----------



## AWP (Aug 11, 2017)

An interesting take on matching words with deeds. Assuming this is true I have a hard time disagreeing with the author.

There Are No Signs That US Forces Are About To Go To War With North Korea



> There are no tankers dragging American aerial combat aircraft across the Pacific—especially ones like the F-22 that would be key to any fight. Extra missile defense capabilities aren't being sent into the region and US Marines and US Army ground combat units are not being called up for a deployment to the Korean Peninsula to augment US forces already garrisoned there. No ships have been ordered to leave their births to begin their voyage toward Korean shores. Even the _USS Ronald Reagan_ carrier strike group remains in port in nearby Yokosuka, Japan.



Contrast this with our operations directed at the Russians in Europe. We deploy damn near every airframe in our inventory, troops, ships, the full range for exercises, but nothing for NK? Weird...


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 12, 2017)

AWP said:


> An interesting take on matching words with deeds. Assuming this is true I have a hard time disagreeing with the author.
> 
> There Are No Signs That US Forces Are About To Go To War With North Korea
> 
> ...



It wouldn't take much for the Reagan to move to Korean waters.  I have no doubt there's more than one sub in the region.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 12, 2017)

Re India. It just won't happen without a major shift from them. I've spoken before here about it and while I agree it would be a good move for the US I just do not think it could work. India is still too hung up on their old NAM type mindset- they're not inclined to ally up. They'd make a great buyer of aeroplanes in particular but they're so all over the place and so corrupt I'm not sure you guys could lower yourselves to that particular level (heh). 



Diamondback 2/2 said:


> @SpitfireV I didn't mean my comments to be offensive, and if you took them as such I apologize. I was trying to point out that we have been planning for this showdown for a long time.



You're all good mate. Shit happens! The thing is, any preemptive attack on DPRK's nuke capacity can in no way be limited to just that action. It would set off a chain of events that would include, IMO, a series of terrorist attacks on US citizens and facilities. It wouldn't be like Israel taking out the Syrian or Iraqi nuclear facilities, which were basically struck without repercussion. The whole region would suffer, and badly. The defences there- I'm talking geographically wise- would make it particularly difficult to take them out out too IMO- it's not an open desert. That's why I draw some skepticism. I could have worded that a lot less cunt-ily though. I do think that if people think a limited strike is an option then I would disagree since I think it would be a seriously serious operation. 

For the record, I would never be against a counter strike. If he tries something or is looking to then yeah, take it all out. It's a big boy's world out there.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 12, 2017)

What Bizaro world am I living in when China has become the voice of reason?

Xi calls Trump to urge restraint over North Korea: | Daily Mail Online

Chinese President Xi Jinping made a plea for cool-headedness over escalating tensions between the U.S. and North Korea in a phone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday, urging both sides to avoid words or actions that could worsen the situation.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 12, 2017)

This all seems like theater to me, NK at least.   NK does this stuff all the time, we say some shit, and that is it. This time they did some stuff and no one knows when POTUS is being rhetorical or not. I honestly don't. I know we aren't talking about all the other shenanigans though....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 12, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> What Bizaro world am I living in when China has become the voice of reason?
> 
> Xi calls Trump to urge restraint over North Korea: | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Chinese President Xi Jinping made a plea for cool-headedness over escalating tensions between the U.S. and North Korea in a phone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday, urging both sides to avoid words or actions that could worsen the situation.


I wouldn't call it reason, NK is a client state of China.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 12, 2017)

Not so much they're not. Not anymore.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 13, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Not so much they're not. Not anymore.



True. _Juche _(self-reliance) was the senior Kim's ideology for making NK independent and strengthening the dictatorial hold. It got added incentive when the USSR collapsed. It's also responsible for the ongoing malnutrition in NK and the threat of famine. The Army eats first. The people get the scraps.


----------



## AWP (Aug 13, 2017)

China doesn't want a pro-American anything on its borders. NK is the best of bad options to China.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 14, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I wouldn't call it reason, NK is a client state of China.



And that is starting to dwindle:

China implements UN sanctions against North Korea, as Trump trade probe looms


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 14, 2017)

They're talking September 5th, probably at least 2-3 months before Kim feels the strains, and acts out like a child.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 14, 2017)




----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 14, 2017)

It's such a shame that a company has to disassociate themselves from an event even when it would never occur to anyone that they might sponsor it (because that would be madness). 

"Hey that guy has a tiki torch...hmmmm....they must have got them somewhere! Tiki torch are crypto nazis!"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 14, 2017)

Everyone jumping ship from Trump's business council.  Fucking stupid shit.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 14, 2017)




----------



## amlove21 (Aug 14, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Everyone jumping ship from Trump's business council.  Fucking stupid shit.


Would you want your business associated with President Trump at this point? Just on the approval ratings alone, and the 'September massacre' prediction I'd be out.

Ideologies aside, the mighty dollar rules. Business owners have an easier time supporting political figures when those figures don't cost them money.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 14, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> the 'September massacre' prediction


What is this in reference to?


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 14, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> What is this in reference to?


Politico atticle talking about the challenges in September. The aides and staff seem apprehensive about the future, and (from the article) are calling it a pivotal month. 

Check out this content from POLITICO for iOS…
Trump aides predicting 'brutal' September - POLITICO:
Trump aides predicting 'brutal' September


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 15, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Would you want your business associated with President Trump at this point? Just on the approval ratings alone, and the 'September massacre' prediction I'd be out.
> 
> Ideologies aside, the mighty dollar rules. Business owners have an easier time supporting political figures when those figures don't cost them money.


Bowing to false narratives is great.  People apparently do not understand history based on what went down in Durham today.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Bowing to false narratives is great.  People apparently do not understand history based on what went down in Durham today.


That response belongs here. It'll be the first time you actually posted something there in line with the thread's intent. 

President Trump's approval ratings are not 'false narratives'. President Trumps failures are not 'fake news'. 

We have a president playing fuck-fuck games with NK's idiot leader that has real consequences, namely, more possible American service member deaths added to an ever growing list. At this point in my life? Fuck that. Solve it diplomatically and quit involving the middle-and-below class serving in the military cause the president wants to sound hard on the news networks he supposedly hates. 

Sitting here saying companies trying to distance themselves from his brand so they don't suffer a PR loss/financial loss are 'bowing to a false narrative' is either highly retarded, naive, or purposefully biased and idiotic or all three. Maybe a combination of all three, sir. No way around it.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Bowing to false narratives is great.  People apparently do not understand history *based on what went down in Durham today*.



This was in my backyard.  99% of the town is like "WTF?"  This wasn't "locals" or long-standing residents.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 15, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> That response belongs here. It'll be the first time you actually posted something there in line with the thread's intent.
> 
> President Trump's approval ratings are not 'false narratives'. President Trumps failures are not 'fake news'.
> 
> ...


It's on topic here and there.  And everything I've had to say in that thread has been on topic.  The left has branded pretty much every republican a racist even though we come from diverse backgrounds and have different percentages of melanin content.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 15, 2017)

Yeah and you've just generalised everyone on "the left." You just did what you've accused them of doing.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 15, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> That response belongs here. It'll be the first time you actually posted something there in line with the thread's intent.
> 
> President Trump's approval ratings are not 'false narratives'. President Trumps failures are not 'fake news'.
> 
> ...



Well, it's far too early to tell if his actions against NK are going to work.  Today NK stepped back from the rhetoric about Guam. 

I also think it is short-sighted to knee-jerk by distancing businesses, too.  Again, far too soon.  I don't know if it's "false narrative" but I do think people would rather believe what they want to believe.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 15, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Yeah and you've just generalised everyone on "the left." You just did what you've accused them of doing.


I suppose I should adjust what gets thrown at me on my facebook feed then.  I have a lot more friends that voted for Hills than Dons.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Aug 15, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> It's on topic here and there.  And everything I've had to say in that thread has been on topic.  The left has branded pretty much every republican a racist even though we come from diverse backgrounds and have different percentages of melanin content.



And the right has branded everything on the left communist.  It's a retard circus and you're right there in the mix.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 15, 2017)

RustyShackleford said:


> And the right has branded everything on the left communist.  It's a retard circus and you're right there in the mix.


Well we're all in the mix.  Unless your spitfire, he's an external observer sometimes full snark sometimes not. 

I've always been about one thing in regards to our political leaders: Duty.  If they all did this out of a true sense of duty the divide would not be there.  Plenty of loons on the right...


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 15, 2017)

There is a big difference between the "left" and leftists.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 15, 2017)

Donald Trump again blames 'both sides' for Charlottesville violence as he defends far-right protesters

Well, somebody didn't stick to the script... Never thought I'd see the day that a US President would defend Nazis.

At least David Duke is happy though?

ETA: Here's video... Skip to about 1:10 or 1:20


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 15, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Donald Trump again blames 'both sides' for Charlottesville violence as he defends far-right protesters
> 
> Well, somebody didn't stick to the script... Never thought I'd see the day that a US President would defend Nazis.



That's where you truly don't understand our constitution, as do apparently a large portion of people here.  Those "Nazis" may have a totally fucked viewpoint and I would gladly volunteer to flip the safety if any ACTION was taken on their part, but it is not ANYONE's place to SILENCE them as citizens of this nation. 

You simply walk away and don't listen.  Then it becomes an echo chamber.

Not show up with bats, throw piss and shit bags, cause violence where there was none.


----------



## 81FO (Aug 15, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Donald Trump again blames 'both sides' for Charlottesville violence as he defends far-right protesters
> 
> Well, somebody didn't stick to the script... Never thought I'd see the day that a US President would defend Nazis.
> 
> ...




I totally missed that, where POTUS defended the "radical right groups"? What I did hear was POTUS calling out both sides as being at fault & the whole event / incident as an epic shit show! 

Disclaimer: I am not a fan of the Donald.



Ranger Psych said:


> That's where you truly don't understand our constitution, as do apparently a large portion of people here.  Those "Nazis" may have a totally fucked viewpoint and I would gladly volunteer to flip the safety if any ACTION was taken on their part, but it is not ANYONE's place to SILENCE them as citizens of this nation.
> 
> You simply walk away and don't listen.  Then it becomes an echo chamber.
> 
> Not show up with bats, throw piss and shit bags, cause violence where there was none.




+1


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 15, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> That's where you truly don't understand our constitution, as do apparently a large portion of people here.  Those "Nazis" may have a totally fucked viewpoint and I would gladly volunteer to flip the safety if any ACTION was taken on their part, but it is not ANYONE's place to SILENCE them as citizens of this nation.
> 
> You simply walk away and don't listen.  Then it becomes an echo chamber.
> 
> Not show up with bats, throw piss and shit bags, cause violence where there was none.



THIS


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 15, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> That's where you truly don't understand our constitution, as do apparently a large portion of people here.  Those "Nazis" may have a totally fucked viewpoint and I would gladly volunteer to flip the safety if any ACTION was taken on their part, but it is not ANYONE's place to SILENCE them as citizens of this nation.
> 
> You simply walk away and don't listen.  Then it becomes an echo chamber.
> 
> Not show up with bats, throw piss and shit bags, cause violence where there was none.


Post deserves extra cred. Well said. 

I don't fault the president for saying both sides were at fault- they were. And I won't be lured into the trap where I say one side deserves it more than the other because of whatever. Neither one did. 

I stand by this statement- President Trump has a real issue with being ultra hard on some issues (Saying the words 'Islamic Terrorist', NK, personal attacks against people who wrong him) and bafflingly demure on others (distancing himself definitively from the alt-right and white domestic terror). 

I don't like it. It gives me pause, and I wish it didn't. But the only way it wouldn't would be if he stopped giving me reason to.



Devildoc said:


> Well, it's far too early to tell if his actions against NK are going to work.  Today NK stepped back from the rhetoric about Guam.
> 
> I also think it is short-sighted to knee-jerk by distancing businesses, too.  Again, far too soon.  I don't know if it's "false narrative" but I do think people would rather believe what they want to believe.


That's the great thing about capitalism- there is no such thing as 'far too soon'. Environment is bad? Change the environment or get out. 

I like to think about independent businesses as the frog of the ecosystem. Businesses are cutting and running because they have monetary reason to do so. Not party line, no sense of patriotism, nothing driving those decisions other than pure desire to prosper. 

They're leaving because President Trump and his antics are bad business, and those that are emotionally clear headed enough are realizing that and jumping ship like Theon Greyjoy during a redemption moment. 

It's not the end all be all- but it's a very good indicator for all those with orange colored glasses that refuse to listen to the 'false narratives' and 'fake news'. 

And of course NK backed down. They've been doing it for decades. It's almost like all the other presidents that ignored them and dismissed their ridiculous bullshit were WAY better politicians than our current president.



ThunderHorse said:


> It's on topic here and there.  And everything I've had to say in that thread has been on topic.  The left has branded pretty much every republican a racist even though we come from diverse backgrounds and have different percentages of melanin content.


Sir, you're either being obtuse or purposefully angry at the left. Not sure. 

I don't say that in an attacking way, just my opinion and an observation.


----------



## 81FO (Aug 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I won't be lured into the trap where I say one side deserves it more than the other because of whatever. Neither one did.
> 
> I stand by this statement- President Trump has a real issue with being ultra hard on some issues (Saying the words 'Islamic Terrorist', NK, personal attacks against people who wrong him) and bafflingly demure on others (distancing himself definitively from the alt-right and white domestic terror).
> 
> I don't like it. It gives me pause, and I wish it didn't. But the only way it wouldn't would be if he stopped giving me reason to.





amlove21 said:


> Post deserves extra cred. Well said.
> 
> I don't fault the president for saying both sides were at fault- they were. And I won't be lured into the trap where I say one side deserves it more than the other because of whatever. Neither one did.
> 
> ...



At the risk of being antagonistic....

By including "alt-right and white domestic terror" in the same parentheses are you implying that "white domestic terrorism" is exclusive to the alt-right.... if so then what is James T. Hodgkinson of Illinois?


Before the flame throwers are turned on, I do not affiliate or align my ideals with the "alt-right" just trying to keep it in context.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 16, 2017)

81FO said:


> At the risk of being antagonistic....
> 
> By including "alt-right and white domestic terror" in the same parentheses are you implying that "white domestic terrorism" is exclusive to the alt-right.... if so then what is James T. Hodgkinson of Illinois?
> 
> ...


I don't think so, I think that's what you inferred, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. I included NK, Islamic terrorism, and people that wrong Pres Trump in the same parenthesis just prior- in no way was I implying that people that wrong President Trump are exclusively Islamic terrorists from NK. Those were examples. So why would you think I implied the alt right was the sole source of white domestic terrorism a sentence later?

I have a very strict rule about never speaking in absolutes. NEVER!

So  while I think the alt right as a thinly veiled ruse to allow racism or at least racist ideology in the modern political environment, I realize that not everyone from the alt right is a terrorist or actually even racist. Douchebags with fuckboi haircuts and weak rhetoric, yup.

And James T Hosgkinson is an American terrorist that happens to be a dumpy white dude. What's your point there? Other than it was your example of white domestic terror not afilliated with the alt right, which we now agree came out of nowhere.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 16, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> That's where you truly don't understand our constitution, as do apparently a large portion of people here.  Those "Nazis" may have a totally fucked viewpoint and I would gladly volunteer to flip the safety if any ACTION was taken on their part, but it is not ANYONE's place to SILENCE them as citizens of this nation.
> 
> You simply walk away and don't listen.  Then it becomes an echo chamber.
> 
> Not show up with bats, throw piss and shit bags, cause violence where there was none.



I didn't mention their right to protest... As while I vehemently disagree with the beliefs, I don't believe that gives people free reign to attack them or anything of the sort. I see IRA sympathisers parade in my city and hate it... But those are their views and they are entitled to hold them and voice them in a peaceful manner. Echo chambers benefit nobody and are severely affecting political discourse.

However, my issue is when POTUS, stands in front of cameras and states there was some "very fine people" amongst the Nazis, white supremacists and other dickheads who rocked upto that protests. Tries to fudge the issue by asking reporters "What is the alt right? Define the alt right?" when he has fucking Steve Bannon working for him, a man who brags about giving the alt right a platform. Engages in whataboutery when questioned about the alt rights actions by saying "But what about the other side?". It was "But Hilary" with a different slant to it.

I've family living in the US, have visited the US and have a high opinion of the US and the people who live there that I cross paths with. POTUS is supposed to be the leader of the free world.... Trumps mask slipped last night. For all the prepared speeches and statements he gives, when he's in front of the camera the real Donald Trump comes out to play and he's not fit to lead a conga line.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> That's the great thing about capitalism- there is no such thing as 'far too soon'. Environment is bad? Change the environment or get out.
> 
> I like to think about independent businesses as the frog of the ecosystem. Businesses are cutting and running because they have monetary reason to do so. Not party line, no sense of patriotism, nothing driving those decisions other than pure desire to prosper.
> 
> ...



If Trump turns things around and if the economy continues to improve on near-record-breaking pace, I wonder if these businesses will attempt to realign. 

RE: NK, for all of Trump's rhetoric, 99% of which I just roll my eyes, he and his team did manage to secure a 15-0 security council vote on sanctions.  That is no small feat given the personalities and countries on the SC.  Some of them almost always just abstains.  That was a very big deal.

I do agree that the former presidents were better politicians, because that's really all they were.  But with regard to NK and only NK, they were all also very short-sighted, seemingly OK with kicking the can to a new administration.  No one had the balls to even attempt to make things good.


----------



## 81FO (Aug 16, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> And James T Hosgkinson is an American terrorist that happens to be a dumpy white dude. What's your point there? Other than it was your example of white domestic terror not afilliated with the alt right, which we now agree came out of nowhere.



My point is he was drinking the KoolAid just a different flavor.

Which came out of nowhere? My using JTH as an example or the assassination attempt he perpetrated? If it is the latter the evidence does not show that. For the most part he experienced a gradual escalation of outrage in his political view, that the "Republicans" were destroying the country. That outrage was fueled by the doomsday rhetoric found on the big three media outlets and other media that have a liberal / progressive political view. I don't see it as coming out of "nowhere", I see it as a direct result of the left / progressive ,  right / conservative pointing the finger at each other claiming that "the other side is trying to take away your freedom".

Edit: Also, I reject the "white domestic terrorism" designation. I used it in my post, but it was because I was quoting your post. So, if we're now supposed to designate the race / ethnicity of terrorism than the ambush of the Dallas LE and San Bernardino should be "(Fill in here) domestic terrorism"... if "radical islamic terrorism" is supposed to be offensive then I call BullShit, terrorism is terrorism no matter what race / ethnicity.

What I see is divide and conquer, just look at how the forum community is reacting to each other... all of this because self affirmed anarchists & supremacists are fighting? The reason for the protest / counter protest is irrelevant at this point, the whole discourse has to stop. "antifa" & "brown shirts" need to be put in check, before 2008 the white supremacists were a non-issue, but now in this extreme hyperbolic political atmosphere the spot light is being shown on the fringe elements and being portrayed as the "pulse of the nation".  The whole thing is UNSAT.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 16, 2017)

Another aspect is the automatic and complete demonization, condemnation, and otherwise complete determination of guilt with no court of law for anyone remotely connected to white pride, supremacy, or nazi/klan ties.

Yet, everyone can wave *their* flags, skip work/school for other-than-white ethnic pride....and this here whitebread motherfucker is expected to shut the fuck up, show up to work, support minority pride, accept all blame and pay reparations for fucksticks over, say 6 generations back none of us never even met as an infant, and excuse the otherwise intolerable and hostile behavior of people who never lived under the lash?  Voice something remotely related towards pride of heritage or contrary to some party line in public and have armed mobs show up, with no police intervention other than a shield wall pushing towards the awaiting mob?

Bullshit.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 16, 2017)

Ball N' Chain said:


> I agree with this @amlove21.
> My unit just finished our layout for a 24 hour quick response deployment to NK, and while it remains unlikely, the possibility is real, our training focus has completely shifted, and the tension and sense of urgency can be felt throughout. I will gladly fight to defend my country, and am ready to go in guns blazing, but hopefully we are not sent in to lose guys for a dick measuring contest.




It helps to have a legitimate motive anytime you go into the bloody shit. Better to die for something than for nothing. Otherwise you end up with a legion of restless souls on a black granite wall.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 16, 2017)

The look on General Kelly's face (with arms folded) as Trump doubled down on his "both sides" position did me in.  In that one speech he gave those who support Natzism an equal place at the table.  He effectively normalized them.  And that, I cannot abide. (bonus points if you get and understand that reference)

John Kelly's five stages of grief during Trump's news conference

The CEO Forum that he killed today, (to prevent the remaining few from quitting) was important.  They were there to advise on the hard economic issues, but "naaaahhhh" we don't need them.

In a prior post I said that it was my hope that General Kelly would be able to control Trump; it was pointed out that I used a poor choice of words and that we don't want our President to be 'controlled.'  I concede that, but Trump has also shown that he is incapable of listening to the advice and counsel given to him.  Truth be told, my biggest fear is that that good men and women around him will leave in frustration, and leave us with sycophants as his only advisors. 

For the record, I have been predicting since about day-1 that during the first State of the Union he would announce all of the great things  he has personally accomplished, and then resign.  I am now actually hoping for that.

To add -

Here is where "the abide" comment is from....

Video is *NOT SAFE FOR WORK*


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 16, 2017)

Antifa is a problem.  So I don't see why they don't deserve some blame.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 16, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Antifa is a problem.  So I don't see why they don't deserve some blame.



As has been said in this thread about 27 different ways, yes they do deserve some of the blame.

But when you treat those who wave the Nazi flag as equals to counter protesters, even those who have Communists leanings, you normalize the Nazi Party.  You take away the "ultimate evil" tag that they earned and deserve.

That should never happen, and that's what Trump did by not calling them out specifically.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 16, 2017)

We've seen quite clearly from this and the last president that certain groups don't get called out.  Bring back BUSH.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 16, 2017)

Gaping assholes are the extreme in any circumstance. 

As I have said before, antifas protestors are gaping assholes. Those assholes close up just a little bit when they are protesting the "Alysa Gap" of gaping assholes, those sympathetic or outright Nazis. Until AntiFas actually advocates actively for genocide, aligns itself with those who have actively and horrifically committed such acts, let's just hold our horses. 

I know what you'll say next, "well AntiFas is communist and...." blah blah blah. Nazism is the worst of humanity. It is actively the worst thing we have ever seen as a species. It will forever be a blight on humanity. ANYONE who actively supports such a movement is nothing but a racist, disgusting piece of shit. The same cannot be said for those leftists calling themselves "anti-fascists". Equating them, or BLM, or even the KKK to Nazis or those that support or proclaim to support Nazi beliefs is a form of false equivalency that is hard to fathom.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 16, 2017)

Both evil, and both need to go.

But we have laws in this country that protect speech and thought.  Communists killed plenty of Jews because they were Jews so that point is kind of dumb.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 16, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Communists killed plenty of Jews because they were Jews so that point is kind of dumb.



Really?

Come on man.

_"Communists killed plenty of Jews because they were Jews so that point is kind of dumb."
_
That's your argument?  Get back to me whe you understand the concept of genocide and what the SS attempted to do. This would be a very good start. 

Full Film — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

I will never forget that you typed these words...

_"Communists killed plenty of Jews because they were Jews so that point is kind of dumb."_

And then you read it to yourself  and felt like it was worthy hitting the "send" key.

How can you be so obtuse?


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 16, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Both evil, and both need to go.
> 
> But we have laws in this country that protect speech and thought.  Communists killed plenty of Jews because they were Jews so that point is kind of dumb.



You idiot. They didn't do it in an industrial and calculated way like the Nazis did. 

Pull your trousers up.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> You idiot. They didn't do it in an industrial and calculated way like the Nazis did.
> 
> Pull your trousers up.


Oh I know exactly what the Nazi's did, reading a very heavy book on it right now.  But that's not the point, they're both evil.  /end point.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 16, 2017)

You need a visit to the camps to get some perspective.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 16, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Both evil, and both need to go.
> 
> But we have laws in this country that protect speech and thought.  Communists killed plenty of Jews because they were Jews so that point is kind of dumb.



Goddamn. I literally called it. 

Do you know that every anti-fascist is a communist? 

I know what every Nazi is....


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 16, 2017)

@ThunderHorse 

I want you to take every thought and impression you have of antifascists.  Just take them all and put them in the forefront of your mind.

Then watch this video and tell me if they're even remotely the same


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 16, 2017)

What's your point?  Evil is Evil?  I already stated that quite clear.


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Nazism is the worst of humanity. It is actively the worst thing we have ever seen as a species. It will forever be a blight on humanity. ANYONE who actively supports such a movement is nothing but a racist, disgusting piece of shit. The same cannot be said for those leftists calling themselves "anti-fascists". Equating them, or BLM, or even the KKK to Nazis or those that support or proclaim to support Nazi beliefs is a form of false equivalency that is hard to fathom.



Communists across the USSR, China, etc. combined have executed far more people than the Nazis. I can't/won't support Nazis at all, but context matters. If Nazis are the worst, Communism has to be in second place by fractions of whatever measuring stick anyone prefers.



SpitfireV said:


> You idiot. They didn't do it in an industrial and calculated way like the Nazis did.
> 
> Pull your trousers up.



The gulags, mass executions, systematic roundups of certain groups of persons doesn't compare to Nazi methods?



SpitfireV said:


> No, as I said.



lol, whatever. Facts and history aren't on your side, but emotion...I guess that's just as good.

Have the best day ever.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 16, 2017)

AWP said:


> Communists across the USSR, China, etc. combined have executed far more people than the Nazis. I can't/won't support Nazis at all, but context matters. If Nazis are the worst, Communism has to be in second place by fractions of whatever measuring stick anyone prefers.
> 
> 
> 
> The gulags, mass executions, systematic roundups of certain groups of persons doesn't compare to Nazi methods?



Well unfortunately for us we aren't comparing the two ideologies. AntiFas certainly has members who are communist, but they all aren't. All people who identify as Nazis are...? Nazis. Neo-Nazi=Nazi. Calling for the extermination of Jews while wearing a swastika? Nazi...

There is a big difference in Mao Chinese communism, and Stalinism and what communism is and/or could be. Nazism is based in anti-semitism. I'm not lecturing you here but...


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm not lecturing you here but...



If that's how you want to approach me, fine. I'll just say I expected better from you and leave it at that.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 16, 2017)

AWP said:


> If that's how you want to approach me, fine. I'll just say I expected better from you and leave it at that.



That is exactly word for word how you approached me bro. I can post the quote from the other thread.



AWP said:


> I'm not lecturing you.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> You idiot. They didn't do it in an industrial and calculated way like the Nazis did.
> 
> Pull your trousers up.



Really?

"Of those who starved, the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality. In early 1930, Stalin had announced his intention to “liquidate” prosperous peasants (“kulaks”) as a class so that the state could control agriculture and use capital extracted from the countryside to build industry. Tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported. Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export. The first victims of starvation were the nomads of Soviet Kazakhstan, where about 1.3 million people died. The famine spread to Soviet Russia and peaked in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin requisitioned grain in Soviet Ukraine knowing that such a policy would kill millions. Blaming Ukrainians for the failure of his own policy, he ordered a series of measures—such as sealing the borders of that Soviet republic—that ensured mass death.

In 1937, as his vision of modernization faltered, Stalin ordered the Great Terror. Because we now have the killing orders and the death quotas, inaccessible so long as the Soviet Union existed, we now know that the number of victims was not in the millions. We also know that, as in the early 1930s, the main victims were the peasants, many of them survivors of hunger and of concentration camps. The highest Soviet authorities ordered 386,798 people shot in the “Kulak Operation” of 1937–1938. The other major “enemies” during these years were people belonging to national minorities who could be associated with states bordering the Soviet Union: some 247,157 Soviet citizens were killed by the NKVD in ethnic shooting actions."

*Sure sounds industrial and calculated to me...*


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> That is exactly word for word how you approached me bro. I can post the quote from the other thread.



I'll take that hit. That's on me.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 16, 2017)

Let's take a knee and face out for a tick before this gets to be unproductive. 

It's a shitty issue and we all feel strongly about it. I know I do. 

Let's all move out from here, personal issues go to PM. Not gonna shut the thread down, because we all know the difference between bipartisan shouting match and calm discussion.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 17, 2017)

Khmer Rogue, anyone?!  The are plenty of horrific beliefs out there.  The Nazi Party doesn't have a monopoly on shit bag beliefs.

That said, I agree with amlove1....it's kind of like arguing about degrees of heat in Hell.  Who gives a shit?!  We can all probably agree that it's pretty fuckin' hot.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 17, 2017)

Guys the point is being missed here. Were Stalinist Russian communists marching in Charlottesville this past weekend? Khmer Rouge? Mao Chinese communists?

No. Nazis were marching in the streets talking about "killing all the niggers and Jews". 

Our President could not denounce them, without equating them. That sucks.


----------



## Kheenbish (Aug 17, 2017)

I agree and disagree with that post. Antifa was flying the "Red Banner" to protest the Nazi flag being waved around and I can guarantee a lot of individuals do not see the Hammer and Sickle and instantly think of a good time.

 I mean can you really be called a patriot for America when you protest one red flag of a dictators with another ? I see it as if you're going to protest with a flag that isn't the United States, then you aren't really advocating for anything worth the American values. 

These violent protests filled with hate speeches and flags of wronged times are just moving us closer to a nation without free speech.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 17, 2017)

Something to lighten the mood. 

Donald Trump says Rebel Alliance must also take blame for violence as Death Star had all the required permits


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 17, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Something to lighten the mood.
> 
> Donald Trump says Rebel Alliance must also take blame for violence as Death Star had all the required permits



That is SO awesomely funny!

Do NOT read the comments after the article though...folks just cannot let shit go for 30 seconds and laugh.  They'll just piss you off.


----------



## Dame (Aug 17, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Something to lighten the mood.
> 
> Donald Trump says Rebel Alliance must also take blame for violence as Death Star had all the required permits


OMG. You win the internet for today.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 17, 2017)

I've met some pretty opinionated people in my life but I've never met an actual Nazi or a committed member of the American Communist Party.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 17, 2017)

Maria Chappelle-Nadal needs to resign and be put in front of a judge, in handcuffs.

McCaskill, Clay and others call for Mo senator to resign after post hoping for Trump's assassination


----------



## Poccington (Aug 17, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> Maria Chappelle-Nadal needs to resign and be put in front of a judge, in handcuffs.
> 
> McCaskill, Clay and others call for Mo senator to resign after post hoping for Trump's assassination



Fucking hell. 

I mean... She's an elected official and she comes out with that madness!?


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 17, 2017)

Don't tell me this never crossed your mind.

Trump suggests fighting terror by killing Muslims with pig blood-dipped bullets


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 17, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I've met some pretty opinionated people in my life but I've never met an actual Nazi or a committed member of the American Communist Party.



One of my US History professors was a staunch communist. In her "Welcome To My Class" briefing, she described her political leanings as such, "I start with socialism and move well to the left from there." She never said if she was a member, but it would not surprise me.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 18, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> One of my US History professors was a staunch communist. In her "Welcome To My Class" briefing, she described her political leanings as such, "I start with socialism and move well to the left from there." She never said if she was a member, but it would not surprise me.




At least you knew what you were dealing with. That's something. It's the sneaky ones that bear watching.

Let me amend my previous statement. I never met a Communist I wasn't legally authorized to open fire on.


----------



## Grunt (Aug 18, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> One of my US History professors was a staunch communist. In her "Welcome To My Class" briefing, she described her political leanings as such, "I start with socialism and move well to the left from there." She never said if she was a member, but it would not surprise me.



I usually pay attention to about 20-30% of what people say and the rest is based upon what they do! Their actions speak way more than their words. People are "what they do" versus "what they say." If you could have spent a couple of hours with her outside of the classroom undoubtedly you would have known whether she truly walked the talk.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 18, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I usually pay attention to about 20-30% of what people say and the rest is based upon what they do! Their actions speak way more than their words. People are "what they do" versus "what they say." If you could have spent a couple of hours with her outside of the classroom undoubtedly you would have known whether she truly walked the talk.



I've found something a little different.  In my experience, if someone claims an identity (vs. an achievement) or a belief set, my going-in position is that I take them at their word.

I would not want to spend any time in or out of a classroom with someone who touted their political beliefs in such a manner.


----------



## Grunt (Aug 18, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I've found something a little different.  In my experience, if someone claims an identity (vs. an achievement) or a belief set, my going-in position is that I take them at their word.
> 
> I would not want to spend any time in or out of a classroom with someone who touted their political beliefs in such a manner.



I am mostly speaking from my 30 years as a criminal investigator. After conducting thousands of interviews, what people say and what people do are more often than not -- different. Especially when I get into their personal space where I see and learn things that the general public and their friends don't know about them.

With that said...I do understand what you are saying and can certainly agree with it, but I generally follow my rule when dealing with people as a whole.

As to wanting to spend time with someone diametrically opposed to my beliefs...nah...I wouldn't want to either.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 18, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I've met some pretty opinionated people in my life but I've never met an actual Nazi or a committed member of the American Communist Party.



I know people who have been in the Klan (maybe they still are, I don't know).  But here's a story:

Years ago, 1997ish, I was a paramedic in a mostly rural county here in NC (Chatham County for context).  We get called for "chest pain," dispatch tells us go to "n" mailbox and look for a guy on a 4-wheeler; he would lead us to the patient.  My partner was a black guy, a huge, body-building, 230-pound/no body fat, blacker than the ace of spades black guy.

So we get to the mailbox, see our contact, follow him down a dirt road...turns into a dirt fire road...turns into barely a path.  Limbs and branches scraping the side of the ambulance.  We get to a clearing, there are about 100 guys dressed in cammo, several 55-gallon drums with fires.  We pull up, I get out, my partner is standing fast.  "You coming?"  I ask.  He said take a look around, he isn't going anywhere.  Every last swinging dick was white, and every head was shorn, and there were several Nazi flags, Confederate battle flags, and some anti-black/anti-Jew signage.  Ahh, I got it.

Get to the patient, do my thing, big ol' bubba, so I need my partner's help getting him into the bus....300-pound patient, stretcher, monitor, O2, all now about 400 pounds.  My partner very reluctantly gets out.  Everyone of course sees him, no one says a word, they are all "yes, sir" and "no, sir."  For my first (and thus only) Nazi/skinheads, they were very polite.  We get the patient loaded, head to the hospital, maybe 45 minutes away.

Making small talk I asked something like, "you fellas having a pig-pickin'?"  No, he said, they were having a rally.  He was very honest.  After talking with him, he was very blunt.  Didn't like Jews, didn't like black folks.  Didn't want to hurt them though (physically), just didn't want them in positions of political/economic power.  We get to the ED, my partner helps unload, the guy is very respectful, thanks both of us.

My partner and I talked about it afterward on the ride back.  It was very bizarre, very surreal.  Our first experience with something like that, we conjured up scenes of violence and threats to my partner.  It was as if the guys happened to be CPAs and librarians they were so chill.  It was very, very odd.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 18, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I know people who have been in the Klan (maybe they still are, I don't know).  But here's a story:
> 
> Years ago, 1997ish, I was a paramedic in a mostly rural county here in NC (Chatham County for context).  We get called for "chest pain," dispatch tells us go to "n" mailbox and look for a guy on a 4-wheeler; he would lead us to the patient.  My partner was a black guy, a huge, body-building, 230-pound/no body fat, blacker than the ace of spades black guy.
> 
> ...




Wow.

I guess when a Nazi/Klan guy thinks he might die, race issues don't seem that fucking important anymore.


----------



## CQB (Aug 18, 2017)

Not so much, there is a difference between an extremist and  a violent extremist. It is a point of difference I have outlined previously elsewhere here.
As you illustrate, there are white extremists in your country which seems to be a given and they are entitled to their view in a multiparty democracy.  I'm in a minority here and no fan of the current POTUS, but the left ( which I refer to as the Herbal Tea Party) are more militant and more aggressive than the right extremists. It is no more true in your country than it is in mine, the difference is that the extreme right  know they are outsiders & the extreme left think they hold all the cards and occupy the moral high ground, no matter how aggressive they are.  As noted, I'm not a fan of Trump but not only has his point about left wing violence been shouted down globally, it has been totally vilified. It is the reverse of "Paris vaute une messe" dictum and is a defining moment of his presidency as big business has deserted him due to his stance.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 18, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Wow.
> 
> I guess when a Nazi/Klan guy thinks he might die, race issues don't seem that fucking important anymore.



Yeah, the whole "no atheists in foxholes."


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 18, 2017)

Steve Bannon is out...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 18, 2017)

Bye Bye Bye

Slowly but surely we are culling the herd of those given posts as rewards of patronage.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 18, 2017)

Does the President have _any_ friends left?!  I ask that kind of seriously.  There is a saying that "compromise is for politicians".  To a great extent that is true.   How can the President possibly expect to move any agenda forward (regardless of what the agenda is or what we feel about it) if he has no one on his side? 

My frustration at the ineptness/incompetence of the Republicans in Congress to move any meaningful agenda has just about reached capacity as well.  Never underestimate their ability to pass away a perfectly good opportunity.

We're quickly approaching a year since the election and there has been nothing meaningful to show for the change.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 18, 2017)

I think it's the other way around, I think he's putting people in place that are more in-line with his NY Democrat sensibilities and that all of these idiots he had within his administration were matters of political patronage to the base.


----------



## Sendero (Aug 18, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> We're quickly approaching a year since the election and there has been nothing meaningful to show for the change.



The Gorsuch nomination was a big deal.  The Supreme Court would look very different had Trump lost.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 18, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Steve Bannon is out...


Good.  He and his whole ideology have no place in the White House.  Get fucked, Steve.

Next up: Gorka and Steven Miller


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 18, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> My frustration at the ineptness/incompetence of the Republicans in Congress to move any meaningful agenda has just about reached capacity as well.





ThunderHorse said:


> I think it's the other way around, I think he's putting people in place that are more in-line with his NY Democrat sensibilities and that all of these idiots he had within his administration were matters of political patronage to the base.



Embrace the healing power of "And," gentlemen. Life is easier that way. 

The current Republican Party is only as conservative as that walkway to the ballot booth. They're damned good at being the loyal opposition, and are fucked if they know how to stick to their constituents' wishes outside of campaign season (which seems to never end, making them nuisance animals like coyotes and feral hogs). 

Trump may be a shrewd businessman of dubious success, but he's got more time in with a D after his name, and was really fucking chummy with Felonia von Pantsuit and her pervert husband until he had the unmitigated gall to win this election (after running how many times?). A leopard doesn't change his spots. Of course patronage was a factor.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 18, 2017)

Trump...a secret Democrat??


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 18, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Trump...a secret Democrat??



I said that for like 8 months leading up to the election. Then he chose Pence... things changed after that.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 18, 2017)

Who comes up with this stuff: Donald Trump 'just six votes from impeachment'


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 18, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Trump...a secret Democrat??





TLDR20 said:


> I said that for like 8 months leading up to the election. Then he chose Pence... things changed after that.



You do realize he's run for president on BOTH tickets, yes? I know I'm old, but it's pretty common knowledge among us dinosaurs. He's swapped parties quite a few times; three to five times, IIRC. He's an opportunitist.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 18, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> You do realize he's run for president on BOTH tickets, yes? I know I'm old, but it's pretty common knowledge among us dinosaurs. He's swapped parties quite a few times; three to five times, IIRC. He's an opportunitist.



Swapping parties I know of. His previous run, I thought that was some reform party or something. I don't think he ran as a democrat ever.


----------



## Polar Bear (Aug 18, 2017)

*Expectations- Observation = Frustration *
This tread embodies this equation. I wasted 3 hours reading this crap. Thank you the human race. 1/2 of you need to choke yourself. Get off your high horse, right, left or whatever pedestal you think you belong on. 
Also some of you...got out of line, being personal. I will not bring up the past but going forward. Expect warnings and possible banning. 
This has been discussed among the Admin and Mods.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 18, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Swapping parties I know of. His previous run, I thought that was some reform party or something. I don't think he ran as a democrat ever.



The Wikipedia article I had bookmarked used to have a chart of his presidential runs, but I can't seem to find the chart on my mobile. He may not have run as a Democrat, but he was a D up until 1987, then switched to Republican, Reform, Independent, Democrat, and back to Repub. 

That backs up my point that he's an opportunist.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 18, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> The Wikipedia article I had bookmarked used to have a chart of his presidential runs, but I can't seem to find the chart on my mobile. He may not have run as a Democrat, but he was a D up until 1987, then switched to Republican, Reform, Independent, Democrat, and back to Repub.
> 
> That backs up my point that he's an opportunist.



Oh for sure he is an opportunist. That was brought up many times during the run. To be honest I thought once elected he would be more liberal than he has been.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 18, 2017)

There was a theory at some stage that he was running to make Clinton look better. 

If that were true he must have had a little shock lol.


----------



## Polar Bear (Aug 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Oh for sure he is an opportunist. That was brought up many times during the run. To be honest I thought once elected he would be more liberal than he has been.


 
Left or right does not matter. As your signature says, it is a circus. And I voted for him. Just my gut feeling, but he will not be in office this time next year.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 19, 2017)

Polar Bear said:


> Left or right does not matter. As your signature says, it is a circus. And I voted for him. Just my gut feeling, but he will not be in office this time next year.



I have maintained from the beginning that Trump never even considered the idea of actually being the Republican candidate, much less winning the election.  Things snowballed from the beginning, and when he survived the  "John McCain I like pilots who weren't shot down" comment, I remember thinking, oh shit, he might ride this out and win the damn thing.

Since the day he was elected I have believed that he would make it to the first State of the Union and declare "victory", touting how he has accomplished more in one year than Obama did in eight.  Then we would "drop the mic" and resign.  Mission Accomplished.

I think I may have even posted that in one of the prior election threads.  Problem is...then what?  He cannot easily slip back into his Hollywood lifestyle; they won't exactly be welcoming him with open arms. He's managed to piss off the executive business community so much that Trump will remain a pariah, at least for a while. What's he going to do with himself?

Last night I saw a meme on Facebook that made me laugh, it said: "For 8 years I was called a racist if I disagreed with my President; now I'm called a racist if I agree with him.".  Some ironic truth to that; I did not expect to be on the defensive after Obama was out of office.

Over the years I have expressed privately to @TLDR20 that while his liberal views and challenges may piss me off from time-to-time, they've also opened my mind a bit and helped me get a peek-under-the-tent of my own Republican party.  I say that to say this, (and I've used this phrase on the board before), come on guys, the Emperor is wearing no clothes.  Am I glad that Trump beat Hillary?  Fuck yes, that will never change.  The influence she was going to have over 2nd Amendment rights (via Supreme Court nominations) and the insanity that Obama started with turning the Military into just another corporate community where you need to "HR Think" before acting, had to stop.  But Trump is a disaster (to use one of his phrases) of a President.  He does not listen to his advisors (the protest thread would be half the pages if Trump would have initially said, "Nazi's suck the most") and his off the cuff remarks and tweets are embarrassing at best, damaging to the relationships with our allies at worst.  To borrow a phrase from the Generals when they fire an officer, "I have lost confidence in his ability to lead."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I said that for like 8 months leading up to the election. Then he chose Pence... things changed after that.



Would you rather have Trump as he is, or Pence "acting Presidential"?  Personally I would prefer the latter, but I know that Pence's views concern my more liberal friends more than Trump's chaoticness does.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 19, 2017)

I disagree on the thing about him being a pariah, when you have that much money it really doesn't matter.  They'll still golf with you.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 19, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Would you rather have Trump as he is, or Pence "acting Presidential"?  Personally I would prefer the latter, but I know that Pence's views concern my more liberal friends more than Trump's chaoticness does.



I would prefer a President that acts like the President. Doesn't tweet stupid stuff. Knows when to say the right thing to a country having problems. Agenda aside at least our government might be working if Pence was POTUS. I'd way rather complain about policy than the morally ambiguous waters that President Trump currently and regularly inhabits.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 19, 2017)

The man is a chameleon. He will be whatever he needs to be to be successful.

As for not being here next year, there is an article on CNBC, if I can find it I will link it, about why he is poised for a big comeback over the coming weeks and months.

Edited to add found article

Rumors of Trump's demise are, once again, greatly exaggerated


----------



## Gunz (Aug 19, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> ...*Felonia von Pantsuit and her pervert husband.*..




That made my day bwaaaaahahahaaaa


----------



## CDG (Aug 19, 2017)

I don't personally have an issue with what POTUS said. There is blame on both sides, like always. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. The constant petty bickering, which has even made its way to this site, is exhausting. Trump is a racist, a facist, a sexist, a homophobe, orange, yada fucking yada. The left are commies, facist in their anti-facism, snowflakes, yada fucking yada. America was losing no matter who won the 2016 election. There is so much hate and vitriol spewed about both sides, violence seems to be on the rise as it relates to political issues, and more and more people are resorting to the tactic of yelling the loudest and/or accusing the other side of the most heinous things imaginable in order to win an argument. It's just disappointing these days. We're going down a bad road, and I'm not sure how the ship gets righted. Everyone taking a step back, shutting their fucking mouths, and thinking before speaking/acting would be a great start. Probably won't happen though.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 19, 2017)

I just thought it was funny that he took the time to like his own tweet.


----------



## CDG (Aug 19, 2017)

Michael Jackson will do a duet with Whitney Houston before this country "comes together as one".


----------



## CQB (Aug 20, 2017)

I'm sure it will be Kumbaya.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 20, 2017)

Polar Bear said:


> Left or right does not matter. As your signature says, it is a circus. And I voted for him. Just my gut feeling, but he will not be in office this time next year.



My feelings too, and I think a lot of people who voted for him expected some of the dignity of the Office to rub off on him. It hasn't and he may well be gone before his term is up. This is not to say I would've preferred "Felonia Von Pantsuit and her pervert husband" (thank you, @racing_kitty for that one ) ... but the choices we get every four years are pretty dismal. I had my issues with Obama, but for the most part he carried himself as befitting a POTUS.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 20, 2017)

Thunderhorse, I apologise unreservedly for calling you an idiot.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 20, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> My feelings too, and I think a lot of people who voted for him expected some of the dignity of the Office to rub off on him. It hasn't and he may well be gone before his term is up.


Negative. I expected none of that. The argument about his behavior behind below the "dignity" of the office is a worn out argument (not directed at you personally, just a general statement). There has not been any dignity in that office for many decades. Scandal after scandal has plagued that office to where it has been nothing more than a show for said circus. Except the circus itself is the public at large and not Washington. Think of Washington as the slowest moving reality TV series known yet, where the season is played out over 4-8 years versus 4-8 weeks. Oh, there have certainly been glimmers of dignity and grace in the office, GWs response to 9/11 and his sincere hurt for losing American troops in battle are just a few examples. However, overall the office has been treated as a mockery of its once former glory. Though, to be fair I suppose it is possible that people felt the same way when FDR, TR, JFK, and other POTUS' have held the office. Personally, I want results, not feel good dressing for turd sammiches. 

I find it delicious that the media is getting what it deserves for the last several decades of its bullying methods and tactics. Democracy dies in darkness indeed , it dies when all integrity is lost and narratives get pushed instead of facts being released and letting the reader decide for themselves. We may not have the POTUS that we want, but we damn sure have the one we need right now. He certainly isn't perfect (tbh his evangelicals concern me), but he is exactly what the media and the public need to balance the ship, for now. Sorry, that last paragraph was more of a venting rant than anything, but slightly relevant lol. 



> I had my issues with Obama, but for the most part he carried himself as befitting a POTUS.


He indeed did. The king played his part as a king. Doing as he pleased and ignoring the law. :troll:


----------



## Gunz (Aug 20, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Negative. I expected none of that. The argument about his behavior behind below the "dignity" of the office is a worn out argument (not directed at you personally, just a general statement). There has not been any dignity in that office for many decades. Scandal after scandal has plagued that office to where it has been nothing more than a show for said circus. Except the circus itself is the public at large and not Washington. Think of Washington as the slowest moving reality TV series known yet, where the season is played out over 4-8 years versus 4-8 weeks. Oh, there have certainly been glimmers of dignity and grace in the office, GWs response to 9/11 and his sincere hurt for losing American troops in battle are just a few examples. However, overall the office has been treated as a mockery of its once former glory. Though, to be fair I suppose it is possible that people felt the same way when FDR, TR, JFK, and other POTUS' have held the office. Personally, I want results, not feel good dressing for turd sammiches.
> 
> I find it delicious that the media is getting what it deserves for the last several decades of its bullying methods and tactics. Democracy dies in darkness indeed , it dies when all integrity is lost and narratives get pushed instead of facts being released and letting the reader decide for themselves. We may not have the POTUS that we want, but we damn sure have the one we need right now. He certainly isn't perfect (tbh his evangelicals concern me), but he is exactly what the media and the public need to balance the ship, for now. Sorry, that last paragraph was more of a venting rant than anything, but slightly relevant lol.
> 
> ...



Points well taken. I suppose I'm talking about image rather than substance. And you're right, we've had some deficient people in that high office. Reagan, to me, is a prime example of what a modern POTUS should be like...but we'll never see his sort again.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 20, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Points well taken. I suppose I'm talking about image rather than substance. And you're right, we've had some deficient people in that high office. Reagan, to me, is a prime example of what a modern POTUS should be like...but we'll never see his sort again.


I think yes and no. Reagan was certainly a good POTUS, but personally I don't hold him as the deity most people do. He certainly did well in many areas, but he also was lacking in more than a few as well. However, I see what you mean. He certainly tried to hold him self to account.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 20, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> I think yes and no. Reagan was certainly a good POTUS, but personally I don't hold him as the deity most people do. He certainly did well in many areas, but he also was lacking in more than a few as well. However, I see what you mean. He certainly tried to hold him self to account.



No President is perfect. And far from perfect at any time in the eyes of his political opponents. Reagan had his share of controversies...but any administration is going to have those. Its almost like we're forced to judge presidents (and all politicians for that matter), by the fewer scandals and controversies that occur during their tenure rather than for their accomplishments.


----------



## Grunt (Aug 20, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> No President is perfect. And far from perfect at any time in the eyes of his political opponents. Reagan had his share of controversies...but any administration is going to have those. Its almost like we're forced to judge presidents (and all politicians for that matter), by the fewer scandals rather than for the accomplishments.



Indeed you are correct my Brother! That's why it's incumbent upon us as individuals to argue for their accomplishments rather than their scandals. We all have a circle of influence -- and I for one -- am going to do what I can to influence those around me to use critical thinking and judge our past presidents by accomplishment rather scandal. After all, that's what we have the news for...since they spend more time on scandals than anything else.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 21, 2017)

This is by far the dumbest article yet.  Basically, Trump is now controlling the sun...

The 2017 solar eclipse is coming — to Trump Country - The Boston Globe


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 21, 2017)

I'm getting significantly tired of irresponsible journalist behavior: Trump isn't pro-business, he's pro-'white nationalism': Venture capital co-founder


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 21, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm getting significantly tired of irresponsible journalist behavior: Trump isn't pro-business, he's pro-'white nationalism': Venture capital co-founder


What was irresponsible about this piece?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 21, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> What was irresponsible about this piece?


I have to concur with Salty.  This was a political analysis that quotes the opinion of a private citizen.  I don't think I agree with the point of view, but I don't think it's irresponsible journalism.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 21, 2017)

President Trump's speech tonight wasn't terrible. We will see how this translates into action and what that actually means, but at least he has a plan and he didn't announce that plan on Twitter. 

Baby steps.


----------



## AWP (Aug 21, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> President Trump's speech tonight wasn't terrible. We will see how this translates into action and what that actually means, but at least he has a plan and he didn't announce that plan on Twitter.
> 
> Baby steps.



Maybe the coup's begun and we weren't informed.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 22, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm getting significantly tired of irresponsible journalist behavior: Trump isn't pro-business, he's pro-'white nationalism': Venture capital co-founder


I'm gonna agree with Thunder, the piece reeks of yellow journalism. It's just disconcerting when the mainstream networks and crazies like Alex Jones start passing the same work off as journalism. I dunno guys, but it's harder and harder to figure out what the heck is going on while being mislead and misdirected. :-/


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 22, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I have to concur with Salty.  This was a political analysis that quotes the opinion of a private citizen.  I don't think I agree with the point of view, but I don't think it's irresponsible journalism.



Agreed.  Biased as hell and some poor assumptions, but it's basically an op-ed in article format. 

I do think the authors of these types of articles have a duty to further elucidate or refute the claims; take them to a logical conclusion.  Unfortunately this is what passes as "journalism" these days.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 23, 2017)

So Antifa is in downtown Phoenix, it's a bit of a problem here as we're an Open Carry State.  There's been a group of numpties that had previously marched around the capital grounds in brown shirts and berets.  My GF is an attorney with the state and they shut down the downtown government district at lunch. 

WTF is wrong with these people?

So glad I live in the burbs. 

Also, side bar, I had a free bone-in ribeye from Longhorn Steakhouse tonight and it was delicious.


----------



## Frank S. (Aug 23, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Also, side bar, I had a free bone-in ribeye from Longhorn Steakhouse tonight and it was delicious.



Do tell. You had me at ribeye.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 23, 2017)

I had a medium, definitely worth going to, probably something that will run you $100 at Flemings or some such.  Worst part was Trump was staying right off the route I was going to take home.  Wasn't stupid to get home, but an annoyance nevertheless.


----------



## Frank S. (Aug 23, 2017)

Side dish(es)? A shot of single malt, maybe? Creme brulee for dessert? You see, food unites us all.

Except dickhead vegetarians.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 23, 2017)

Frank S. said:


> Side dish(es)? A shot of single malt, maybe? Creme brulee for dessert? You see, food unites us all.
> 
> Except dickhead vegetarians.



Appetizers was Southwest Shrimp and Wings, Green Salad, Broccoli for the side, and then split this Chocolate mousse cake.  For Drinks there was a Montana Mule, It had Jim Beam so I think they were wrong on their title.  But I had a Lynchburg Lemonade for the second cocktail, I'm guessing we won't be able to say Lynchburg soon enough.


----------



## 81FO (Aug 23, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> He indeed did. The king played his part as a king. Doing as he pleased and ignoring the law. :troll:



Indeed!! IRS scandal, Antiquities Act land grabs, to the tune of 600+ million acres, EPA & DEQ appointee hacks who established WOTUS Act. Freakin' totally screwed people like myself who raise livestock or farm. The land grabs, and dealing with the EPA & DEQ had me to the point where I could have chewed threw a fist full of 10 penny nails!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 24, 2017)

Best of success to you General Kelly. 

John Kelly is trying to organize the flow of information to the president.

White House chief of staff's mission: Impose order


----------



## Dame (Aug 24, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Best of success to you General Kelly.
> John Kelly is trying to organize the flow of information to the president.
> White House chief of staff's mission: Impose order



This is priceless...


> Kelly’s predecessor, Reince Priebus, sent some similar guidelines around early in the administration, according to two officials, but they were never taken seriously. Kelly, a retired Marine general, has been treated with a different level of deference inside the building, those aides said. Staff members discovered early on that they could defy Priebus, the officials said, *but crossing a Marine is a different matter*.



(Emphasis is mine.)


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 24, 2017)

"....Ivanka Trump quickly gave in to Kelly’s new system, two officials said."

Not only a pretty face...smart too


----------



## Dienekes (Aug 24, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Best of success to you General Kelly.
> 
> John Kelly is trying to organize the flow of information to the president.
> 
> White House chief of staff's mission: Impose order



It is just plain discouraging that an article even needed to be written about simple professional organization in the White House.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 25, 2017)

Trump signs directive banning trans troops

Trump's ban on transgender troops will soon be policy. Here's what happens next.

This is the only source I can find now.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 25, 2017)

He also pardoned Joe.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 25, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> He also pardoned Joe.



...sigh....

Who's "Joe"?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 25, 2017)

Controversial former sheriff Joe Arpaio.  To be honest, I didn't see this one coming.  President Trump Pardons Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 25, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Controversial former sheriff Joe Arpaio.  To be honest, I didn't see this one coming.  President Trump Pardons Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio



Wow, that Joe?  

"Everything" I had read said Trump was not going to pardon him. 

Huh.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 25, 2017)

Everything I read prior to the election said that Candidate Trump wasn't going to win.  ;)


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 25, 2017)

touché


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 25, 2017)

Gorka is out, apparently.

Got to be getting close to something like 100% turnover in the administration.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 25, 2017)

He is just emptying the swamp of people he brought in to empty it back out...

Elect a clown expect a circus folks. That is what our President is, a clown. Not too long ago there were posts on here and in other places about "bread and circuses.". All we have now is the circus. Unless of course the bread is our constant need to be offended, and transgressed against...


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 25, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Controversial former sheriff Joe Arpaio.  To be honest, I didn't see this one coming.  President Trump Pardons Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio



I believe the President hinted very strongly at a pardon at his Phoenix rally.  Granted, if you start believing what the President says you're a safe bet to be disappointed but I think he telegraphed this one fairly substantially.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 25, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> He is just emptying the swamp of people he brought in to empty it back out...
> 
> Elect a clown expect a circus folks. That is what our President is, a clown. Not too long ago there were posts on here and in other places about "bread and circuses.". All we have now is the circus. Unless of course the bread is our constant need to be offended, and transgressed against...


It's quite clear that John Kelly is getting it done.  It's sad that we needed to bring in a 4 Star General to put together a good staff.  But this is the kind of shit you get to deal with when you hand out positions via patronage and not merit.  Oh and don't worry, I'm quite sure Obama had to deal with the same shit in his first 6 months, Bush before him, Clinton before him.  Pretty much every president.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 26, 2017)

Yeah, the Arpaio pardon was telegraphed pretty heavily.  Sheriff Joe was one of candidate Trump's first endorsements, and with the value he places on "loyalty" it was pretty much inevitable.

As an aside, I'm super glad that Gorka is out.  Now all that's left is Steven Miller and Jared Kushner.  Maybe this administration will begin to look like a real presidency instead of a collection of Breitbart circus freaks.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 26, 2017)

If you're curious, here's a twitter thread with a few of the things that make Sherrif Joe a huge piece of shit

Twitter


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 26, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> It's quite clear that John Kelly is getting it done.  It's sad that we needed to bring in a 4 Star General to put together a good staff.  But this is the kind of shit you get to deal with when you hand out positions via patronage and not merit.  Oh and don't worry, I'm quite sure Obama had to deal with the same shit in his first 6 months, Bush before him, Clinton before him.  Pretty much every president.


Like, in isolated incidents (as in, other presidents have replaced people soon after election) or are you saying those presidents turned over staff like Pres Trump has? Because I don't believe I remember that happening nearly at all- let alone what has to be double digit firings at this point. 

Found an article outlining those that were fired, quit, replaced. 

It's a lot, and I don't think it's on par with other recent presidents.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 26, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Like, in isolated incidents (as in, other presidents have replaced people soon after election) or are you saying those presidents turned over staff like Pres Trump has? Because I don't believe I remember that happening nearly at all- let alone what has to be double digit firings at this point.
> 
> Found an article outlining those that were fired, quit, replaced.
> 
> It's a lot, and I don't think it's on par with other recent presidents.



A couple things, I'm sure it's usually a grip.  But like this?  The amount of Microscopes on this administration Vs. others is immense.  Partially because of outrage and mostly because of our current times.  The amount is only magnified by the microscope.  However, I think the true difference is the positions these people were in versus the actual quantity of personnel.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 26, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> A couple things, I'm sure it's usually a grip.  But like this?  The amount of Microscopes on this administration Vs. others is immense.  Partially because of outrage and mostly because of our current times.  The amount is only magnified by the microscope.  *However, I think the true difference is the positions these people were in versus the actual quantity of personnel. *


I don't agree with that at all. The initial statement, _"I think this happens with every administration", _I think is incorrect. I think the amount of firings, replacements and resignations is way higher than anything we have seen.

The "sign of the times" argument doesn't really work. Pres Trump's entire campaign revolved around being a political outsider, someone who was going to put the right people in the right places, political norms be damned. He did that and (it appears) failed miserably. Unless you want to admit that Pres Trump is EXTREMELY concerned with American opinon of him and not so alpha male as everyone insists. Slightest bit of pushback and he hits the eject button. 

To the bolded; do you mean the quality of personnel was good, but the positions they were put in were wrong? I am willing to agree only because that means we get to agree Pres Trump has no idea what he's doing and lost great people because of his shitty management.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 26, 2017)

Verbiage was wrong.  I would say type of position.  I think that in any organization that gets staffed through patronage you will have significant turnover, when those people fail they get fire.  Donnie Ts problem was that he gave positions to complete baffoons whom had no business being there and now he's taken a play out of Jed Bartlett's administration and installed a cabinet secretary as CoS.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 26, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Verbiage was wrong.  I would say type of position.  I think that in any organization that gets staffed through patronage you will have significant turnover, when those people fail they get fire.  Donnie Ts problem was that he gave positions to complete baffoons whom had no business being there and now he's taken a play out of Jed Bartlett's administration and installed a cabinet secretary as CoS.


Fair enough. I'm sticking to my initial points- it's more than we've seen probably ever, and the onus of why rests squarely on Pres Trump's shoulders. 

For an expert businessman, supposedly adept at creating high performance teams, he's really crappy at it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 26, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Fair enough. I'm sticking to my initial points- it's more than we've seen probably ever, and the onus of why rests squarely on Pres Trump's shoulders.
> 
> For an expert businessman, supposedly adept at creating high performance teams, he's really crappy at it.


He selected a staff that was only going to create one thing, a dumpster fire.  But I suppose if we recall his campaign was full of political amateurs as well, and that dumpster fire won an election.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 26, 2017)

What is that they say about selection being the easiest part?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 26, 2017)

Part of the problem may have been that no one, including him, thought he was going to win.  I heard Secretary Clinton had a pretty extensive list of highly qualified, vetted individuals ready to step in after her inevitable election.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 27, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Yeah, the Arpaio pardon was telegraphed pretty heavily.  Sheriff Joe was one of candidate Trump's first endorsements, and with the value he places on "loyalty" it was pretty much inevitable.



As a lot of people seem to be pointing out over the weekend, the Arpaio pardon also sends a message to all of Trumps associates currently caught up in the Mueller investigation. That pardons are a possibility and Trump isn't too worried about playing by the rules when it comes to issuing them and look after people who are loyal to him.

Reduces any kind of leverage the Mueller investigation may try and use with people who aren't cooperating.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 27, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Part of the problem may have been that no one, including him, thought he was going to win.  I heard Secretary Clinton had a pretty extensive list of highly qualified, vetted individuals ready to step in after her inevitable election.


So the problem here is that he was woefully unprepared from the jump? I don't really like that as an answer. 

In this case, I would have much preferred HRCs actions as opposed to our presidents. If we assume you're right, Mara, and she actually pretended like she cared about winning the election and prepared.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 27, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> So the problem here is that he was woefully unprepared from the jump? I don't really like that as an answer.
> 
> In this case, I would have much preferred HRCs actions as opposed to our presidents. If we assume you're right, Mara, and she actually pretended like she cared about winning the election and prepared.



I think that was one of the core arguments during the election - HRC is an experience professional who has prepared for the office and Candidate Trump is an unprepared narcissist with little inclination towards study of any topic, much less the Presidency.  I think that was one of the key reasons for HRC's 'victories' in the debates.  However, the way it worked out is enough of the electorate didn't agree with that argument - or found other arguments convincing - and voted President Trump into office.  I'd like to think many of those folks are having second thoughts about their decision but polling doesn't support that conclusion.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 27, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> So the problem here is that he was woefully unprepared from the jump? I don't really like that as an answer.
> 
> In this case, I would have much preferred HRCs actions as opposed to our presidents. If we assume you're right, Mara, and she actually pretended like she cared about winning the election and prepared.



Not just Candidate Trump, but the rest of the Republican Party who would have sided with him and helped him prep if... well, there are a lot of "ifs."  I'm sure he had people in mind, but he might have made different decisions.  "if."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 27, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I think that was one of the core arguments during the election - HRC is an experience professional who has prepared for the office and Candidate Trump is an unprepared *narcissist* with little inclination towards study of any topic, much less the Presidency.  I think that was one of the key reasons for HRC's 'victories' in the debates.  However, the way it worked out is enough of the electorate didn't agree with that argument - or found other arguments convincing - and voted President Trump into office.  I'd like to think many of those folks are having second thoughts about their decision but polling doesn't support that conclusion.


Because Hillary wasn't a narcissist? The Senate seat was gifted off the Tammany hall machine.  The Sec State position was patronage in which she did very poor at.

Now, was her staff more put together, probably, the Clinton Machine (Bill) knows how to get things done.

The Sheriff Arpaio pardoning was kind of dumb, needed to let the appeals process play out.  But the man is 83.  If Obama is gonna commute Pvt Manning's sentence, than Arpaio was going to get a pardon from a Republican President.


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> So the problem here is that he was woefully unprepared from the jump? I don't really like that as an answer.
> 
> In this case, I would have much preferred HRCs actions as opposed to our presidents. If we assume you're right, Mara, and* she actually pretended like she cared about winning the election and prepared*.



The Rust Belt states who never saw her campaign would beg to differ. I don't think she cared, by all accounts I've found she and some (emphasis there) of her senior staff thought her victory was a lock.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 27, 2017)

AWP said:


> The Rust Belt states who never saw her campaign would beg to differ. I don't think she cared, by all accounts I've found she and some (emphasis there) of her senior staff thought her victory was a lock.


I'll concede that 100%.

With the caveat that I don't care if she cared. If she assembled a better staff and was able to make a cabinet and staff that immediately impacted the American public and we could avoid 8 months of stalemate due to mismanagement, I don't actually give a shit if she "cared". 

It's a very consequentialist argument- do I actually care if she personally cared about the rust belt, if she compiled the best possible cabinet and actually benefitted the American people the most? Nope.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 28, 2017)

Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, Clinton, John Kerry...talk about all star cabinet. :wall:


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 29, 2017)

Codename Charlie:


----------



## nobodythank you (Sep 1, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> The FBI thinks it's found the person who leaked top secret intelligence about Russia
> 
> What a winner of a name...
> 
> Glad one source of a leak has been arrested. Many more to go.



*Air Force veteran in leak case wants FBI admission suppressed*


> Winner's defense attorneys filed a court motion Tuesday asking the judge to suppress any comments she made to the FBI in that interview because agents never read Winner her Miranda rights...Though she had not yet been formally arrested, Winner's attorneys said, she had every reason to believe she was in custody as she was questioned in a room of her apartment by two agents standing in front of the door.



Welp, there goes that case down the toilet. You would think America's finest G-Men would know something so simple when questioning a suspect. :wall: Many a case have failed because a suspect was not read Miranda, and their exit was blocked, or where it appeared they were not free to go while being questioned.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 1, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> *Air Force veteran in leak case wants FBI admission suppressed*
> 
> 
> Welp, there goes that case down the toilet. You would think America's finest G-Men would know something so simple when questioning a suspect. :wall: Many a case have failed because a suspect was not read Miranda, and their exit was blocked, or where it appeared they were not free to go while being questioned.



I don't know, I've been indoc'ing at NSA this week for my current assignment.  They've toughened up considerably after Snowden and the rash of other traitors like Winner this past year.  Even if the FBI espionage act case ends up being weak I think they've got several other avenues to pursue - both administrative and criminal.  Plus, I think the physical evidence in that case (only 6 people printed the document sent to the newspaper) was very strong.

It's unfortunate we (the IC) are only cracking down on this stuff now that we've had Billions in losses to these people but better late than never IMO.


----------



## nobodythank you (Sep 1, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I don't know, I've been indoc'ing at NSA this week for my current assignment.  They've toughened up considerably after Snowden and the rash of other traitors like Winner this past year.  Even if the FBI espionage act case ends up being weak I think they've got several other avenues to pursue - both administrative and criminal.  Plus, I think the physical evidence in that case (only 6 people printed the document sent to the newspaper) was very strong.
> 
> It's unfortunate we (the IC) are only cracking down on this stuff now that we've had Billions in losses to these people but better late than never IMO.


True, though it does raise the difficulty in proving the case since the admission is likely to be thrown out. It also gives the defense room to maneuver for a better plea deal.  Overall, it was sloppy of them to do that and jeopardize the case, based on the available information of course.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 1, 2017)

I fuckin love our new first lady, she is hot as hell...and when she speaks, good god!


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 1, 2017)

Aren't we jumping to conclusions? I have done tons of out of custody interviews that don't require Miranda...OF COURSE the defense is going to attack the admission of the statement, it's very damaging to his client.  All part of the the game of criminal law.


----------



## nobodythank you (Sep 1, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Aren't we jumping to conclusions? I have done tons of out of custody interviews that don't require Miranda...OF COURSE the defense is going to attack the admission of the statement, it's very damaging to his client.  All part of the the game of criminal law.


I don't think it is much of a jump. While a standard tactic by the defense, Miranda 101 (at least in the Florida academy system a decade ago) taught to make sure everyone understood what triggers Miranda and how not using it can appear. While Miranda is not necessary all of the time, if it isn't used, care must be taken to remove (as much as reasonable) the appearance of being in custody if questioned. Part of any investigation is to ensure its integrity and remove as many options as possible that are available to the defense. Hence the reason for yearly training and up to date policies. 

I would also note that I did mention that the conclusion is based on the available information. I am, nor have I ever been a super sleuth, but as with many professions, having a strong foundation in the basics helps to interpret data. I freely admit I don't have all the information, none of us likely do.


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 1, 2017)

Agreed, but we are only hearing the defense attorneys side.....we won't hear the Governments interview details in the media, as it should be. I think it is unfair to say the G-men screwed up at this stage and saying the admission is likely to be thrown out.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 2, 2017)

I believe this story word-for-word. 

Is former Apprentice star Omarosa next to be fired? | Daily Mail Online

But The Daily Beast is reporting that she has instead earned a reputation among her West Wing colleagues as someone who has created unnecessary distractions for her boss by promoting 'gossipy' stories about palace intrigue, Republicans in Congress, and media personalities.

'When Gen. Kelly is talking about clamping down on access to the Oval, she's patient zero,' a source close to the Trump administration said.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 2, 2017)

I thought this NYT piece was interesting (it's quoted in @Ooh-Rah's post), credible, and terrifying (though exactly what anyone who watches the President would expect): Forceful Chief of Staff Grates on Trump, and the Feeling Is Mutual

It seems to me an interesting - but not rewarding - ethical case senior military officers have made for themselves in the administration.  They have lent President Trump their credibility and competence - bolstering his credibility across the board and giving him some rare functional enclaves inside the executive.  However, the President's character has proven to be almost impossible to influence - so these men's influence is almost totally limited to decreasing the damage the President does versus actually progressing policies.

EDIT: Also meant to mention I still wonder at their argument about 'duty' to serve.  I definitely get we don't choose our boss in the military and it's a huge part of our job to help make them successful regardless of our feelings about them.  But, that's in a military or national security context - where the policies, procedures, duties, and responsibilities they are executing are in line with organizational objectives.  In a political context the President is deciding all those things himself.  No one would argue you need to support a boss in the military who is doing unethical or immoral things - and there's a strong argument to say you should oppose them when they're doing stupid things.  So, I think it's very difficult for these senior military leaders to argue at some point - as I know at least GEN Mattis has done - that they are just 'serving the best they can as is their duty.'  It is more accurate to say, IMO, they have chosen to support the policies, views, and ultimately character of the President.  I think more and more evidence is stacking up that's going to lead them to actively support a bunch of stuff they might not like being associated with.  Also, if you are making the argument you're serving out of a sense of duty and not 'deciding' policies themselves - thus limiting your agency and culpability - I think articles like this show they're doing a bad job.  If you're really going to serve as a subordinate - in a military sense - I think the onus is on you to execute your bosses intent, as long as it is moral, legal, and ethical - and resign if you cannot.  I don't think a part of that ethic is to slow-roll, undercut, or fail to comply.  I mentioned before it makes me very uncomfortable to see senior military leaders not acknowledge and execute Presidential guidance - even when it's fucked up, stupid, and poorly done.  Civilian control of the military is a core tenet of the republic.  It seems to me these senior military leaders want to have it both ways - they want to be able to manipulate in order to influence but they don't want to face any of the consequences for poor behavior because 'they're just doing their duty.'  I don't think that's an argument that's going to hold up over time.

I think history - even without a long reflection time - is going to be very unkind to these senior military leaders and I wonder at the impact on the flag officer ranks after this administration.  I think GEN Kelly could have had a sympathetic biographer if he had just been the DHS head during the administration - but now that is impossible.  Each of these senior military leaders have fashioned themselves into active enabler of the President - tying themselves intimately to his personal and professional flaws.  Currently they're all getting a lot of credit for being the 'sane' and 'reasonable' members of the cabinet.  But, as those immediate crises pass that goodwill is going to evaporate IMO.

I think LTG McMaster's 'Dereliction of Duty' treatise that got him so much praise as a more junior officer is going to end up as a massive monument to irony.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 2, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> *I think history - even without a long reflection time - is going to be very unkind to these senior military leaders*



Not sure I agree. The media, by and large, has been pretty complimentary and sympathetic to General Kelly, praising his administrative and organizational leadership while working for a man who arguably is the antithesis of restraint and discipline. I honestly think he is respected by all but a few, perhaps grudgingly, but respected all the same. I also think Kelly & Trump will be parting ways before the year is up.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 2, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Not sure I agree. The media, by and large, has been pretty complimentary and sympathetic to General Kelly, praising his administrative and organizational leadership while working for a man who arguably is the antithesis of restraint and discipline. I honestly think he is respected by all but a few, perhaps grudgingly, but respected all the same. I also think Kelly & Trump will be parting ways before the year is up.



I think all the 'Generals' working for President Trump have received mostly positive media (with the notable exception of Brietbart affiliates and anyone who will listen to Roger Stone).  What I am saying is that is a reflection of the chaos and dearth of decency that is the administration - that over time those guys have put their reputation and legacy into a dumpster fire.  Like any prediction time will tell.  I also thought no way President Trump would get elected so shows how well my predictions pan out.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 2, 2017)

Everyone has a duty to serve, most politicians do not do their duty.  Hell, I'd say that a lot of our senior officers are not doing their duty with the amount if assholes getting caught up in sex scandals.  If the POTUS asks you to serve, you roger up, because of the office.  Not because of the man sitting in the chair. Full Stop.  Duty is a very high standard to meet, I've seen a way too many not do their duty these days than have.


----------



## nobodythank you (Sep 2, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Everyone has a duty to serve, most politicians do not do their duty.  Hell, I'd say that a lot of our senior officers are not doing their duty with the amount if assholes getting caught up in sex scandals.  If the POTUS asks you to serve, you roger up, because of the office.  Not because of the man sitting in the chair. Full Stop.  Duty is a very high standard to meet, I've seen a way too many not do their duty these days than have.


Hard disagree. Your duty is to the people. Part of that duty is recognizing if you will be unable to discharge that duty to the best of your ability because of your feelings toward that leader. Otherwise you (general not specific) become a mindless automaton. 

Simply put, if you are ordered to do something (legal and moral) then you do it because it is your duty whether you like it or not. If the POTUS asks you..aka requests... you do something then it becomes a request and subject to refusal. Splitting hairs maybe, but an important distinction nevertheless. That's why they ask you to serve versus order you to serve. We still have choices to make as to whether to serve or not. You swear an oath to follow the orders of the Chief Executive, not the requests.


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2017)

Being on Trump's cabinet may garner some childish guilt by association, but for a guy like Mattis? The wheels would have to utterly fall off of his character for his reputation to not survive. Intelligent people of any political bent should be able to recognize a man serving his office and country with honor vs. some toady. To quote my man @ke4gde's signature block: You are what you do when it counts.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 2, 2017)

AWP said:


> Being on Trump's cabinet may garner some childish guilt by association, but for a guy like Mattis? The wheels would have to utterly fall off of his character for his reputation to not survive. Intelligent people of any political bent should be able to recognize a man serving his office and country with honor vs. some toady. To quote my man @ke4gde's signature block: You are what you do when it counts.



Time will tell, but I don't agree.  I think SECDEF Mattis is good at generating memes and positive press coverage - an updated Patraeus in many respects.  So far his accomplishments as SECDEF have been to seem like a grown-up next to POTUS, slow-rolling the President's transgender ban, presiding over the same Afghan, Iraq, and Syria strategy/tactics as the last 5 years, and the Navy has been running into a bunch of shit. 

Maybe he's got some transformations in the works, maybe the Trump administration is going to turn things around and start accomplishing things, maybe the Trump administration's many accomplishments hidden from MSM consumers like me will leave a legacy of success.  But, I strongly doubt it.  Maybe this belongs on the SECDEF thread but the more I see of the current SECDEF the more I wonder what all the hero worship is about.  I think the sheen is not going to last once this administration ends.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 3, 2017)

So, now we find ourselves in a weird spot with President Trump.

N Korea tested an ICBM ready (if we are to believe the liberally biased news outlets and their trans-friendly nuclear reporting agenda) hydrogen bomb. 

This is what you get when you have an immature, emotional dude at the helm. President Trump is stuck with his BS 'fire and fury' posturing, and now he's got about -25 outs.

So I'm guessing it'll go: sternly worded tweet storm, outrage, threats, backpedal, inaction.

Although I hear N Korea is lovely this time of year.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 3, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> So, now we find ourselves in a weird spot with President Trump.
> 
> N Korea tested an ICBM ready (if we are to believe the liberally biased news outlets and their trans-friendly nuclear reporting agenda) hydrogen bomb.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure if it's fair to blame President Trump for the development of Nuclear weapons and ICBMs by North Korea - maybe a stronger case for blaming him on why they are doing so much testing and provocation now.  I think when you look at the North Korean Nuclear and ICBM program there's a strong case to be made they were going to do it regardless of outside actions - or at least unless the US/West undertook policy changes that are essentially inconceivable.

There's another argument that says President GW Bush is primarily to blame with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - essentially telling other nations on our shit list that if they wanted to avoid invasion in the future they better have a credible nuclear deterrent.  I can see blaming President Trump for failing to deter the North Koreans from their provocative testing and continued development - but in that case the Obama administration is just as guilty.

To me, the question with the Trump administration becomes their ability to handle this escalation and the crises that will follow.  President Trump has shown himself to be incapable of governing his emotions, ignorant of even the most basic tenets of diplomacy/policy/fact-based-reasoning, and his administration is about 85% back-biting sycophants working their consulting gigs on the government dime and 10% flag officers trying the reign the process into something resembling sanity (5% just seems to be hotties and people who got lost looking for the champagne room).  That dynamic means the potential for misunderstanding, mishandling, escalation, and disaster is huge on the peninsula. 

Some people might say it's the 'Nixon strategy' of making people think you're crazy or willing to do the unthinkable (nuclear holocaust) - and that will bring folks to the negotiating table and/or wring concessions from interested parties.  It didn't work well for President Nixon - who was making calculated moves with an extremely professional diplomatic corps supporting each step.  I find it hard to credit it will somehow be successful with none of that preparation or support staff.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 3, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> To me, the question with the Trump administration becomes their ability to handle this escalation and the crises that will follow.  President Trump has shown himself to be incapable of governing his emotions, ignorant of even the most basic tenets of diplomacy/policy/fact-based-reasoning, and his administration is about 85% back-biting sycophants working their consulting gigs on the government dime and 10% flag officers trying the reign the process into something resembling sanity (5% just seems to be hotties and people who got lost looking for the champagne room).  That dynamic means the potential for misunderstanding, mishandling, escalation, and disaster is huge on the peninsula.


My point exactly. I am in no way saying President Trump is somehow responsible or allowed N Korea to develop weapons, only that his gross mishandling of the situation is starting to be really apparent. 

Tough guy shit talking is best kept to the sports realm and the bar. The fact that our president now has to make good on schoolyard threats backed up with military action or look really weak on an international stage is laughable at best or, as you put it, disastrous at worst.


----------



## Sendero (Sep 3, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Tough guy shit talking is best kept to the sports realm and the bar. The fact that our president now has to make good on schoolyard threats backed up with military action or look really weak on an international stage is laughable at best or, as you put it, disastrous at worst.



I agree with this but how long before a military option is the only option in North Korea?  

That's where I get hung up as we've been heading down this path for a long time.  Another conflict is the last thing I want as a citizen but how long can we allow this to continue?  Tough guy talk or not.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 3, 2017)

Sendero said:


> I agree with this but how long before a military option is the only option in North Korea?
> 
> That's where I get hung up as we've been heading down this path for a long time.  Another conflict is the last thing I want as a citizen but how long can we allow this to continue?  Tough guy talk or not.


I hope it's never needed. Sincerely. But up until it's time to no kidding exercise that option, we should all at least pretend that we are trying the diplomatic route. 

Which is why I don't think our president should default to "biblical" level threats every time someone does something he doesn't like. Doubling down and saying, "appeasement won't work" gives us one option, and that option isn't palatable.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 3, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> My point exactly. I am in no way saying President Trump is somehow responsible or allowed N Korea to develop weapons, only that his gross mishandling of the situation is starting to be really apparent.
> 
> Tough guy shit talking is best kept to the sports realm and the bar. The fact that our president now has to make good on schoolyard threats backed up with military action or look really weak on an international stage is laughable at best or, as you put it, disastrous at worst.



I agree 100%.  I also think it's interesting how the discussion in the US - and in the administration - is all about the US and North Korea, with a little China sprinkled in periodically.  The ROK is one of our staunchest allies in the region and are the ones that will doing 90% of the fighting (and 95% of the dying) in any conflict on the peninsula - yet they are almost never mentioned.


----------



## CDG (Sep 3, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Doubling down and saying, "appeasement won't work" gives us one option, and that option isn't palatable.



To put it mildly. It's not palatable even if NK throws the first punch, and China honors its word to stay on the sidelines. If our President decides we need to strike a first blow, and then China jumps in? Arlington will need to look at expanding, and the civilian populace will become a little more familiar with what the country went through in WW2.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 3, 2017)

Even China and Russia are speaking up.

China and Russia unite in opposition to North Korean nuclear test


----------



## AWP (Sep 4, 2017)

Our foreign policy for the last two decades has been a shit show. Adding the current president to the mix is like giving another pound of bacon to a fat guy with clogged arteries.

Good thing we took care of that Axis of Evil and made the world a safer place....


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 4, 2017)

I guess President Trump did include South Korea in his comments: Why Trump, After North Korea’s Test, Aimed His Sharpest Fire at the South

It's like a reality-show devoted exclusively to the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Also, a very detailed article in the NYT today with tons of on-the-record examples on how draining the swamp is going: How to Get Rich in Trump’s Washington

I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption in general to imagine a political novice without strong ties to the existing political lobbying structure would have an opportunity to rise above the 'swamp' of special interest pay-to-play.  I think this particular candidate should have set off some warning signs - but we are where we are.  Still, I find it hard to understand someone who makes the argument the President is presiding over an incredibly corrupt administration.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 4, 2017)

It's pretty clear the NK is pursuing Nuclear Weapons, they were pursuing it a long time ago and never stopped.  Yeah, we've thrown some economic sanctions on them, helped the people starve to the point that their average height is 3in less than those in SK.  And yet they're still somehow able to come up with the raw materials for munitions and missiles.  So what do we do?


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 4, 2017)

Not seeing a lot of objectivity in this North Korea stuff. I'm sure WaPo and NYT are doing their best...:whatever:

Are we supposed to care about it now more than before? 

I'm still going off that they have had some viable nuclear capability since before 2013. I hate the problem-set and if I never have to work the issue again I will be happy.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 4, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> Not seeing a lot of objectivity in this North Korea stuff. I'm sure WaPo and NYT are doing their best...:whatever:
> 
> Are we supposed to care about it now more than before?
> 
> I'm still going off that they have had some viable nuclear capability since before 2013. I hate the problem-set and if I never have to work the issue again I will be happy.



Multiple tests not only of an increased weapons capability but launchers and ICBMs that can reach the continental United States, coupled with a US administration at the nadir of influence in 50 years upending trade and national security relationships across the globe.  I mean, worry about what you want but yes, now is the time to care more than before.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 5, 2017)

How often did Bush criticize Obama? My memory sucks on this, but I think he did what all Presidents are supposed to do, ride off into the sunset.  Please inform me if that recall is incorrect though.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 5, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Multiple tests not only of an increased weapons capability but launchers and ICBMs that can reach the continental United States, coupled with a US administration at the nadir of influence in 50 years upending trade and national security relationships across the globe.  I mean, worry about what you want but yes, now is the time to care more than before.



Hard disagree. It's going to be resolved by working with the actual NK enabler; regardless of how many people are just now paying attention to this problem. And you're speaking in hyperbole when referring to any supposed damage of trade and national security relationships across the globe. The China trade is directly related to bringing NK back on track.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 5, 2017)

Even if you think 'the' enabler (China is not the only trade relationship NK has - just the main one) is the way to solve the problem - an extremely arguable point considering their inability to curb development and testing so far - I don't understand how a person can honestly believe we are making more progress, have more leverage, and are closer to shifting Chinese positions in the current administration or climate.

The facts of our relationships in Asia include the unilateral cancellation of TPP - something two administrations worked on for almost a decade touching the totality of US trade, diplomatic, and national security relationships in the region; the unilateral exit from the Paris agreement, significant talk by the President of a trade war with China, and twitter tirades by the President against South Korea as an appeaser.  That's not hyperbole, that's just what has happened.  You can believe all those things have been actually increasing our leverage and are about to win us great victories - so many we'll be tired of winning as the President has claimed.  I would not hold out too much hope - and that's pretty consistent from experts who have watched the situation for some time - not just those 'suddenly' interested.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 5, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> Hard disagree. It's going to be resolved by working with the actual NK enabler; regardless of how many people are just now paying attention to this problem. And you're speaking in hyperbole when referring to any supposed damage of trade and national security relationships across the globe. The China trade is directly related to bringing NK back on track.



I generally don't get too involved in political threads. This discussion of N. Korea seems a little more concerning, world wide.

You urging using a NK Enabler, just who would that be? Who has any success in talking down the N. Korean leader to stop his missile and atomic weapons testing program? Just one person who has had success in changing Kim's tack. Who has had success in stopping Kim from promising total destruction of our Nation. I am speaking pretty directly here, no hyperbole.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 5, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I generally don't get too involved in political threads. This discussion of N. Korea seems a little more concerning, world wide.
> 
> You urging using a NK Enabler, just who would that be? Who has any success in talking down the N. Korean leader to stop his missile and atomic weapons testing program? Just one person who has had success in changing Kim's tack. Who has had success in stopping Kim from promising total destruction of our Nation. I am speaking pretty directly here, no hyperbole.



It's China.. always China. NK is only what it is by what China has allowed.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 5, 2017)

That doesn't appear to be the case anymore.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 5, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> It's China.. always China. NK is only what it is by what China has allowed.



Today China has agreed with all sanctions President Trump has suggested. That includes sanctions against anyone trading with N Korea. So far Kim has ignored everyone including China. Who do you suggest next? Keep in mind that Kim is threatening to kill you with a bomb, as soon as he possibly can. What peacefull placating move do you think will stop him? The rest of the world is out of answers, I hope you realize that.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 5, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> That doesn't appear to be the case anymore.



This I agree with BUT China has the power to cut them off and make things a lot more uncomfortable than it already is in NK.  That or take out NK facilities themselves.   And ultimately they can step aside and give blessing to those that will destroy their facilities.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 5, 2017)

That's the thing though- they have been cutting them off.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 5, 2017)

Then how does NK keep producing missiles?


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 5, 2017)

As Putin said, the North Koreans would rather eat grass than give up their nukes.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 5, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> That's the thing though- they have been cutting them off.



They are only now going to cut oil.  The machine will stop moving eventually.  His people already basically live in the dark.


----------



## AWP (Sep 5, 2017)

"Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." Alfred Pennyworth


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 5, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Then how does NK keep producing missiles?



Black market I'd imagine. They don't *just* trade with China. Remember they're well known for drugs and counterfeit money. If they still had the US press they're supposed to have had they could buy whatever they wanted overseas at nearly no cost to themselves.



RackMaster said:


> They are only now going to cut oil.  The machine will stop moving eventually.  His people already basically live in the dark.



Yes but as I understand it China always wanted the people suffering (more so than the food shortages) to be the last resort.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 6, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Yes but as I understand it China always wanted the people suffering (more so than the food shortages) to be the last resort.



I'd say we are in a last resort situation.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 6, 2017)

Yes, which is why they're doing it now.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 6, 2017)

"At the time and manner of our choosing". Beyond that, nothing need be said.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 6, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> They are only now going to cut oil.  The machine will stop moving eventually.  His people already basically live in the dark.



It'll slow down, then either they'll do something 'crazy' again and we'll buy them off by easing sanctions or sending supplies, or it'll turn into a humanitarian disaster which the US will be expected to fix (since we apparently have to solve all of the world's problems), at which time we'll buy them off by easing sanctions or sending supplies.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 6, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> It'll slow down, then either they'll do something 'crazy' again and we'll buy them off by easing sanctions or sending supplies, or it'll turn into a humanitarian disaster which the US will be expected to fix (since we apparently have to solve all of the world's problems), at which time we'll buy them off by easing sanctions or sending supplies.



True but that's the position you guys have willingly put yourselves in for, what, 60 odd years? Though I would argue the major burden would probably be on China with a massive influx of reffos going across the border (since they're such as hell not going south through the DMZ easily).


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 6, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> True but that's the position you guys have willingly put yourselves in for, what, 60 odd years? Though I would argue the major burden would probably be on China with a massive influx of reffos going across the border (since they're such as hell not going south through the DMZ easily).



If it was only "us guys," North Korea would have ceased to exist a long, long time ago.  This is a complex problem with a lot of stakeholders.

Of course refugees will go south, if there's much of a South Korea left.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 6, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> If it was only "us guys," North Korea would have ceased to exist a long, long time ago.  This is a complex problem with a lot of stakeholders.
> 
> Of course refugees will go south, if there's much of a South Korea left.



The "you guys" was in response to you saying you'll be expected to provide everything. I agree there are a lot of parties.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 6, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Today China has agreed with all sanctions President Trump has suggested. That includes sanctions against anyone trading with N Korea. So far Kim has ignored everyone including China. Who do you suggest next? Keep in mind that Kim is threatening to kill you with a bomb, as soon as he possibly can. What peacefull placating move do you think will stop him? The rest of the world is out of answers, I hope you realize that.



This was kind of the point. Leveraging China to start bringing NK back in line. But this is a way more complex issue. People often underestimate the accesses of NK. They have an incredibly active grey market throughout that is left unchecked by the regime to maintain social order, they have free economic zones with the border with china, they have a tourism industry (albeit Americans are stupid enough to entertain at times), and populations with free and continuous access across the border (Chosen Soren and North Koreans in the Yanbian prefecture of China) The entirety of their cyber offense is provided/enabled by the Chinese. 

The real enemy is China. They are the only ones that have actually subverted our economic interests worldwide. NK has saber rattled as a distraction. If they do it enough, we always end up paying them, so why do we believe they are not looking for another payout this time? Because they are getting more advanced? Looks like they are just looking for a bigger payout. Only reason it would backfire is because of the Chinese.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 7, 2017)

Thought the temporary debt deal was interesting, and surprising: Trump Bypasses Republicans to Strike Deal on Debt Limit and Harvey Aid

It doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things - just pushing a fight off 3 months, at a time when a brutal fight would have been damaging to Republicans - but I'd still maintain it's a surprising move by the President.  I think this type of isle-crossing was the most powerful weapon President Trump had in his arsenal for pressuring both sides when he was first elected.  However, I would think it's power has diminished as his support has shrunk further and further to a highly partisan and conservative minority.  Will be interesting to see if this is a trend or a one-off.

I do think from a tactical perspective - irrespective of effective government - it's a trap for Democrats.  It shifts the narrative on the DACA decision and gives the President ammunition to blame the end of DACA on congress's inability to reach a deal vs his administration's decision.  But, if you're the minority party you've got to jump at wins like this when they are offered.  If the President really had smart advisors and a good gameplan he could really get some shit done with deals like this - they would frighten Republicans into line much more than blasting them on Twitter.  But, strategy/discipline/long-game have not been the President's strengths so far IMO.  Of course, if you fast forward a year and there's an immigration deal, tax reform, and some ACA fixes in the works you have to either say I'm wrong and the President did have all those things.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 7, 2017)

I hope whomever is in charge of this guy has a pow wow and puts him in timeout Democrat calls Gen. John Kelly 'a disgrace to the uniform he used to wear'



Il Duce said:


> I do think from a tactical perspective - irrespective of effective government - it's a trap for Democrats.  It shifts the narrative on the DACA decision and gives the President ammunition to blame the end of DACA on congress's inability to reach a deal vs his administration's decision.  But, if you're the minority party you've got to jump at wins like this when they are offered.  If the President really had smart advisors and a good gameplan he could really get some shit done with deals like this - they would frighten Republicans into line much more than blasting them on Twitter.  But, strategy/discipline/long-game have not been the President's strengths so far IMO.  Of course, if you fast forward a year and there's an immigration deal, tax reform, and some ACA fixes in the works you have to either say I'm wrong and the President did have all those things.



A trap eh, can't we just get good governance?


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 7, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> This was kind of the point. Leveraging China to start bringing NK back in line. But this is a way more complex issue. People often underestimate the accesses of NK. They have an incredibly active grey market throughout that is left unchecked by the regime to maintain social order, they have free economic zones with the border with china, they have a tourism industry (albeit Americans are stupid enough to entertain at times), and populations with free and continuous access across the border (Chosen Soren and North Koreans in the Yanbian prefecture of China) The entirety of their cyber offense is provided/enabled by the Chinese.
> 
> The real enemy is China. They are the only ones that have actually subverted our economic interests worldwide. NK has saber rattled as a distraction. If they do it enough, we always end up paying them, so why do we believe they are not looking for another payout this time? Because they are getting more advanced? Looks like they are just looking for a bigger payout. Only reason it would backfire is because of the Chinese.



I believe there are two other countries enabling NK; Iran and Russia. It's not like it has been some giant secret that we are not a fan of the NK regime. Russia has been increasing exports to NK and Iran has been building ties with NK as of late. There's even speculation they are working on a long range missile together.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 7, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Thought the temporary debt deal was interesting, and surprising: Trump Bypasses Republicans to Strike Deal on Debt Limit and Harvey Aid
> 
> It doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things - just pushing a fight off 3 months, at a time when a brutal fight would have been damaging to Republicans - but I'd still maintain it's a surprising move by the President.  I think this type of isle-crossing was the most powerful weapon President Trump had in his arsenal for pressuring both sides when he was first elected.  However, I would think it's power has diminished as his support has shrunk further and further to a highly partisan and conservative minority.  Will be interesting to see if this is a trend or a one-off.
> 
> I do think from a tactical perspective - irrespective of effective government - it's a trap for Democrats.  It shifts the narrative on the DACA decision and gives the President ammunition to blame the end of DACA on congress's inability to reach a deal vs his administration's decision.  But, if you're the minority party you've got to jump at wins like this when they are offered.  If the President really had smart advisors and a good gameplan he could really get some shit done with deals like this - they would frighten Republicans into line much more than blasting them on Twitter.  But, strategy/discipline/long-game have not been the President's strengths so far IMO.  Of course, if you fast forward a year and there's an immigration deal, tax reform, and some ACA fixes in the works you have to either say I'm wrong and the President did have all those things.


Let's be honest.   No one cared about DACA a few days ago and no one will care a few days from now (very few seeming do even now).  Is this the latest thing we're supposed to be outraged about?!  The narrative is being pushed hard.

Frankly, this was one of the very few decisions by the President that I agree with.  I don't really know much about DACA - most people don't - nor do I really care.  What I do know is that it was implemented by Obama a few years ago via executive order, just like his Title IX guidelines (which are also being tossed aside).   Our system is not supposed to be governed via executive orders.   Laws need to move through the legislative branch.  It's for this reason I agree with Trump (even if that's not the true driver behind his actions).   The more executive orders we get rid of, the better.

If some deals are made through the proper channels to get shit done, then great.   That's how it's supposed to work.  Unlike other politicians, I'm not sure Trumps goal is to be on everyone's Christmas card list.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 7, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Let's be honest.   No one cared about DACA a few days ago and no one will care a few days from now (very few seeming do even now).  Is this the latest thing we're supposed to be outraged about?  Really?!
> 
> Frankly, this was one of the very few decisions by the President that I agree with.  I don't really know much about DACA - most people don't - nor do I really care.  What I do know is that it was implemented by Obama a few years ago via executive order, just like his Title IX guidelines (which are also being tossed aside).   Our system is not supposed to be governed via executive orders.   Laws need to move through the legislative branch.  It's for this reason I agree with Trump (even if that's not the true driver behind his actions).   The more executive orders we get rid of, the better.  If some deals are made the proper through channels to get shit done, then great.   That's how it's supposed to work.



I don't agree, I think the 800,000 people registered as 'dreamers' care, as do their families and co-workers.  I think most folks who care about immigration in general - which is a sizable minority of folks in the US with family/friends affected by immigration, and a significant minority of businesses (including for-profit colleges/universities) care about immigration policy and the message sent to possible immigrants abroad because it affects their lives and/or revue streams in the case of business.

I take your point that it doesn't dominate the political landscape the way healthcare, tax reform, and the environment do but I think for the people that care about that stuff it's a powerful issue and there are enough people in the US who care to make it a significant political issue.  I also hear what you're saying on executive action vs legislative solutions but I wonder how much of that is the nature of partisanship - though I think you're correct that President Obama embraced unilateral executive action late in his Presidency and we've unleashed Pandora's box with it.

I think for President Trump it was a smart maneuver politically - though I don't agree it was the right decision from a policy perspective.  If congress fails to come up with a deal to extend or make permanent DACA the President has pleased his base and can say on immigration 'I left the decision to congress, I didn't force anyone to leave.'  If congress does come to some sort of compromise he can say 'look at my awesome art of the deal skills - I forced congress to work by the application of pressure.'  Still, I think at this point those types of arguments only provide cover for those ideologically inclined to support him.  He's not getting much benefit of the doubt from anyone else.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 7, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I don't agree, I think the 800,000 people registered as 'dreamers' care, as do their families and co-workers.  I think most folks who care about immigration in general - which is a sizable minority of folks in the US with family/friends affected by immigration, and a significant minority of businesses (including for-profit colleges/universities) care about immigration policy and the message sent to possible immigrants abroad because it affects their lives and/or revue streams in the case of business.


Less than 1%.  While it pertains to immigration, DACA was relatively new and it wasn't a law.  I just don't see many people really caring.



Il Duce said:


> I take your point that it doesn't dominate the political landscape the way healthcare, tax reform, and the environment do but I think for the people that care about that stuff it's a powerful issue and there are enough people in the US who care to make it a significant political issue.  I also hear what you're saying on executive action vs legislative solutions but I wonder how much of that is the nature of partisanship - though I think you're correct that President Obama embraced unilateral executive action late in his Presidency and we've unleashed Pandora's box with it.


Our system is not supposed to move at breakneck speed, much to our frustrations sometimes.  Our forefathers knew what they were doing.  If an issue is bogged down in the process, then that's probably the way it should be.  Politicians (on all sides) will have to learn the art of compromise at some point or become comfortable with the stalemate.  Using executive order to circumvent the process is unsat.



Il Duce said:


> I think for President Trump it was a smart maneuver politically - though I don't agree it was the right decision from a policy perspective.  If congress fails to come up with a deal to extend or make permanent DACA the President has pleased his base and can say on immigration 'I left the decision to congress, I didn't force anyone to leave.'  If congress does come to some sort of compromise he can say 'look at my awesome art of the deal skills - I forced congress to work by the application of pressure.'  Still, I think at this point those types of arguments only provide cover for those ideologically inclined to support him.  He's not getting much benefit of the doubt from anyone else.


Agree, there wasn't much to lose from Trump's perspective.  Get rid of things that aren't really laws, especially when they add layers of bureaucracy.  Force these issues back to the legislative branch for the peoples's representatives to take action.  If they feel strongly about it, they can move something forward - they way it should be done.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 7, 2017)

Removing DACA was the RIGHT thing to do.  It should never have been put in place.


----------



## Frank S. (Sep 7, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Our system is not supposed to move at breakneck speed, much to our frustrations sometimes. Our forefathers knew what they were doing. If an issue is bogged down in the process, then that's probably the way it should be. .



They did not and could not conceive of hand held devices opening the world via liquid crystal displays  powered by tiny weaponized cat farts, effectively moving the rule of public opinion to a challenging status against the rule of law, proving the absolute truth of the law of the lowest common denominator.
Not what mathematics intended, surely.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 7, 2017)

So what's your point?  Every other country in the world controls its immigration.


----------



## Frank S. (Sep 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> So what's your point?  Every other country in the world controls its immigration.



If that's me you're asking, I have to say sure, every country controls its immigration or attempts to. And on the issue of DACA, I disagree with the President. But immigration as a topic deserves its own thread, if not its own website so I'll leave it there.
My point had to do with the fact that while our system, as Blizzard pointed out is not designed to move at breakneck speed, technology is changing that. Now, as to whether that's a good thing or not, that depends in part of the importance one attaches to checks and balances.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 8, 2017)

Frank S. said:


> If that's me you're asking, I have to say sure, every country controls its immigration or attempts to. And on the issue of DACA, I disagree with the President. But immigration as a topic deserves its own thread, if not its own website so I'll leave it there.
> My point had to do with the fact that while our system, as Blizzard pointed out is not designed to move at breakneck speed, technology is changing that. Now, as to whether that's a good thing or not, that depends in part of the importance one attaches to checks and balances.



You disagree with the President that something as significant as immigration should be congressionally mandated? I'd like to think that the President shouldn't be making legislation, or at least limiting it to extreme situations.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 8, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> You disagree with the President that something as significant as immigration should be congressionally mandated? I'd like to think that the President shouldn't be making legislation, or at least limiting it to extreme situations.


I love this thread. 

When Frank said, "I disagree with the president on DACA", did you take that to mean, "Immigration is extremely significant. I don't think it should be congressionally mandated." 

Or do you think Frank could have been talking specifically about this current DACA discussion? Just the 800k dreamers and President Trump's actions concerning that issue?


----------



## Frank S. (Sep 8, 2017)

For the record, it's the latter.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 8, 2017)

DACA was signed via EO, which was unconstitutional (as it pertains to immigration).  It _de facto_ made law, and only Congress can make law.

I am not sure what the issue is.

You can question the morality/ethics of POTUS's decision, but not the legality.  It is right to send to Congress to fix.

Edited to add:  If POTUS _should_ have the authority to change immigration by EO, then have Congress make it so.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 8, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I love this thread.
> 
> When Frank said, "I disagree with the president on DACA", did you take that to mean, "Immigration is extremely significant. I don't think it should be congressionally mandated."
> 
> Or do you think Frank could have been talking specifically about this current DACA discussion? Just the 800k dreamers and President Trump's actions concerning that issue?



It's the same thing though, not just an over simplification of the issue. Forcing Congress to act on this issue; while taking the morality hit from the people that already despise him. I feel it's better for the country to get the body of government responsible of legislation to legislate. His actions make sense of you are bit objective. He's also supporting his base by doing something on immigration.


----------



## Frank S. (Sep 8, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> You disagree with the President that something as significant as immigration should be congressionally mandated? I'd like to think that the President shouldn't be making legislation, or at least limiting it to extreme situations.



No. I disagree with _you_ that his position on DACA is driven by a desire to give control back to Congress over immigration legislation.



			
				Devildoc said:
			
		

> I am not sure what the issue is. You can question the morality/ethics of POTUS's decision, but not the legality. It is right to send to Congress to fix.



I have no horse in this, there is nothing to beat. After that, here is only _my_ opinion, not statement of fact:
any man/politician who utters expressions like "believe me" as often as the president does is being a poor liar.
Any man who talks of building a "beautiful wall" just makes me wonder what the comrades  were selling in Berlin in '63.
I remember them _and_ walls.
Certainly, it is legal. This isn't Facebook/Twitter/Snapchat and I will remember seven years from now, every bit. Feeling the way I do about it doesn't mean I care and neither should you. This'll be over soon enough, it's true.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 8, 2017)

Frank S. said:


> I have no horse in this, there is nothing to beat. After that, here is only _my_ opinion, not statement of fact:
> any man/politician who utters expressions like "believe me" as often as the president does is being a poor liar.
> Any man who talks of building a "beautiful wall" just makes me wonder what the comrades  were selling in Berlin in '63.
> I remember them _and_ walls.
> Certainly, it is legal. This isn't Facebook/Twitter/Snapchat and I will remember seven years from now, every bit. Feeling the way I do about it doesn't mean I care and neither should you. This'll be over soon enough, it's true.



My comment wasn't directed to anyone; certainly, not at you.  My take re: EO is they need to do away will all of the illegal/unconstitutional* EOs, R or D, doesn't matter.  For me the topic right _now_ happens to be DACA.  I am under no illusion Trump did this for that reason and not for his own politics' sake.  But regarding EOs, any president that does this is administering by fiat; congress won't give you what you want?  Fine, I'll take my ball and go home.

But here's what's funny:  the same people clamoring that POTUS does not have the right to suspend the program are the same who said POTUS can't determine what refugees enter the country from the ME.  They are using their argument against themselves.

*Right now legal people debate the legality of it.  That's fine.  Presidents have had the authority to allow in certain classes of immigrants (on a temporary basis), so that's fine (though I disagree with it).  But DACA so far as I know wasn't designed to be temporary, which is the linchpin of its legality.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 8, 2017)

Earlier in this thread, I believe, we had people defending the travel ban because the POTUS has the ability to limit immigration. Rewind to Obama doing it with DACA it is overreach by the executive. Undoing it or issuing an EO against immigration is then ok?


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Earlier in this thread, I believe, we had people defending the travel ban because the POTUS has the ability to limit immigration. Rewind to Obama doing it with DACA it is overreach by the executive. Undoing it or issuing an EO against immigration is then ok?



Right or wrong (with either of those actions), this is one reason immigration needs to go through Congress.  Of course there will always be exceptions, and I do not profess to be smart enough to know how to deal with those.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 8, 2017)

It doesn't address the legal argument - though I have read plenty of credible sources that President Obama's actions on DACA were perfectly legal - but I think this gives a good short summary of the costs of the President's decision on DACA: The mind-boggling cost of DACA repeal

It also takes a strong values stance against the decision - so if that bias invalidates the fiscal arguments for you skip it.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 8, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> It doesn't address the legal argument - though I have read plenty of credible sources that President Obama's actions on DACA were perfectly legal - but I think this gives a good short summary of the costs of the President's decision on DACA: The mind-boggling cost of DACA repeal
> 
> It also takes a strong values stance against the decision - so if that bias invalidates the fiscal arguments for you skip it.



That article is completely based on Congress being unable to come up with a solution. Granted, with their track record, is a likely scenario. Trump has said he doesn't want to deport any of the "dreamers" and I don't see why we wouldn't believe that's the case.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Earlier in this thread, I believe, we had people defending the travel ban because the POTUS has the ability to limit immigration. Rewind to Obama doing it with DACA it is overreach by the executive. Undoing it or issuing an EO against immigration is then ok?


The US Code give the president the ability to shut off immigration.  Based on what I've read, it does not give the power of EO to stop people from getting deported.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 8, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The US Code give the president the ability to shut off immigration.  Based on what I've read, it does not give the power of EO to stop people from getting deported.



I think you may be wrong on this. I believe the Supreme Court has supported the discretionary enforcement of laws by the Executive branch. I might be missing the connection, but it sounds relevant.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 9, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> That article is completely based on Congress being unable to come up with a solution. Granted, with their track record, is a likely scenario. Trump has said he doesn't want to deport any of the "dreamers" and I don't see why we wouldn't believe that's the case.



I don't know, I have trouble believing the President's policy statements on just about anything.  Maybe that has to do with my one biases, but I think a lot of it has to do with his actions on his stated policies.  I think too the executive can't say if congress doesn't come to a deal that now they aren't going to enforce the law - or that somehow the executive has washed it's hands of the whole thing.  But, I guess we'll know in 6 months or less.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 17, 2017)

I thought that Clinton golf ball gif tweet was pretty childish.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 17, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I thought that Clinton golf ball gif tweet was pretty childish.



 Every time I think maybe someone within the White House has been able to figure out a way to keep *Pres* Trump from stepping on his own D, he does something like this.

I need to go back and do some more reading, but I thought I had saw that he had tweeted something about  England knowing in advance about the recent terrorist attack?

  True or not, you just can't do shit like that when you are President of United States.

**Admin Edit**


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 17, 2017)

Childish, but the loser is on tour, and as we've seen from these two idiots...this will go on for awhile.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 17, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> as we've seen from these two idiots..



 Whom are you referring to?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Whom are you referring to?


Hillary and President Trump.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 17, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Hillary and Trump.


Sir, I just don't get it.

I don't like the president's views, stance, actions or anything else really. But he is the president. His name/title is President Trump. Or Mr. President, or something befitting the office. 

I don't like it, and I would prefer to speak my mind 100% of the time, but I don't because the office deserves respect and that's the standard here and I am in the military and beholden to certain aspects of decorum. I believe commissioned officers are as well.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Every time I think maybe someone within the White House has been able to figure out a way to keep Trump from stepping on his own D, he does something like this.
> 
> I need to go back and do some more reading, but I thought I had saw that he had tweeted something about  England knowing in advance about the recent terrorist attack?
> 
> True or not, you just can't do shit like that when you are President of United States.



Yes, I read that one yesterday. If it were true it would have meant they'd have picked him up before the attack...not at the border.


----------



## CQB (Sep 18, 2017)

Low level fucktard, who couldn't even get the chemistry right (thank fuck). I'm not in front of all the information but it always looks clearer in the rear view mirror. POTUS looks to be playing to the crowd which makes those with the attention span of a goldfish appreciate his beating up on a) Brit intel; 
 not forgetting to mention Iraq for which the Brits had a metric fuck tonne dating back to Lawrence, which somehow was disregarded) and b) Muslims generally. FFS the majority aren't the enemy. I'd have thought with Bannon gone he would stop treading on his cock.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 20, 2017)

Ummm...."HELLO BEARING!"


Internet goes crazy for John Kelly during Trump speech  | Daily Mail Online


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 21, 2017)

AJ+ put a video on Facebook with Trump and Rouhani's speech next to each other.

The comments section full of idiots was really poor to see.  Our populace is extremely ignorant.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 21, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> AJ+ put a video on Facebook with Trump and Rouhani's speech next to each other.
> 
> The comments section full of idiots was really poor to see.  Our populace is extremely ignorant.


Man, what insightful commentary on an article that you didn't link to


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 21, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Man, what insightful commentary on an article that you didn't link to


I told you where to go, but figured your facebook feed is riddled with such propaganda.  But here you go. AJ+


----------



## Polar Bear (Sep 21, 2017)

Damn was hoping this tread did not make it through the upgrade. Have fun beating up each other


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 23, 2017)

Another day, another twitter escalation. Trump escalates a war of words with North Korea, calling leader Kim a 'madman'

I really don't think that's productive. As the article mentions, if KJU feels like he has lost too much face he will have to make it up- that's the East Asian way. How that would manifest itself would remain to be seen.


----------



## CDG (Sep 23, 2017)

I wish the President would stop with the schoolyard level shenanigans.  You're the leader of the most powerful country in the world, and this is how you feel a need to act?  Very disappointing.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 23, 2017)

The North Korea speech I like very much because the UN has been a garbage organization for some time.  Abetting some of the worst regimes in the world when it comes to human rights.  Now that playing to crowd bit in Alabama, wtf Sir!


----------



## Poccington (Sep 23, 2017)

POTUS comes across as every bit as mental as Kim Jong Un these days. Also, he has now declared war on players who don't stand for the national anthem.

It's all a bit mad.


----------



## SaintKP (Sep 23, 2017)

Poccington said:


> POTUS comes across as every bit as mental as Kim Jong Un these days. Also, he has now declared war on players who don't stand for the national anthem.
> 
> It's all a bit mad.



It's exhausting. I'm not going to lie, while I didn't vote and the candidate I wanted didn't make it to the end. I sincerely hoped Trump would be a decent president. However in my opinion he has turned out to be a president with zero tact or diplomatic skills, who is brash and prone to making decisions with little thought or forsight into the potential consequences of his actions.

What's infuriating to me is that at his speech in Alabama and even in Texas it seemed to be more rah rah and cheerleading than actual leadership. Look I fully believe in motivation and positive feel good vibes, but there comes a point where it becomes empty and tone deaf. 

Maybe I'm nitpicking and keeping my expectations to high, or maybe I don't really know what I expected from Trump as president amd should cut him some slack because he's never been in politics or even in a seat of immense power as he is now I don't know. I just hope that he starts acting the way a president of the most powerful country ever seen should act.

Oh and don't get me started on his wanting NFL players who kneel during the anthem fired are you kidding me?!?! Look I don't agree with them and there are many better ways to enforce change than just taking a "brave" stance and not pariticpating but guess what? We live in America and its their right to not stand, I don't like it but as a fellow citizen I need to respect it.

I'm a patriot to the core, I sincerely believe we are the greatest country that currently or has ever existed since the dawn of man. However I'm aware we have a mixed history, we have made mistakes and we will make them in the future as well. But we need to be aware of them and learn from them so we can become better and greater. What he is trying to spread is Nationalism and while there isn't anything wrong with it in small doses. However there is a problem when you aggressively go after people who don't agree with you, when you turn a blind eye to the mistakes we make as a country. That is when problems arise. 

Sorry about ranting like this, I usually try and stay away of political discussions or even the news it's just so frustrating anymore.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 30, 2017)

This week has been really, really bad for President Trump and his administration. I just fully wrapped my head around it but wow... not a lot of silver lining here.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 1, 2017)

The actual muscle movements on the ground in PR have been pretty swift between the MEU and and now JTF on the ground.  More guys deploying through the week.  The spat between the Mayor of San Juan and President Trump appears to be a purely political move on her part.  She's not exactly on the up and up side in her support of characters.  But the fact that he's continuing to respond and lash out on twitter is taking away from the coverage of the actions being executed by said relief task force that has been deployed.  Sir needs to get off twitter, and I don't think he ever will.

My buddy who's super liberal lawyer in the Bay was telling me that I needed to read this tax reform bill, slowly, as if I was drinking a single barrel bourbon because it was well written.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 1, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> This week has been really, really bad for President Trump and his administration. I just fully wrapped my head around it but wow... not a lot of silver lining here.


Yeah.  It takes a really, really cool guy to disparage Puerto Rico because of its debt, as well as the mayor of San Juan, just days after the whole place was absolutely obliterated by a hurricane.

Oh, it also shouldn't surprise anyone that he's at Bedminster right now.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Yeah.  It takes a really, really cool guy to disparage Puerto Rico because of its debt, as well as the mayor of San Juan, just days after the whole place was absolutely obliterated by a hurricane.
> 
> Oh, it also shouldn't surprise anyone that he's at Bedminster right now.


That's certainly one example. 

Healthcare failing (again), the N Korea situation, Kushner's private email server, the insane tax proposal that would benefit President Trump specifically $1.1B (with a B, not a typo) and the "resignation" of multiple high level officials for their private jet travel....

It's hard to stay positive right now. I think that's what I am saying.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 1, 2017)

Amidst all of this chaos, I'm glad that he can take the time to remind us what's really important


----------



## CDG (Oct 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Amidst all of this chaos, I'm glad that he can take the time to remind us what's really important



I will say this, President Trump knows how to play to the voters who put him in office.  Take the average American voter.  What do you think is a bigger concern to them?  Relief efforts in a place they have never been, and may or may not realize is a US territory?  Or seeing pro athletes stand for the national anthem on the NFL Package they pay $X per month for?  I have said it before, and it bears repeating again here; the majority populous of this board "gets it".  They are focused on what's really important, consider 2nd/3rd order effects, care about the big picture, etc.  Your average voter?  I don't think there's near as much of a focus on things that don't directly affect them.  "Goddammit, Jim's son died in IRQ/AFG, and these millionaire athletes can't even stand for the anthem?  That's bullshit.  At least Trump says something about it.  Obama never would have done that."


----------



## CQB (Oct 1, 2017)

It's a bad deal, a very bad deal.


----------



## SaintKP (Oct 1, 2017)

CDG said:


> I will say this, President Trump knows how to play to the voters who put him in office.  Take the average American voter.  What do you think is a bigger concern to them?  Relief efforts in a place they have never been, and may or may not realize is a US territory?  Or seeing pro athletes stand for the national anthem on the NFL Package they pay $X per month for?  I have said it before, and it bears repeating again here; the majority populous of this board "gets it".  They are focused on what's really important, consider 2nd/3rd order effects, care about the big picture, etc.  Your average voter?  I don't think there's near as much of a focus on things that don't directly affect them.  "Goddammit, Jim's son died in IRQ/AFG, and these millionaire athletes can't even stand for the anthem?  That's bullshit.  At least Trump says something about it.  Obama never would have done that."



This is what is scary in my opinion, we've drifted so far from looking at and trying to solve actual problems we as a people just look for the confirmation bias and something to make us feel outraged. I'll admit I can be in that same group from time to time, it's hard to escape it, but a change needs to happen or the problems were experiencing will only grow worse as time goes on until it becomes almost impossible to repair the damage being caused right now.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 1, 2017)

CDG said:


> I will say this, President Trump knows how to play to the voters who put him in office.  Take the average American voter.  What do you think is a bigger concern to them?  Relief efforts in a place they have never been, and may or may not realize is a US territory?  Or seeing pro athletes stand for the national anthem on the NFL Package they pay $X per month for?  I have said it before, and it bears repeating again here; the majority populous of this board "gets it".  They are focused on what's really important, consider 2nd/3rd order effects, care about the big picture, etc.  Your average voter?  I don't think there's near as much of a focus on things that don't directly affect them.  "Goddammit, Jim's son died in IRQ/AFG, and these millionaire athletes can't even stand for the anthem?  That's bullshit.  At least Trump says something about it.  Obama never would have done that."



I think that's what came into focus for me most clearly this last two weeks.  The President, at least on some level, understands what he's doing when he picks these public fights.  There was reporting from leaks in his administration that the President was very concerned about his 'base' numbers (Brietbart-centric voters) after his budget deal with the Democrats.  So, what does he do - start a fight on twitter where cultural concerns will take primacy.  The twitter spats are easier to cover, easier to elicit opinions from everyone (who knows enough about healthcare to comment - but everyone will speculate about personal behavior and their sports teams), and will hit all the underlying cultural fault lines in our country - race, class, income disparity, celebrity, tribal politics - and can be adjudicated endlessly on social media.

I think the President has a favored playbook he's been using from the beginning - and it's only going to continue.  Any criticism or mistakes he makes are in fact attacks from 'fake', 'biased', and 'enemies of the American people' that shouldn't just be dismissed - you must hate and revile the messenger themselves.  If you adhere - even on an emotional level - to anything the President does or says then you are in his tribe - and any criticism of the President is in fact an attack on you.  When facts, policy, or real events start to take precedence in the news cycle it's time for divisive cultural debates that will solidify the tribal nature of discourse - there's no use trying to convince people, just re-inforce their existing heuristics.

I'd like to say that kind of Bolshevism cannot be sustained in this country but, it's gotten him this far and every indication (IMO) is mainstream Republicanism is moving in line to support the President - not the other way around.  Control of all 3 branches of the federal government, 34 of 50 state governorships, something like 24 states with total Republican control of the government (legislature and executive), and an election map that heavily favors Republicans in 2018 (significant gerrymandering and voter suppression in the house and 25 of 33 senate seats are Democrats up for re-election, more than a third in states the President carried in 2016).  I think the question becomes less about if this will continue and more about what the country looks like at the national and international level after 3 more years of it.

EDIT.  I also thought this article: How Fake News Turned a Small Town Upside Down is a great example of the disconnect on 'fake news.'  This is what I think fake news is - fabricated stories, in whole or in significant part, to advance an existing narrative.  It's why I think the idea 'all news' is somehow biased or fake is total bullshit.  Fake news is being generated and propagated by a single group at the fringes (or maybe not so fringe anymore) of the conservative movement.


----------



## Poccington (Oct 1, 2017)

So, Rex Tillerson spoke to the media yesterday saying that the US and North Korea have been speaking and his immediate goal is to calm the situation down.

POTUS has just tweeted this...


----------



## AWP (Oct 1, 2017)

Poccington said:


> So, Rex Tillerson spoke to the media yesterday saying that the US and North Korea have been speaking and his immediate goal is to calm the situation down.
> 
> POTUS has just tweeted this...



This is so insane I had to look it up. Jesus Christ...


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 1, 2017)

Holy shit.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 1, 2017)

AWP said:


> This is so insane I had to look it up. Jesus Christ...





SpitfireV said:


> Holy shit.


Yeah. It's almost like that can't actually be real. But it IS real. 

This caps off a week's worth of events that, standing on their own, would be national news and really really bad. Except there were 7 events.


----------



## 8482farm (Oct 1, 2017)

It's like having that one friend who can't defend himself but is always starting shit at a bar or something because he knows you'll fight for him anyways.


----------



## Frank S. (Oct 1, 2017)

R&R.

Rinse & Repeat.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 1, 2017)

Summary:  First Lady donates Dr. Seuss books to a Massachusetts library.  Librarian rejects them, very publicly, for being "racist."



> But despite the gesture, Liz Phipps Soeiro, a librarian at a public school in Cambridge, wrote a letter to the first lady, which was then published on The Horn Book blog, notifying Mrs. Trump that her school would “not be keeping the titles” for their collection, explaining that her school didn’t have a “NEED” for the books, due to her school and library’s “award-winning” status.
> “I work in a district that has plenty of resources, which contributes directly to ‘excellence,’” Soeiro wrote. “My students have access to a school library with over nine thousand volumes and a librarian with a graduate degree in library science.”



um, ok, a simple "thank you for your gift, we will pay this forward to other schools in our community whose need is greater" may have sufficed.



> “Another fact that many people are unaware of is that Dr. Seuss’s illustrations are steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes,” Soeiro wrote, giving  examples of "If I Ran a Zoo" and "And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street" as clear “racist mockery” in Seuss’ art.



Ah, right.  There it is.


----------



## Poccington (Oct 1, 2017)

Dr. Seuss is racist now?

Fuck sake.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 1, 2017)

I generally separate Mrs. Trump from her husband, mostly because: 

1. She seems like the most reluctant first lady in history

2. She seems to be thinking that this is the rich man's version of buying a motorbike later in life.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 1, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I generally separate Mrs. Trump from her husband, mostly because:
> 
> 1. She seems like the most reluctant first lady in history
> 
> 2. She seems to be thinking that this is the rich man's version of buying a motorbike later in life.




That's a way, way funnier way to think about the FLOTUS.

Like, she's just sitting there every day going, "Are we still doing this? YOU DIDN'T EVEN THINK YOU WERE GOING TO WIN WE JOKED AROUND ABOUT THIS. Ugh, whatever."


----------



## SaintKP (Oct 1, 2017)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Summary:  First Lady donates Dr. Seuss books to a Massachusetts library.  Librarian rejects them, very publicly, for being "racist."
> 
> um, ok, a simple "thank you for your gift, we will pay this forward to other schools in our community whose need is greater" may have sufficed.
> 
> Ah, right.  There it is.


Same librarian had previously dressed up as a Dr. Seuss Character for his birthday.

And the Mayor of San Juan hasn't been to any of the meetings...San Juan Mayor Admits She Hasn't Met With Federal Officials At Joint Field Office Over Hurricane Relief Efforts


----------



## Kaldak (Oct 1, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Same librarian had previously dressed up as a Dr. Seuss Character for his birthday.
> 
> And the Mayor of San Juan hasn't been to any of the meetings...San Juan Mayor Admits She Hasn't Met With Federal Officials At Joint Field Office Over Hurricane Relief Efforts



Well that's a twist.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 1, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Same librarian had previously dressed up as a Dr. Seuss Character for his birthday.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 1, 2017)

I never knew the KKK wore stripes.


----------



## CQB (Oct 2, 2017)

Policy in not based on 140 characters, there is always a process. The DRNK has been talking to some Republican wonks to better understand their position & that of their enemy. 

North Korea taps GOP analysts to better understand Trump and his messages


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Oct 2, 2017)

I'm a dum dum when it comes to geopolitics, but I gotta say that I love that the subhuman monsters who run the DPRK are getting a taste of their own medicine. For years the Nork royalty issued threats and stoked fear around the world in order to get their way, now they have no idea what our response is going to be. I sincerly hope that the Nork royals and their cronies recieve the same fate that they bestowed upon those that they deemed enemies.

To peasants like me, it is a breath of fresh air that we have a president that is calling out other countries on their shit. While I know that the twitters coming from the Whitehouse aren't the sneakiest way of conducting foreign policy, I'm glad things are out in the open. The whole NK becoming a nuclear state fiasco, has been one giant game of kick the can that fell in the current presidents lap. I don't blame POTUS for finding the NORK's a nuclear state unacceptable. 

If the rest of the world is going to blame us for every little thing, then why not act like the bad guys they make us out to be? Then again, what do I know? I'm just a dumb peon.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 4, 2017)

I honestly hate to say this, but goddamn the president is so good at shifting optics. Shit goes horribly wrong, say something outrageous about something else. It is like he has a Ph.D in diversion...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 4, 2017)

It was previously reported by NBC that Tillerson had thought of leaving the administration per this article.  And he stated this morning that was not the case and was BS reporting: Secretary of State Tillerson: 'I have never considered leaving'


----------



## Poccington (Oct 4, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> It was previously reported by NBC that Tillerson had thought of leaving the administration per this article.  And he stated this morning that was not the case and was BS reporting: Secretary of State Tillerson: 'I have never considered leaving'



NBC also noted that two State Department spokespersons had denied the idea that Tillerson had thought of leaving, both at the time of his supposed crisis of faith and when they contacted the State Department for the story.

But yeah... #FakeNews I suppose.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 4, 2017)

Poccington said:


> NBC also noted that two State Department spokespersons had denied the idea that Tillerson had thought of leaving, both at the time of his supposed crisis of faith and when they contacted the State Department for the story.
> 
> But yeah... #FakeNews I suppose.


Life in a clickbait world.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 7, 2017)

Uhhhhhhhhhh, what one thing?


----------



## Kaldak (Oct 7, 2017)

Do we really want his answer?


----------



## CDG (Oct 7, 2017)

God. Dammit.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 7, 2017)

It's true...but fuck why!?!?!?! Cmon man I'm trying to enjoy some Rugby Championship and College Football.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 7, 2017)

Kaldak said:


> Do we really want his answer?


Good point.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 7, 2017)

I'll take North Korea glowing for $1000, Alex.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 7, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> I'll take North Korea glowing for $1000, Alex.



I'll take a pass on that.

If we use conventional weapons in a war on the Korean Peninsula, millions would die many of those young American men and women , South Korea would likely be destroyed, world economy in shambles the whole gambit of shittiness.

Nuclear weapons?Shit, not even bringing into the fold that an offensive first strike nuclear attack would literally be doing what we are so afraid of happening, it would also lessen further our standing and go to show the only true deterrence from the US is Nukes of their own.  Just the fallout could be disastrous, depending on the winds could affect Japan, China, and Pcific rim.

Hard fucking pass.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 7, 2017)

Yeah, I think we've had our fill of wars for a generation or so


----------



## Grunt (Oct 7, 2017)

Those making those types of choices need to make sure they are willing to live with the consequences of those actions.

We can beat them conventionally, but SK - most of all - will suffer some major losses. 

I think we could cause horrendous damage to Pyongyang with conventional missiles and make it a big powder realm, but we would need to know Lil Kim was there before we did it.

Regardless, I personally think Lil Kim needs to be punched multiple times in his throat, but I don't think we need to have any more of our Warriors decimated for someone like him if we can't guarantee that we take him out quickly. Then we would have to see what we are left with as far as NK leaders go.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 7, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Yeah, I think we've had our fill of wars for a generation or so


We're not even done with these two yet.


----------



## AWP (Oct 7, 2017)

Just stop posturing, Mr. President.  Either get it on or shut up, but stop with the bluster.


----------



## CDG (Oct 8, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Yeah, I think we've had our fill of wars for a generation or so



The people who fight those wars have.  Nobody else (politicians) gives a shit as long as their lives aren't directly affected.


----------



## 8482farm (Oct 8, 2017)

Not to mention retaliation from Russia and China. My buddies with their DD-214 but still in IRR think they're safe for now.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 8, 2017)

Well at least everyone is learning a lesson about Twitter.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 9, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Well at least everyone is learning a lesson about Twitter.


Twitter is like Game of Thrones. 

140 characters and terrible shit happening everywhere. 

ALSO. 

That was not my original joke; originally it was a GoT joke (the roles being reversed) but I felt it was apropos for current times.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 9, 2017)

I'll allow it.


----------



## CQB (Oct 9, 2017)

Adult Day Care centre or Sheltered Workshop? It's hard to choose.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 9, 2017)

I think Twitter allows 280 now. Although most still seem to use 140.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 10, 2017)

From the "Open Mic Thread...."


amlove21 said:


> All I need now to start my Monday is a fresh presidential tweet, an NFL scandal and a natural disaster.



Your wish is my command....

Trump says he's smarter than Tillerson; ready to compare IQs


----------



## CDG (Oct 10, 2017)




----------



## Blizzard (Oct 10, 2017)

At this point is there anyone left in Washington that he hasn't alienated?  The level of absurdity is off the charts.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 10, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> From the "Open Mic Thread...."
> 
> 
> Your wish is my command....
> ...


Cross thread-self referential meta points to you, good sir. 

I wish I could pat myself on the back, but me wishing for a Presidential tweet storm right now is going off at about -1500 in all the books. Like, it's such a suckers bet that it's going to happen every 7 days it's not actually that surprising I was able to call it.


----------



## CDG (Oct 10, 2017)

I mean, really stop and think about this.  The President of the United States of America.  The "leader of the free world".  The Commander in Chief of the most powerful, lethal, technologically advanced, and combat tested military in the history of the world.  That's who is essentially saying, "I'm not stupid, you're stupid."  It's ludicrously surreal that this is what it has come to.  I thought for sure that link was going to be to DuffleBlog, or The Onion, or Article 107, something.  Anything.  Nope.  It's real.  I can't even.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Oct 10, 2017)

Actually, if the President has proven anything its that it doesn't matter who is in office - be it a blundering idiot on a twitter rampage or a micro-management savvy, pussified apologist dividing the nation. The NFL and weather have had bigger impacts.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 10, 2017)

CDG said:


> I mean, really stop and think about this.  The President of the United States of America.  The "leader of the free world".  The Commander in Chief of the most powerful, lethal, technologically advanced, and combat tested military in the history of the world.  That's who is essentially saying, "I'm not stupid, you're stupid."  It's ludicrously surreal that this is what it has come to.  I thought for sure that link was going to be to DuffleBlog, or The Onion, or Article 107, something.  Anything.  Nope.  It's real.  I can't even.



And it's with people that he hired!  That to me is one of the most crazy things about this charade.  One of the core attributes of the Trump 'brand' pushing candidate Trump to President Trump was how decisive he was in 'firing' people thanks to his Apprentice persona.  But, instead of firing the people he hires who fuck up, make him mad, or however he forms opinions he doesn't fire them - just talks shit to them publicly via twitter and press statements.  It always falls to someone else to fire them (Priebus, Scarammucci) or they quit after it gets too much (Bannon, Spicer, Gorka).  Seems like Tillerson and Sessions have learned the lesson that if they want to keep their jobs just don't quit - the boss doesn't really have the stones to fire them - just rant and rave on social media.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 10, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> And it's with people that he hired! That to me is one of the most crazy things about this charade. One of the core attributes of the Trump 'brand' pushing candidate Trump to President Trump was how decisive he was in 'firing' people thanks to his Apprentice persona. But, instead of firing the people he hires who fuck up, make him mad, or however he forms opinions he doesn't fire them - just talks shit to them publicly via twitter and press statements. It always falls to someone else to fire them (Priebus, Scarammucci) or they quit after it gets too much (Bannon, Spicer, Gorka). Seems like Tillerson and Sessions have learned the lesson that if they want to keep their jobs just don't quit - the boss doesn't really have the stones to fire them - just rant and rave on social media.



Trump often says what he thinks his base wants to hear. Sometimes he gets it right and sometimes he does not. I think his base likes the fact that he will call out and rumble with politicians, even those he hired. So, does this mean Rex did call him a Moron?


----------



## Grunt (Oct 10, 2017)

Topkick said:


> So, does this mean Rex did call him a Moron?



He may or may not have called him that, but regardless of whether or not he did...it's getting "Romper Room'ish" at this point. Let's get to some serious matters rather than the three-year-old name calling game.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 10, 2017)

I certainly hope that you all remember this embarrassment in November 2020.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 10, 2017)

Agoge said:


> He may or may not have called him that, but regardless of whether or not he did...it's getting "Romper Room'ish" at this point. Let's get to some serious matters rather than the three-year-old name calling game



I agree, but it does matter. As a Platoon Sergeant or 1SG, I didn't always agree with my commander but I didn't publicly call them Morons. Loyalty matters.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 10, 2017)

Topkick said:


> I agree, but it does matter. As a Platoon Sergeant or 1SG, I didn't always agree with my commander but I didn't publicly call them Morons. Loyalty matters.



Sure it matters, I am just anti-drama. If he can't deal with being called a moron...then fire him and move on. Playing the IQ challenge game is childish at best, but not Presidential.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 10, 2017)

It's just really disappointing how he treats those around him.  As mentioned, many of these are members of his staff!  He clearly does not embrace the "take care of your troops" philosophy.  Nor the concept of praising in public, criticizing in private.   Scorched earth seems to be his style.  I'd hoped for much better.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 10, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I certainly hope that you all remember this embarrassment in November 2020.


If you run Hillary again, there’s a lot of amnesia on the horizon. 

Or, y’know, vote Libertarian.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 10, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> If you run Hillary again, there’s a lot of amnesia on the horizon.
> 
> Or, y’know, vote Libertarian.



I agree with this.  Trump may be "Trump".  His actions/words may cause me to facepalm on a daily basis, but there is nothing he's done or not done that would cause me to want to switch him out with Hillary.  Nothing.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 10, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...there is nothing he's done or not done that would cause me to want to switch him out with Hillary.  Nothing.



Now, now...let's not go that far....


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 10, 2017)

I promise not to run Hillary again.  Honest.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 10, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I promise not to run Hillary again.  Honest.


And keep that stupid twat Sanders out of it too.


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 10, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I promise not to run Hillary again.  Honest.



Glad to hear it, Debbie.


----------



## Frank S. (Oct 10, 2017)




----------



## Topkick (Oct 10, 2017)

Frank, you're weird. But how can anyone not like ya!


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 10, 2017)

Flashback..  OCT. 8 2016 

Donald Trump Could Have Been President



> Donald Trump is never going to be the president of the United States. As we sit and digest each successive leak of damaging material, each un-endorsement, each Trump threat to attack Hillary Clinton in the most personal terms imaginable, the fact remains that Trump has almost surely destroyed his chance of ever becoming the most powerful man on Earth. The discussion will now slowly shift to Republican hopes of shoring up down-ballot races and (just wait) the creation of Trump TV. But we cannot and should not forget: A couple days ago it was still fathomable that America could have voted into office the biggest threat to the country in decades.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 10, 2017)

The conventional wisdom was definitely on him being un-electable.  It's certainly what I thought.  I didn't vote for then-candidate Trump.  But I was happy when I woke up after Election Day and found out he would be President.

I take that back.  I was happy that Secretary Clinton was not President Clinton.


----------



## Frank S. (Oct 11, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> The conventional wisdom was definitely on him being un-electable.  It's certainly what I thought.  I didn't vote for then-candidate Trump.  But I was happy when I woke up after Election Day and found out he would be President.
> 
> I take that back.  I was happy that Secretary Clinton was not President Clinton.



This, I understand fully. And agree with it. But this 10th of October morning? Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 11, 2017)

So that Em freestyle was an excercise in free speech an lyricism. It's easily google-able, but posting it here would sort of belay the whole "respect the office" tone we've got.

As a freestyle I have a couple thoughts on it, but as a rant full of punches he hits home with me.

ETA- His line about the NFL athletes and John McCain was his best couple of bars, tho. Got eeeeeeeeeem.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 11, 2017)

A guy who rapped about raping his mother and his wife is such a great role model.  Fuck him too.


----------



## Kheenbish (Oct 11, 2017)

And he does it a few weeks before he is about to drop a new album, but I'm sure it was all about how Trump sucks and not making money.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> A guy who rapped about raping his mother and his wife is such a great role model.  Fuck him too.





Kheenbish said:


> And he does it a few weeks before he is about to drop a new album, but I'm sure it was all about how Trump sucks and not making money.


Yowsa! Well, Em's lyrics have always been controversial, and he is in the business of making money from his rap lyrics, so I suppose you're both right. 

But holding a guy accountable for the deplorable things he said in his past, discounting a possible good thing now seems a bit hypocritical given the thread, right? At least a bit ironic?

Marshall is in the business of selling records, so I would have to agree it's a pretty smart move to get people talking about Shady again. And that video has 13 million views, so that probably worked.

I think the vision of a white dude that grew up poor in the rust belt evolving to his viewpoint (for the sake of argument let's pretend we can't figure out his true motivations and we have to take them at face value) is pretty interesting.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 11, 2017)

I watched most of the video.  I like Eminem's music but this seemed contrived and poorly executed.  I recognize it was a freestyle and not a polished recording but I didn't dig it.




amlove21 said:


> Yowsa! Well, Em's lyrics have always been controversial, and he is in the business of making money from his rap lyrics, so I suppose you're both right.
> 
> But holding a guy accountable for the deplorable things he said in his past, discounting a possible good thing now seems a bit hypocritical given the thread, right? At least a bit ironic?...



I don't understand what you mean here with regard to the "possible good thing" comment, brother.  Are you referring to the video itself or something else?


----------



## Frank S. (Oct 11, 2017)




----------



## amlove21 (Oct 11, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I watched most of the video.  I like Eminem's music but this seemed contrived and poorly executed.  I recognize it was a freestyle and not a polished recording but I didn't dig it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah that was way too vague, my bad.

A "possible good thing" would be furthering the conversation on President Trump and his problems thus far with what Em focused on- race, hypocrisy, inability to focus on a narrative and stick to it, focusing on the more newsworthy topics than "important" ones, etc. Granted, the freestyle itself is divisive (at least for Em's fan base) by nature, but if it stokes conversation from another view point, that would be helpful and shouldn't be discounted out of hand now because of something he said you didn't like 17 years ago- holy crap I am old.

I think it's exactly the same for the President- he said some ridiculous things, some downright unacceptable things in his past; but that's not a reason to discount absolutely everything he does now.

And as a freestyle, it actually sounded like Eminem was out of shape, to be honest. But his lyrics were well thought out if not delievered at his absolute best, and unless you listen to freestyles a lot, I can 100% understand why the style isn't for everyone.


----------



## CDG (Oct 11, 2017)

Holy. Shit.  Just when you think it can't get any more absurd, it does.  The President is now hinting at trying to get major networks licenses revoked.

Trump threatens NBC after nuclear report


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 11, 2017)

This one is floating about on facebook


> Hey Em, what up? I always thought you were the man.
> Every since the days you rapped about Stan.
> 
> I couldn't believe you drew a line in the sand.
> ...



And CDG, le sigh.


----------



## Frank S. (Oct 11, 2017)

We're not yet at maximum, Jim. Beyond that, you'll need more than a pointy eared West Pointer.

So think carefully. Jim.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> This one is floating about on facebook
> 
> 
> And CDG, le sigh.


That’s a pretty good example, sir. Instead of saying, “You said stupid things in your past so nothing you say now matters”, that Facebook rhymer person is saying, “I disagree, in fact, I think your message is hypocritical and I won’t be a fan anymore”. 

That opens the conversation up to a lot of avenues we can all learn from.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> This one is floating about on facebook



I like that.  It represents how many people, including me, feel about the road leading up to the election of President Trump.


----------



## AWP (Oct 11, 2017)

We're understandably focused on the present, but we're neglecting a bigger problem: how we arrived here in the first place and it didn't begin with Trump's election, that was just a natural conclusion.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 11, 2017)

CDG said:


> Holy. Shit.  Just when you think it can't get any more absurd, it does.  The President is now hinting at trying to get major networks licenses revoked.
> 
> Trump threatens NBC after nuclear report



I think again, the President would like us tribalized on issues like the media vs this stuff coming out of the White House: “I Hate Everyone”: Trump Seethes as Advisers Fear He Is “Unraveling”

I could give a shit about Eminem, but interesting to see the effect of his criticism vs most other entertainers.  He has a fan base that includes supporters of the President and his agenda - so the reaction to his criticism is much harsher.  Still, I have to laugh when the counter-argument to someone in showbiz (which is always 'Hollyweird' and 'how dare you talk politics' - unless your politics is the same as mine) is 'you pushed me into backing President Trump and all his lunacy because of all the name-calling you and the dirty libtards engaged in - oh, and also you're a whiny snowflake, not tough like me.  I also hate how divisive you are - always trying to divide people.  Not like all the uniters over here with me.'  Unconvincing from my foxhole.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 12, 2017)

AWP said:


> We're understandably focused on the present, but we're neglecting a bigger problem: how we arrived here in the first place and it didn't begin with Trump's election, that was just a natural conclusion.



Our current elected ruling class makes the Toxic Avenger look surgically sterile. Motherfuckers been in the same seat for DECADES, and yet this is all some cheeto’s fault? Sorry, I’m not buying it, not even on Walmart’s Christmas layaway plan.

No, it’s not entirely *President* Trump’s fault. It’s the populace of America’s fault. Absolutely NOBODY is willing to look in a mirror anymore and say “I need to change.” That shit hurts too much, and hurting is wrong. So they elect the same crooked shits for years on end, knowing they’ll get the same crumbs as before, and bitch that the crumbs aren’t good enough. The ones that do change and evolve keep their fucking mouths shut, because god forbid you virtue signal to the wrong crowd.

Everyone is sooooooo centered on how *President* Trump is making America look like garbage. Guess what. We’ve looked like abhorrent shit for decades now! For every one thing that our CinC gets right, Congress goes and fucks up a half dozen more. “Waaaaah, we need to chaaaaange! Waaaaah, this country suuuuucks!” /fast forward 18mo/ “I’m going to vote for Sen. Cockmonkey and Rep. Dongmonger, because they’re the only ones not corrupt. They’ve held their seats for 20+ years because they’re good people.” This conversation times 50 states, every two to four years.

There are certain areas that the *Presidenr* is wicked smart in. One member even said that he must have a Ph.D. in redirection. That’s 200-300 level IO. Is he really that crazy? Stupid? Or does he know that all you’re gonna do is piss in your pants and cry, while he gets his way in other shit? I don’t know, and nobody likely does. While I believe that the Oval Office is over his head, I think he’s got a few tricks from his NY real estate days that may work out in the international long game (key word: MAY).

Face it. America has the ruling class it deserves, and we’re reaping what we’ve sown, good and hard. The smart ones have already paid their thousands of dollars to renounce their citizenship. Enjoy. 

* = Admin edits.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 12, 2017)

This shit just writes itself


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 12, 2017)

AWP said:


> We're understandably focused on the present, but we're neglecting a bigger problem: how we arrived here in the first place and it didn't begin with Trump's election, that was just a natural conclusion.


Sort of along the ‘bigger problem’ line of thought- who exactly is allowed to criticize the oval office now? America has established that paid athletes are spoiled brats and should STFU. Private organization, do as you’re told, keep your personal feelings to yourself and let me watch my sports. Rappers are out (and now subject to Facebook rappers diss tapes). How about anyone in Hollywood? Oh HELL no.

At this point any form of protest by anybody famous is immediately attacked because you don’t want to have to deal with political issues when enjoying your favorite distraction. We don’t address their content; we just immediately question their right to dissent. I don’t know which is chicken and which is egg, but the #FakeNews phenomenon fits the immediate ‘I don’t like the message, let me disparage the source’ vibe we’ve got going.

I think it’s more ‘how have we gotten here’ as opposed to ‘this administration did it’, but the fact remains America is at critical mass for it’s overall inability to be criticized without reacting like a child.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 12, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> 'how dare you talk politics' - unless your politics is the same as mine



Pretty much sums it up.  There is a local radio talk show host I listen to every afternoon.  Politically he keeps it down the middle, but from time to time he gets hot and expresses his opinion on a topic.   Sometimes he goes far left, sometimes he goes far right...but you can count on the fact that those with the opposite opinion will call and berate him for his "liberal/conservative" views.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 12, 2017)

Here's Denzel Quoting Mark Twain:





I wonder if we're fast approaching the old yellow journalism era because both sides still do great news work and will receive awards for the actual work.  But the real journalism will be hidden from you when you buy the paper.  The articles that you see are just the clickbait that drives analytics and revenue but is just complete shit and partisan.

I know it's Breitbart, but I suppose no one else was willing to publish the OPED, even though I'm pretty sure deep down Rand abhors them as a source:
Exclusive – Rand Paul on Trump Healthcare Executive Action: Congress Failed, Time to Act


----------



## CDG (Oct 12, 2017)

I get plenty frustrated with modern journalism. I think there's a lot of fear-mongering and irresponsible reporting.  However, that's not sufficient grounds to revoke the license of a major network. The 1st Amendment is still the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 12, 2017)

Denzel Washington tells it like it is. He is intelligent, articulate and a good five steps ahead of the microphone holder/question poser.

Make no mistake, most "reporters" are posers.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 12, 2017)

In fairness the cream of the crop don't tend to gravitate towards entertainment reporting.


----------



## Kheenbish (Oct 12, 2017)

I came across this video today, Trump doesn't seem to know what the song "Retreat" is or why it's being played. Obviously this video could be taken out of context, they could be inside it's not exactly clear, so standing wouldn't really be necessary. 

He could of earned some kudos here though by acknowledging the song and military tradition that goes along with it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 12, 2017)

America just quit UNESCO.  Pretty big deal.  Probably a long time coming.



> U.S. officials have told The Associated Press on Thursday that the United States is pulling out of UNESCO, after repeated criticism of resolutions by the U.N. cultural agency that Washington sees as anti-Israel.
> 
> The U.S. stopped funding UNESCO after it voted to include Palestine as a member in 2011, but the State Department has maintained a UNESCO office at its Paris headquarters and sought to weigh in on policy behind the scenes.
> 
> The withdrawal was confirmed Thursday by U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to be publicly named discussing the decision. It comes as UNESCO is voting to choose a new director.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 12, 2017)

Their anti-Israeli bias needs to be kaboshed.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 12, 2017)

You'd think that all the other anti-Israeli groups' activities in destroying UNESCO World Heritage sites would be noticed..


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 12, 2017)

Kheenbish said:


> I came across this video today, Trump doesn't seem to know what the song "Retreat" is or why it's being played. Obviously this video could be taken out of context, they could be inside it's not exactly clear, so standing wouldn't really be necessary.
> 
> He could of earned some kudos here though by acknowledging the song and military tradition that goes along with it.


I want to let you in on a little secret.

You ready?

The secret is that he's never actually cared about the military, other than as a rhetorical bludgeon.


----------



## CDG (Oct 12, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I want to let you in on a little secret.
> 
> You ready?
> 
> The secret is that he's never actually cared about the military, other than as a rhetorical bludgeon.



Which makes him no different than 90%+ of politicians in that specific regard.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 12, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I want to let you in on a little secret.
> 
> You ready?
> 
> The secret is that he's never actually cared about the military, other than as a rhetorical bludgeon.



Psssssst. Hey, you. C’mere. No, over here in this dark alley. Lemme tell you something... No shit!


CDG said:


> Which makes him no different than 90%+ of politicians in that specific regard.



^^^You might wanna take lessons from this guy.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 12, 2017)

Here's a good one for Eminem: 



https://imgur.com/6630yxZ


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 12, 2017)

CDG said:


> Which makes him no different than 90%+ of politicians in that specific regard.


He is the commander in chief.  That means that he controls the fate of everyone in the military.  He should be among the 10% that actually gives a shit.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 12, 2017)

A bit concerned about all the people hanging about and whispering in dark alleys.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 12, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Here's a good one for Eminem


Man! Did that freestyle hit home for you sir? All your FB friends spinning you up? Everyone had sort of moved on and you re-addressed it. 

Here's a good example of who Em is as a community leader- which also addresses the issue of knowing exactly shit about who a person actually is, what they do in their professional life, and how we treat them when they wade into political conversations without actually doing research first. 

So, I will ask directly- now that you know Marshall Mathers has given easily more than $1 Million of his own money directly to Detroit charities (and continues to do so) and allowing his fame to aid in other fundraisers to contribute more than that, and he's an American citizen exercising his free speech, do you still feel that he should remain silent when he apparently feels very strongly about this issue? If so, why?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 13, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> He is the commander in chief.  That means that he controls the fate of everyone in the military.  He should be among the 10% that actually gives a shit.


Well I guess it's a good thing we've expanded the authorized strength of the Army almost immediately once he took office...after three different drawdowns during the Obama administration.

@amlove21 I just thought it was funny and it was getting too serious.  I'm glad he's donated money to help out.  But that doesn't stop the fact that Detroit became a wasteland due to Democratic policies.  So there's that.  But like I said it was getting too serious so thought I'd share something I giggled at.  And as far as my facebook feed is concerned, it probably looks more like @Salt USMC 's with the amount of California liberal friends I have.  In regards to Marshall being silent, I already stated why, he's rapped about raping both his wife and his mother, he's hardly the person you should be attempting to defend.

ETA:  So, um, this could be bad. Obamacare bombshell: Trump kills key payments to health insurers


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> In regards to Marshall being silent, I already stated why, he's rapped about raping both his wife and his mother, he's hardly the person you should be attempting to defend.
> 
> ETA:  So, um, this could be bad. Obamacare bombshell: Trump kills key payments to health insurers


I will say this first- I accept your opinion, but I willfully reject your advice on whom I should defend. Also, considering his massive donations and active philanthropy, I suppose I could choose a worse horse to back than Marshall Mathers. 

Let's pretend Em just rapped those things because it fits his narrative at the time and it helped him sell records.. Let's pretend, for instance, that he never ACTUALLY raped his mother, or his girlfriend, or went to space, or did drugs, or dated Mariah Carey, or was an animal, or an alien, or a fictional famous person, or a famous boxeer, or literally anything else he has EVER RAPPED ABOUT. Weird thing about rap- you get to use hyperbole. I  will be willing to totally discount absolutely everything he has ever said "on wax" since day one. I will accept that you can say those things are deplorable and not acceptable. 

Do you think that American citizens occupying high tax brackets or positions of fame should not be allowed to protest or speak out when we consider their past positions or statements?


----------



## AWP (Oct 13, 2017)

I watched the MM video. On the whole, it is another guy's viewpoint but with a different sort of delivery than we're used to. Did I agree with all of it? No, but that's how the world works. What I took issue with is his line in the sand or whatever comments right at the end. Fan of MM and supporter of Trump gets a fuck you and go elsewhere? Screw that. His message lost a lot of power by doing some of the very shit both parties complain about. You aren't allowed to have views in America, you're only allowed a side, and that's not even remotely healthy for any group of people.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 13, 2017)

Who would have thought that @amlove21 was such a big Eminem fan?


----------



## Gunz (Oct 13, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I want to let you in on a little secret.
> 
> You ready?
> 
> The secret is that he's never actually cared about the military, other than as a rhetorical bludgeon.




Neither did Obama or Clinton. With regard to politicians in high office or notable personalities: W was at least an NG vet. Al Gore was a vet. I believe Reagan's sentiments toward the military were absolutely sincere. Bush the First was a certified hitter. Carter and Nixon were former Naval officers. JFK was a hero. Eisenhower...well...fucking Supreme Allied Commander.

We're in the era now where a lot of politicians never had to serve so their appreciation of the military is based on their upbringing and political views.  I personally look at Clinton (and Rush Limbaugh for that matter) as draft avoiding non-hacks.





CDG said:


> Which makes him no different than 90%+ of politicians in that specific regard.



Absolutely.




racing_kitty said:


> Psssssst. Hey, you. C’mere. No, over here in this dark alley. Lemme tell you something... No shit!
> 
> 
> ^^^You might wanna take lessons from this guy.




Bwaaaahaaaaahaaaaaaaa


----------



## Topkick (Oct 13, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Neither did Obama or Clinton. With regard to politicians in high office or notable personalities: W was at least an NG vet. Al Gore was a vet. I believe Reagan's sentiments toward the military were absolutely sincere. Bush the First was a certified hitter. Carter and Nixon were former Naval officers. JFK was a hero. Eisenhower...well...fucking Supreme Allied Commander.
> 
> We're in the era now where a lot of politicians never had to serve so their appreciation of the military is based on their upbringing and political views.  I personally look at Clinton (and Rush Limbaugh for that matter) as draft avoiding non-hacks.
> 
> ...



Not only have they not had to serve, some used privilege to dodge it. I know some civilians who think only lower class people without options serve in the military. What would make a wealthy politician think otherwise? Some politicians are just paying the guards.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Oct 13, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> So, I will ask directly- now that you know Marshall Mathers has given easily more than $1 Million of his own money directly to Detroit charities (and continues to do so) and allowing his fame to aid in other fundraisers to contribute more than that, and he's an American citizen exercising his free speech, do you still feel that he should remain silent when he apparently feels very strongly about this issue? If so, why?



I don't feel that he should be silenced by anything other than his lack of intelligence; "Em's" charitable donations are irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Fl_Ag (Oct 13, 2017)

AWP said:


> His message lost a lot of power by doing some of the very shit both parties complain about. You aren't allowed to have views in America, you're only allowed a side, and that's not even remotely healthy for any group of people.



^This. I'll listen to anyone explain their viewpoints for as long as they want to explain it to me as a fellow educated, rational human being. The biggest problem with both extremes of our political spectrum is this nonsensical "with us or against us" mentality. That, and when folks seem to blindly believe anything and everything their "team" spouts off through the media. Have a goddam discerning eye and as @amlove21 mentioned a few posts up, do your damn research - all it takes is a solid google search 99% of the time. \endrant


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 13, 2017)

Interesting...and screw Iran: Trump Won’t Certify Iran Nuclear Deal, but He Also Won’t Unravel It


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 13, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Neither did Obama or Clinton. With regard to politicians in high office or notable personalities: W was at least an NG vet. Al Gore was a vet. I believe Reagan's sentiments toward the military were absolutely sincere. Bush the First was a certified hitter. Carter and Nixon were former Naval officers. JFK was a hero. Eisenhower...well...fucking Supreme Allied Commander.
> 
> We're in the era now where a lot of politicians never had to serve so their appreciation of the military is based on their upbringing and political views.  I personally look at Clinton (and Rush Limbaugh for that matter) as draft avoiding non-hacks.



10 presidents did not serve.  Of course Obama and Clinton; the last one prior was FDR.

At the end of the day while it's nice to have a CINC who has been there and done that because, you know, walk a mile in my shoes and all, it's certainly not a necessity.  BUT....don't be openly derisive and disrespectful.  I felt Obama and Clinton were hostile to the military and looked down upon them.  Others can certainly disagree, but that was my view.


----------



## Poccington (Oct 13, 2017)

Trump talked shit about John McCain for having the cheek to go ahead and get captured, then spend over 5 years as a POW... In a war that Trump dodged.

He'll "care" about whatever keeps his base sweet.


----------



## Poccington (Oct 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Interesting...and screw Iran: Trump Won’t Certify Iran Nuclear Deal, but He Also Won’t Unravel It



Congress trying to pull together 60 votes for any course of action regarding this should be amusing to watch, especially in such a short timeframe.

It'll be a shitshow.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 13, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Trump talked shit about John McCain for having the cheek to go ahead and get captured, then spend over 5 years as a POW... In a war that Trump dodged.
> 
> He'll "care" about whatever keeps his base sweet.



I am sick and tired of the draft dodger comments.  Whether we like it or not, whether he paid for it or not; Trump received educational and ultimately a medical deferment.  Biden received deferments and no one talks about that.  The only President that we can genuinely call a draft dodger is Bill Clinton and he’s admitted to it.


----------



## Poccington (Oct 13, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> I am sick and tired of the draft dodger comments.  Whether we like it or not, whether he paid for it or not; Trump received educational and ultimately a medical deferment.  Biden received deferments and no one talks about that.  The only President that we can genuinely call a draft dodger is Bill Clinton and he’s admitted to it.



If he's willing to talk shit about John McCains Vietnam experiences, well then people have the right to shine a light on how he avoided being drafted.


----------



## CDG (Oct 13, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> He is the commander in chief.  That means that he controls the fate of everyone in the military.  He should be among the 10% that actually gives a shit.



Which candidate in the 2016 election gave a shit?  How about the eight previous years?  Did that President give a shit?  Bush was the most recent President to genuinely care, as evidenced by the book he released of paintings he did.  This is a pointless argument to try and make, especially these days.  

Bush Nostalgia Is Overrated, but His Book of Paintings Is Not


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 13, 2017)

Poccington said:


> If he's willing to talk shit about John McCains Vietnam experiences, well then people have the right to shine a light on how he avoided being drafted.



I largely agree; but, hey, that's politics.  Used to be you could talk smack about each other's professional and political life, but family and military service was taboo.  That train has long left the station, and now no area is sacrosanct.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 13, 2017)

CDG said:


> Which candidate in the 2016 election gave a shit?  How about the eight previous years?  Did that President give a shit?  Bush was the most recent President to genuinely care, as evidenced by the book he released of paintings he did.  This is a pointless argument to try and make, especially these days.
> 
> Bush Nostalgia Is Overrated, but His Book of Paintings Is Not


There was only one in my eyes. James Webb, never had a chance though.  But his CV was the best too.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 13, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> There was only one in my eyes. James Webb, never had a chance though.  But his CV was the best too.



He was the best representative of a centrist, blue dog-style democrat left.  I would have voted for him.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 13, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> Who would have thought that @amlove21 was such a big Eminem fan?


Little known fact- I am at lifelong hip hop fan! It’s my main musical good group. Always has been.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 13, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Little known fact- I am at lifelong hip hop fan! It’s my main musical good group. Always has been.



Anything after The Fat boys, Run-DMC, Grandmaster Flash were just...not original ;).  Of course, you were probably born way after those guys.   I think I was the only cracker in my high school who listened to those groups.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 13, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Anything after The Fat boys, Run-DMC, Grandmaster Flash were just...not original ;).  Of course, you were probably born way after those guys.   I think I was the only cracker in my high school who listened to those groups.



Nah, Bro...you meant to say anything after the Sugarhill Gang's _Rapper's Delight _from 1979.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 13, 2017)

Agoge said:


> Nah, Bro...you meant to say anything after the Sugarhill Gang's _Rapper's Delight _from 1979.



Lol.....that's funny.  Even my 6 year-old girl knows most of the words to that.....


----------



## Sendero (Oct 13, 2017)

It's been a good week for Trump and his base.  First, it looks like he used the bully pulpit to make the NFL take action against the players.  Second, his scrapping of healthcare subsidies that will impact Obamacare.  

I would say he's proven himself to be pretty tenacious on some of these issues. For a guy who has the rep as someone who just wants to be liked.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 13, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Little known fact- I am at lifelong hip hop fan! It’s my main musical good group. Always has been.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 14, 2017)

Sendero said:


> It's been a good week for Trump and his base.  First, *it looks like he used the bully pulpit to make the NFL take action against the players. * Second, his scrapping of healthcare subsidies that will impact Obamacare.
> 
> I would say he's proven himself to be pretty tenacious on some of these issues. For a guy who has the rep as someone who just wants to be liked.



Making the crucial executive functions of running a nation happen!

< Where is that pink font...? >


----------



## Sendero (Oct 14, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> Making the crucial executive functions of running a nation happen!
> 
> < Where is that pink font...? >



I get your point. I'm not banging the drum for him, it was an observation.

What he did via the power of Twitter on the NFL issue isn't my cup of tea but it worked.  For the healthcare subsidies he's using EO as Obama did too.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 14, 2017)

I’m not smart enough on the intricacies of the ACA, but reading what I have, I like the EO move from President Trump on this one. I think it’s a step in the right direction on health care. 

Let’s go ahead and string good things like this together- maybe get to like 4 to 5 good things in a row.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 14, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I’m not smart enough on the intricacies of the ACA, but reading what I have, I like the EO move from President Trump on this one. I think it’s a step in the right direction on health care.
> 
> Let’s go ahead and string good things like this together- maybe get to like 4 to 5 good things in a row.


Vox's Sarah Kliff is an unreserved expert on the ACA and general healthcare policy.  I don't say that as a liberal - she is probably the best pundit when it comes to ACA changes and their economic and social effects.

Vox put out some perfunctory analysis of the recent changes and they're really, really bad: Podcasts
To wit - if you don't like Obamacare, these changes are good.  If you like improved access to health insurance, they are very bad.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 14, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Vox's Sarah Kliff is an unreserved expert on the ACA and general healthcare policy.  I don't say that as a liberal - she is probably the best pundit when it comes to ACA changes and their economic and social effects.
> 
> Vox put out some perfunctory analysis of the recent changes and they're really, really bad: Podcasts
> To wit - if you don't like Obamacare, these changes are good.  If you like improved access to health insurance, they are very bad.


Good thing I clarified with "I am not real smart on this one but the changes seem to be good" before hand. 

I will definitely check out that podcast. Thanks!


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 14, 2017)

I have more than a few reservations about Vox specifically, but I’m interested in hearing how interstate health insurance sales is better OR worse than the state-by-state mess that had been the norm since before the ACA. 

For the record, what I do know of it leads me to believe it is an improvement, but I’m open to hear why it would be worse.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 15, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I’m not smart enough on the intricacies of the ACA, but reading what I have, I like the EO move from President Trump on this one. I think it’s a step in the right direction on health care.
> 
> Let’s go ahead and string good things like this together- maybe get to like 4 to 5 good things in a row.


I'd like to retract this comment. After reading more and trying to get a little smarter on healthcare and what this EO actually means, I don't think it was a good thing; I was wrong. 

If the overall goal is "More Americans with more coverage", I think this EO falls short.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 15, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I'd like to retract this comment. After reading more and trying to get a little smarter on healthcare and what this EO actually means, I don't think it was a good thing; I was wrong.
> 
> If the overall goal is "More Americans with more coverage", I think this EO falls short.



The goal of the EO is to damage the ACA market-places in an attempt to raise the cost of coverage and drive insurers out of the markets - to speed up what President Trump claims is happening already (with a great deal of dispute on that point).

President Trump (maybe) believes this will make the collapse of the marketplaces and the ACA inevitable and drive Democrats to the negotiating table to reform/rescind the ACA under President Trumps terms and (probably) believes those who voted for him will blame any loss/increased cost of coverage on Democrats and not him.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 16, 2017)

Did Congress appropriate these subsidies the POTUS is using an EO to stop?

He's right to do it.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 17, 2017)

The Obama administration appealed a lawsuit related to the subsidies, and federal court said that the executive branch can continue funding them until SCOTUS decides the case.  He's ending the subsidies purely out of spite.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 18, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> ...He's ending the subsidies purely out of _*spite*_.


Or principle.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 18, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Or principle.


I don't think he operates on good principles, but hey whatever.

This will backfire. People don't know what they got until its gone, so to speak. People will lose their insurance, and with it access to care they have enjoyed over the last few years. 

I have seen people saying "health insurance premiums will go down..." My response would be why and how? When a company realizes it can charge more to insure fewer, it will do so. With companies paying the majority of insurance costs, people who are not insured via companies will themselves become a higher risk pool. The point of increasing access to insurance is to lower the risk pool which in turn lowers overall costs. President Trump removing the incentive to get insurance and removing subsidies will only harm the entire market and make prices increase. 

I love it when I see a patient post getting life's saving heart surgery watching Fox News bitching about entitlements, then I look at his record and see that he is getting Medicaid. The irony is so strong that it is sickening.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 18, 2017)

Here's a good one, John McCain, stfd! 

McCain blocks Defense nominees to get Afghanistan war info

This shit needs to stop, we need the administrators of the government confirmed so that we can operate efficiently.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 19, 2017)

This is the best summary I've seen of the distasteful imbroglio over President Trump's condolences to Gold Star families: How did Trump's response to Niger deaths go so wrong? 

And this is the best analysis (IMO): Trump's Unforced Error

I think overall it shows how the coarsening of dialogue and the ejection of custom/courtesy/manners is a slippery slope.  One can be happy with the President's brash style and disregard for norms in some circumstances - but then you have to accept them in a host of other circumstances.  Also, the lying - the constant, not thought-out, seemingly instinctive lying.  At some point I wonder if the President will realize everything he says and does will now be scrutinized?  That's the difference between being the President and anybody else.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 19, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I think overall it shows how the coarsening of dialogue and the ejection of custom/courtesy/manners is a slippery slope.  One can be happy with the President's brash style and disregard for norms in some circumstances - but then you have to accept them in a host of other circumstances.  Also, the lying - the constant, not thought-out, seemingly instinctive lying.  At some point I wonder if the President will realize everything he says and does will now be scrutinized?  That's the difference between being the President and anybody else.



I agree.  I think that is part of the reason not a lot of media is following the Russia-Obama-Uranium thing.  The media is fixated on what he is saying and doing and trying to parse his language, a lot of important stories are just going by the wayside. (Not to say his words and actions shouldn't be scrutinized; rather, his behavior has media perhaps going deeper than they normally would)


----------



## Topkick (Oct 19, 2017)

Trump denies being disrespectful to widow.  John Kelly backs Trump. Could it be that a Democrat congresswoman might just be politicizing this to get at Trump? Say it isn't so.

Kelly defends Trump's call to war widow, raps congresswoman


----------



## Grunt (Oct 19, 2017)

General Kelly's speech was one of the best, most authentic speeches I have heard in a long time. Well spoken and no teleprompter. Straight from the heart.

Job well done, General!


----------



## Poccington (Oct 19, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Trump denies being disrespectful to widow.  John Kelly backs Trump. Could it be that a Democrat congresswoman might just be politicizing this to get at Trump? Say it isn't so.
> 
> Kelly defends Trump's call to war widow, raps congresswoman



Well, a family member who heard the call also said he made the comment. I'd fully believe Trump said something along the lines of "He knew what he was getting into".

However, I think what Kelly is getting at and what I agree with, is that someone saying something along the lines of "He knew what he was getting into" to the family of a service member killed in combat isn't always meant in a disrespectful manner. You can say "He knew what he was getting into" as a means of acknowledging the fact that soldiers sign on the dotted line in the complete knowledge that their service could result in their death, something which is deserving of the utmost respect.

Instead of focusing on the words, tone becomes much more important. I doubt what Trumps words were meant in the manner that the Congresswoman has portrayed them as.


----------



## Poccington (Oct 19, 2017)

The deaths in Niger have been turned into a political football by both sides and it's just wrong.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 19, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Trump denies being disrespectful to widow.  John Kelly backs Trump. Could it be that a Democrat congresswoman might just be politicizing this to get at Trump? Say it isn't so.
> 
> Kelly defends Trump's call to war widow, raps congresswoman



The congresswoman was with the family when they received the call - and another relative on the call corroborated what the congresswoman said.  I think it's fair to say President Trump said some version of the 'he knew what he signed up for - still very unfortunate/shocking/whatever' and that at least some people on the call felt the President was extremely disrespectful.  But, of course the two things are not mutually exclusive - the President attempting to console meaning zero disrespect and those on the call feeling his tone/words were disrespectful.  Both can be true at the same time.

I think a lot of people look really shitty in this whole scenario - the President most of all.  It's one of the reasons other Presidents have done things the way they have in terms of norms, traditions, and decorum - because this is one of those areas where it's totally appropriate.  

The Congresswoman absolutely should not have talked about what the President said - but, from her perspective the President had already politicized his notification process by claiming he called people, unlike previous Presidents (an easily refutable lie - both on what previous Presidents did and the fact President Trump has not called every gold star family).  One of them can't be guilty of politicizing with out the other being as well.  I'm not defending the congresswoman - just saying the President can't have it both ways.

I remember hearing  story that President GW Bush allowed a gold star family (mother or sister I think) to rage at him for 20 minutes, then held her why she cried.  Whatever you think of his policies that's pretty decent human-being shit right there.  Both President GW Bush and President Obama avoided talking too much about that stuff - for just this reason, there is no upside.  It's one of the worst times in peoples lives and there is no way to spin it in your favor and it's unseemly to do so - even when you've done all the right things.

Similarly I think it's pretty horrific that father of a fallen service member talked/asked about money when he got a call from the President - that just seems like a fucking trash move to me.  I think it's weird the President would then promise him money - but its his money if that's what he wants to do.  But then to turn around and not pay the guy until the dude goes to the press - just makes the President and the entire process look more like some cheap reality TV show than anything else.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 19, 2017)

Poccington said:


> Well, a family member who heard the call also said he made the comment. I'd fully believe Trump said something along the lines of "He knew what he was getting into".
> 
> However, I think what Kelly is getting at and what I agree with, is that someone saying something along the lines of "He knew what he was getting into" to the family of a service member killed in combat isn't always meant in a disrespectful manner. You can say "He knew what he was getting into" as a means of acknowledging the fact that soldiers sign on the dotted line in the complete knowledge that their service could result in their death, something which is deserving of the utmost respect.
> 
> Instead of focusing on the words, tone becomes much more important. I doubt what Trumps words were meant in the manner that the Congresswoman has portrayed them as.



We are all pretty sure we know what he meant and I am sure that she did as well. In fact, he did know what he was getting into. That's a fact. That's what warriors do. I can't and don't expect a cheesy politician to understand it. And, there are often times that parents of fallen warriors chose not to believe it.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 19, 2017)

Agoge said:


> We are all pretty sure we know what he meant and I am sure that she did as well. In fact, he did know what he was getting into. That's a fact. That's what warriors do. I can't and don't expect a cheesy politician to understand it. And, there are often times that parents of fallen warriors chose not to believe it.



How the fuck are you sure what another person knew or didn't know about what someone meant?  Is it so crazy to believe a family member did not find the condolence call about their loved one's death respectful?  Is it really impossible to imagine people in that state might not like a lot of the things people say to them - that they might find them of little comfort?

I'd be willing to bet a significant portion of the people who receive condolence calls don't find it comforting and many might even turn their anger towards the person calling - it's one of the things that goes with being the CINC.  Yet another reason why other Presidents don't see a percentage in bragging about how awesome they are at it and how nobody else does it as well as they do.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 19, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> How the fuck are you sure what another person knew or didn't know about what someone meant?  Is it so crazy to believe a family member did not find the condolence call about their loved one's death respectful?  Is it really impossible to imagine people in that state might not like a lot of the things people say to them - that they might find them of little comfort?
> 
> I'd be willing to bet a significant portion of the people who receive condolence calls don't find it comforting and many might even turn their anger towards the person calling - it's one of the things that goes with being the CINC.  Yet another reason why other Presidents don't see a percentage in bragging about how awesome they are at it and how nobody else does it as well as they do.



Yeah...he called them to be disrespectful. That's what he is being called out for. Keep believing it....

And you have no clue as to how a significant portion of the people who receive those calls react do you? That's speculation on your part and nothing more.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2017)

If she felt it was disrespectful, it was. That he cannot have the empathy to then say, "I was trying to console her, my words may not have been the best choice" that is on him. 

I don't think anyone is saying he called her to be disrespectful. I haven't seen that claim made. Only that he was had a chance to show empathy and failed at it. Bottom line is there are more important things than a real or perceived insult to a SM's family member.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> If she felt it was disrespectful, it was. That he cannot have the empathy to then say, "I was trying to console her, my words may not have been the best choice" that is on him.
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying he called her to be disrespectful. I haven't seen that claim made. Only that he was had a chance to show empathy and failed at it. Bottom line is there are more important things than a real or perceived insult to a SM's family member.



I can buy that, but I don't buy the fact that he has to act in a scripted manner and do scripted things at the times people want him to. I don't think his business should be being exploited for political gain which he doesn't help in the way he reacts. He will probably pay for his actions for a while, but I don't necessarily feel that this one is completely warranted.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I can buy that, but I don't buy the fact that he has to act in a scripted manner and do scripted things at the times people want him to. I don't think his business should be being exploited for political gain which he doesn't help in the way he reacts. He will probably pay for his actions for a while, but I don't necessarily feel that this one is completely warranted.



It isn't that hard to apologize. I'm sure every married person should be able to back me up on this one.

This is all such a big deal because he started off this whole thing with a blatant lie about how other presidents didn't call the family members of dead servicemembers, then he did so, and it didn't go over the best. If he wouldn't have spotlighted himself in the first place with a demonstrably false statement it might have not come up at all.

Another thing I am seeing is all these hard core fuckers being like"I did sign up to die..." or "I signed a blank check casahble by the USA" or some other nonsense. 

Um bullshit. You don't sign up to die, it is a risk and part of the job but you aren't looking for it.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This is all such a big deal because he started off this whole thing with a blatant lie about how other presidents didn't call the family members of dead servicemembers, then he did so, and it didn't go over the best. If he wouldn't have spotlighted himself in the first place with a demonstrably false statement it might have not come up at all.



We are in perfect agreement with that. If you go back and read my post concerning him...you will see that we are usually in agreement with his actions and his mouth.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 19, 2017)

Agoge said:


> Yeah...he called them to be disrespectful. That's what he is being called out for. Keep believing it....
> 
> And you have no clue as to how a significant portion of the people who receive those calls react do you? That's speculation on your part and nothing more.



I don't believe I ever said he intended to be disrespectful - in fact I said the opposite in a previous post.  It absolutely is speculation - on both our parts about how people react and how they feel.  However, there actually are interviews journalists did with SM families who were called and they seemed to indicate a variety of responses.  I believe the Washington Post and NYTimes spoke to at least 13 of the 40-some families of SM who have been killed during this administration - seemed to be a variety of responses.

My point is that there is almost no way to give horrendous news and it be taken well every time.  I believe (again speculation - but not without evidence) that many Presidents have run into families having negative reactions to their calls.  I would speculate again that their feelings about the President and geopolitics in general might even inform their reactions.  I can say I believe my parents would react differently to a call from President Obama vs President Trump based solely on their predispositions towards those individuals.

The terrible thing here - IMO - is not that the President (allegedly) botched a condolence call.  I imagine/speculate that happens with everyone.  It's that he lied about other Presidents (and himself), invited a ton of scrutiny, then engaged in a flame war over it with a congresswoman and the media in general relying on his CoS' personal story to bail him out of it.

I am in no way defending the congresswoman.  I think it is in extremely poor taste to politicize a families grief - even when 'the other side' or whoever starts it.  But that gets to my point about the coarsening of dialogue in general.  You don't get to go back to having table manners after a food fight.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 19, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I don't believe I ever said he intended to be disrespectful - in fact I said the opposite in a previous post.  It absolutely is speculation - on both our parts about how people react and how they feel.  However, there actually are interviews journalists did with SM families who were called and they seemed to indicate a variety of responses.  I believe the Washington Post and NYTimes spoke to at least 13 of the 40-some families of SM who have been killed during this administration - seemed to be a variety of responses.



I've made between 100 and 150 death notifications. Unlike you, I am not speculating. But, you can continue to do so. Your initial response sounded like it came from a three-year-old. You were simply ticked at my post and didn't comprehend what I wrote. Maybe you need to read it again.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 19, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I've made between 100 and 150 death notifications. Unlike you, I am not speculating. But, you can continue to do so. Your initial response sounded like it came from a three-year-old. You were simply ticked at my post and didn't comprehend what I wrote. Maybe you need to read it again.



You got ESP from 150 notifications?  That's amazing, when did that shit kick in where you knew exactly how people felt about what was said to them?


----------



## Grunt (Oct 19, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> You got ESP from 150 notifications?  That's amazing, when did that shit kick in where you knew exactly how people felt about what was said to them?



I'm actually done with you. You are simply getting ignorant now. I'm done playing child games. I have seen their responses and heard them. You have not. You have no clue what you are talking about and are now simply responding like a kid.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 19, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I'm actually done with you. You are simply getting ignorant now. I'm done playing child games. I have seen their responses and heard them. You have not. You have no clue what you are talking about and are now simply responding like a kid.



I've done casualty notifications too - but never imagined I could read anyone's mind.  But hey, maybe I'm just ignorant of how it really works.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Oct 19, 2017)

Annnnnnnd I’ve been waiting for this day for a long time. Thread closed.


----------

