The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: talltexan on October 30, 2019, 08:21:16 AM

Title: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on October 30, 2019, 08:21:16 AM
I really cannot even describe what it was like to live through Thursday, Oct. 17. But it's now been almost two weeks, and we're accumulating a fresh set of missteps from our overmatched Commander-and-Chief.

A little about me: I'm a registered Republican who voted in the 2016 primary, but saw immediately that Trump would be a bad President. I didn't think the modest progress on conservative causes would justify the corrosion of our discourse and foreign policy and brazen corruption that Trump and his immediate appointees would perpetrate in the open.

I'm starting this new thread to be a landing point for people who want to say they were right about Trump all along. Beginning with the odd maneuvers of US troops to secure Kurdish oil fields: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQxsTslcTlAhWyiOAKHVv2A38QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2019%2F10%2Ftrump-syria-oil-war-crime.html&usg=AOvVaw1AJmpkSYr1gLcTUUcUQHjt (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQxsTslcTlAhWyiOAKHVv2A38QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2019%2F10%2Ftrump-syria-oil-war-crime.html&usg=AOvVaw1AJmpkSYr1gLcTUUcUQHjt)

It's possible you're reading this and think I've sized him up too incharitably; you're welcome here, too.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: TrudgingAlong on October 30, 2019, 09:00:34 AM
I’m a solid independent who votes both sides. Also a military spouse who shuddered to think he would be my husband’s boss. Still try not to think too hard on that. I predicted he’d be terrible for foreign policy/ relations with our allies, which is the core reason I did not vote for him. Totally right about that one. Did not foresee the betrayal of the Kurds, but not surprised either. We can’t get rid of him fast enough.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on October 30, 2019, 09:52:54 AM
Trump is just about exactly as bad as I thought he would be. It just seemed so obvious. He is a cancer on our country, and on the world at large.

I still can't believe any thinking person voted for him.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on October 30, 2019, 10:55:48 AM
I really didn't want to be right, but he and his administration have been exactly as bad as I predicted they would be back in late 2015 when he started railing about Mexicans during his campaign. I mean, c'mon, we've been hearing about his business and personal disasters since I was a kid, and I'm in my 40s. At best, he's a dishonest, disloyal reality show huckster. He's a disgrace to the office and our Constitution.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on October 30, 2019, 04:31:24 PM
^
^

What they said (Kris and OtherJen)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: rab-bit on October 30, 2019, 04:37:57 PM
Trump is just about exactly as bad as I thought he would be. It just seemed so obvious. He is a cancer on our country, and on the world at large.

I still can't believe any thinking person voted for him.

Isn't it amazing that what seems so obvious to you and me is not all all obvious to so many other people? That's the part that I am still struggling to understand.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bluebelle on October 30, 2019, 04:48:50 PM
he is so far beyond worse than I thought he'd be, and I thought he'd be really bad
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on October 30, 2019, 05:15:00 PM
I figured there would have been more sex related scandals, given his history of assault and infidelity.  Other than that though, it's been going pretty much as expected.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2019, 05:20:28 PM
Much of my family lived in NYC during the 80s and 90s.  I remember my mother getting mad at my aunt when I asked her what a ‘blowhard’ was (something she had called Trump and 5 year old me had overheard). 

For decades Trump told anyone who would listen that he could solve whatever problem was being irrespective of his personal experience. He race-baited and scapegoated and blamed every failure on someone else, and claimed success in things which he had little to do with. He boasted about building skyscrapers when in reality he just changed the facade, then lied about how big they were. He made a habit of working with corrupt figures, of threatening litigation to any perceived enemy and of underpaying his subcontractors. 

He actively tried to keep himself in the spotlight for decades, often using theatrics or outright lies.  He called into news programs and tabloids alike to ensure he was being discussed.

He maintained these same tendencies on the campaign trail.  Then for some reason people are shocked that he acts this way now. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DaMa on October 30, 2019, 06:03:51 PM
I remember him in 1990 when the Marla Maples story was big.  I thought he was a disgusting sexist a$$ then, and he only got worse. 

To second rab-bit, the real problem is how so many people can look at the same thing and see a great man doing everything right.  WTF? 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 30, 2019, 06:08:55 PM
He's avoided more pointless endless foreign conflicts which the rest of the Western world get dragged into, and pulled the US out of treaties favouring the US, leaving remaining participants to negotiate better deals.

Donald Trump is the best US President the rest of the world has ever had. Trump 2020! And if his followers are ambitious and brave enough, they can make Trump 2024 happen, too!

I'm serious. And I'm more serious when I say that unless his opponents grasp why people voted for him, and why they will again (here's a tip: calling 100 million Americans deplorable racists isn't the key to getting them to vote for you instead), he will keep on winning elections.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on October 30, 2019, 06:43:21 PM
Donald Trump is the best US President the rest of the world has ever had. Trump 2020!

I highly doubt that. I’m guessing the Kurds do, too. As well as the Hong Kong protesters. And any family of refugees who have tried to apply for asylum in the US, only to have their children literally stolen from them. And most journalists. And most Ukrainians. And any population who will be imminently affected by climate change.

And...

And...

Well-to-do heterosexual white people in first-world countries can afford to be complacent in the short term, though.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BECABECA on October 30, 2019, 06:49:59 PM
He's avoided more pointless endless foreign conflicts which the rest of the Western world get dragged into, and pulled the US out of treaties favouring the US, leaving remaining participants to negotiate better deals.

Donald Trump is the best US President the rest of the world has ever had. Trump 2020! And if his followers are ambitious and brave enough, they can make Trump 2024 happen, too!

I'm serious. And I'm more serious when I say that unless his opponents grasp why people voted for him, and why they will again (here's a tip: calling 100 million Americans deplorable racists isn't the key to getting them to vote for you instead), he will keep on winning elections.

If you were in Russia, or China, or North Korea, or were one of the various dictators in power around the world, I would concede your point. But you’re in Australia. You are seriously underestimating how this whole Trump as president SNAFU has weakened any country that calls the U.S. an ally and what has been done to date will have repercussions that play out for decades.

Let’s think a little more about NATO’s Collective Defense article, since you brought it up. With Trump’s handlers allowing him to suddenly ditch our Kurdish allies to fend for themselves, all his complaints about NATO countries not “pulling their weight” on defense budgets is really scary. If I was in a NATO country that was anywhere near the vicinity of China or Russia, I would sure as shit not be hoping for Trump 2020. And Trump 2024 would mean the U.S. democracy has fallen, which would be pretty dire news for democratic countries across the world.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on October 30, 2019, 07:16:25 PM
I really cannot even describe what it was like to live through Thursday, Oct. 17. But it's now been almost two weeks, and we're accumulating a fresh set of missteps from our overmatched Commander-and-Chief.

A little about me: I'm a registered Republican who voted in the 2016 primary, but saw immediately that Trump would be a bad President. I didn't think the modest progress on conservative causes would justify the corrosion of our discourse and foreign policy and brazen corruption that Trump and his immediate appointees would perpetrate in the open.

I'm starting this new thread to be a landing point for people who want to say they were right about Trump all along.

It's possible you're reading this and think I've sized him up too incharitably; you're welcome here, too.

Trump was such an indecorous vulgarian that I could not vote for him.

Due to his appalling constitutional illiteracy I expected that Trump would damage the institution of the presidency.

He met my expectation  through his  disregard of the doctrine of separation of powers and failure to  safeguard the presidential  prerogative of executive privilege.





Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on October 30, 2019, 07:36:13 PM
Going through old posts about Trump, it seems that I'm a prophet:

Reading the Trump related arguments and so many people just not understanding how an obviously unqualified and generally terrible person who insults people at the drop of a had, shoots off his mouth without thinking, and by all rights should have no real shot at being elected is doing so well . . . it's really disturbing how closely this parallels the conversations we were having in Toronto before Rob Ford was elected.  Be very, very wary of thinking that normal rules of politics (or even decency) apply to this candidate, and don't underestimate his appeal/popularity to certain segments of society.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 30, 2019, 09:35:29 PM
I highly doubt that. I’m guessing the Kurds do, too.
The Kurds will achieve autonomy within Syria, which is the most they could hope for, realistically. An independent Kurdistan would require our going to war with Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. You signing up? They'll get autonomy. The Turks will withdraw after a decent enough period that Erdogan can save face. And Syria will have more freedom than it had before the Arab Spring.


Edit: and context for the US withdrawal, there's a constitutional convention of Syrian government and opposition meeting in Geneva to write a new constitution to be voted on by the people ahead of UN-supervised elections. This constitution seems unlikely to include "kill all Kurds."


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/long-awaited-syrian-constitutional-committee-meets-time-191030151424363.html


If the people themselves are organising a peaceful settlement, why would we wish to perpetuate the conflict?

Now, if not an independent Kurdistan, what should the West pursue? Define this exactly, and then define exactly what price we should be willing to pay to do this in lives, dollars and time. Because failing to be clear about these things leads to things like the Afghan War - which nobody seems to have noticed turned 18 this last month. Eighteen years. Even the commies got out after half that long.

Quote
As well as the Hong Kong protesters. [...] And most Ukrainians
What should be done here? You want to drop the 10th Mountain Division in Hong Kong or Donetsk something? You want to get into a conflict with a nuclear power?

Quote
And any population who will be imminently affected by climate change.
Speaking from Australia, which is per capita one of the worst carbon polluters on the planet - the US isn't solely to blame for climate change, let alone the US President. And nobody else except your Green Jill Stein is going to stop US emissions rising in the next few years. Voting for her? If so, all good - but I don't like her prospects, even if she got in, well Congress and the states and the Supreme Court would stop her.

Think of it this way: one of Obama's key promises was closing Guantanamo Bay prison. And he couldn't do it in eight years. And you expect a US President to be able to get the US off oil, coal and natural gas? Carter tried it 40 years ago, lost the next election and Reagan took down his solar panels. It's not going to happen.

Your checks and balances stop US Presidents from being able to do much more on their own than blow shit up. That's why at some point they all do that.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 31, 2019, 06:48:43 AM
I'm all outraged out, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on October 31, 2019, 09:25:44 AM
I highly doubt that. I’m guessing the Kurds do, too.
The Kurds will achieve autonomy within Syria, which is the most they could hope for, realistically. An independent Kurdistan would require our going to war with Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. You signing up? They'll get autonomy. The Turks will withdraw after a decent enough period that Erdogan can save face. And Syria will have more freedom than it had before the Arab Spring.


Edit: and context for the US withdrawal, there's a constitutional convention of Syrian government and opposition meeting in Geneva to write a new constitution to be voted on by the people ahead of UN-supervised elections. This constitution seems unlikely to include "kill all Kurds."


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/long-awaited-syrian-constitutional-committee-meets-time-191030151424363.html


If the people themselves are organising a peaceful settlement, why would we wish to perpetuate the conflict?

Now, if not an independent Kurdistan, what should the West pursue? Define this exactly, and then define exactly what price we should be willing to pay to do this in lives, dollars and time. Because failing to be clear about these things leads to things like the Afghan War - which nobody seems to have noticed turned 18 this last month. Eighteen years. Even the commies got out after half that long.

Quote
As well as the Hong Kong protesters. [...] And most Ukrainians
What should be done here? You want to drop the 10th Mountain Division in Hong Kong or Donetsk something? You want to get into a conflict with a nuclear power?

Quote
And any population who will be imminently affected by climate change.
Speaking from Australia, which is per capita one of the worst carbon polluters on the planet - the US isn't solely to blame for climate change, let alone the US President. And nobody else except your Green Jill Stein is going to stop US emissions rising in the next few years. Voting for her? If so, all good - but I don't like her prospects, even if she got in, well Congress and the states and the Supreme Court would stop her.

Think of it this way: one of Obama's key promises was closing Guantanamo Bay prison. And he couldn't do it in eight years. And you expect a US President to be able to get the US off oil, coal and natural gas? Carter tried it 40 years ago, lost the next election and Reagan took down his solar panels. It's not going to happen.

Your checks and balances stop US Presidents from being able to do much more on their own than blow shit up. That's why at some point they all do that.

Kyle-
I acknowledge that you think the rest of world gains from American weakness. Thinking of America as simply a power player in struggling for global influence, that may be true.

But American foreign policy was designed--not perfectly, but in aspiration--to support Liberal values of freedom of expression, self government, and the opportunity to flourish that was first described in America's founding documents. George W. Bush enacted unwise policies, but he always described these values as a goal. Trump's foreign policy truly seems to be abandoning those values. You can argue that his choices are tactical or pragmatic, but a side effect of ceding the role as a global guarantor of security is that the influence will be picked up by the other Great Powers, which are fairly open in their distaste for these values.

The US foreign policy affects global security, but it also loses a moral dimension when not paired with these values.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on October 31, 2019, 09:39:07 AM
In the world of Trumpisms, this has fallen a bit by the wayside, but his continued pressure for lower interest rates is problematic both economically in the long term (or at least that's, like, my opinion, man) but also politicizes the Fed, which is bad in terms of trust in the dollar.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/trump-keeps-pushing-negative-interest-rates-what-would-mean-your-n1056546
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on October 31, 2019, 10:21:43 AM
But American foreign policy was designed--not perfectly, but in aspiration--to support Liberal values of freedom of expression, self government, and the opportunity to flourish that was first described in America's founding documents.

Do you guys not get world history in the US?  What you're saying is laughably and demonstrably false.

You know why the Iranians hate America?  It's because the US orchestrated the overthrow the democratically elected government to implement a dictator . . . who the Iranian people were forced to live under until the the Iranian revolution several decades later.  This pattern repeats over and over through history.

1960 - Democratic Republic of Congo:  Democratic president overthrown by the CIA to institute a dictator (Mobutu Sese Seko)
1964 - Brazil: Operation Brother Sam overthrew democratically elected government to institute a dictator (General Branco) who immediately arrested 50,000 political opponents
1967 - Indonesia:  Aided in toppling democratically elected government to institute a military dictator (General Suharto).  Aided and encouraged mass killings/genocide
1970 - Cambodia:  Aided in toppling democratically elected government via coup, instituting years of unrest and civil war
1973 - Chile: Engineered the coup to topple democratically elected government to institute a military dictator (Augusto Pinochet)
1980s - Afghanistan: Provided weapons and training to mujaheddin jihadi guerrillas (Operation Cyclone) to fight soviets.
mid1980s - Nicaragua: Trained contras in techniques to bomb/terrorize civilians, assassinate judges, and blackmail ordinary citizens in an attempt to overthrow the government.  The US directly caused many civilian deaths by mining Corinto harbour, and blowing up bridges.
1991 - Haiti:  Trained the people involved, and set up the coup to depose democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.


Of course, there's the more recent stuff:
- Illegally (under international law, and the Geneva conventions) kidnapping and detaining (for decades) people accused of being terrorists . . . based on evidence so flimsy that none of the detainees has ever been convicted in a real court.  Performing routine torture (waterboarding, beatings, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, rapes) and murders under the US flag.
- Illegally (under international law) executing civilians and suspecting enemy combatants alike via drone strike.
- Crushing the regime of Saddam . . . but then retreating from Iraq without establishing a strong government, allowing Saddam's old military leaders to create ISIS.

This list could go on, and on, and on with many more examples of the US doing things that have made lives around the world significantly worse.



George W. Bush enacted unwise policies, but he always described these values as a goal. Trump's foreign policy truly seems to be abandoning those values. You can argue that his choices are tactical or pragmatic, but a side effect of ceding the role as a global guarantor of security is that the influence will be picked up by the other Great Powers, which are fairly open in their distaste for these values.

The US foreign policy affects global security, but it also loses a moral dimension when not paired with these values.

US foreign policy has always had an effect on global security.  It has always been in US interests though . . . doing an awful lot of harm to the world in the process.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BlueHouse on October 31, 2019, 10:27:16 AM
Trump is just about exactly as bad as I thought he would be. It just seemed so obvious. He is a cancer on our country, and on the world at large.

I still can't believe any thinking person voted for him.

Isn't it amazing that what seems so obvious to you and me is not all all obvious to so many other people? That's the part that I am still struggling to understand.

My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  And comments like these make him hold his ground even harder.  I think he may have admitted long ago that Trump is a loser, if I hadn't been saying "I told you so" or demeaning his base all these months. 

My BIL is quite intelligent and even pretty thoughtful.  He's usually fair and impartial, so I really don't get it, but to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on October 31, 2019, 10:33:54 AM
I highly doubt that. I’m guessing the Kurds do, too.
The Kurds will achieve autonomy within Syria, which is the most they could hope for, realistically. An independent Kurdistan would require our going to war with Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. You signing up? They'll get autonomy. The Turks will withdraw after a decent enough period that Erdogan can save face. And Syria will have more freedom than it had before the Arab Spring.


Edit: and context for the US withdrawal, there's a constitutional convention of Syrian government and opposition meeting in Geneva to write a new constitution to be voted on by the people ahead of UN-supervised elections. This constitution seems unlikely to include "kill all Kurds."


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/long-awaited-syrian-constitutional-committee-meets-time-191030151424363.html


If the people themselves are organising a peaceful settlement, why would we wish to perpetuate the conflict?

Now, if not an independent Kurdistan, what should the West pursue? Define this exactly, and then define exactly what price we should be willing to pay to do this in lives, dollars and time. Because failing to be clear about these things leads to things like the Afghan War - which nobody seems to have noticed turned 18 this last month. Eighteen years. Even the commies got out after half that long.

Quote
As well as the Hong Kong protesters. [...] And most Ukrainians
What should be done here? You want to drop the 10th Mountain Division in Hong Kong or Donetsk something? You want to get into a conflict with a nuclear power?

Quote
And any population who will be imminently affected by climate change.
Speaking from Australia, which is per capita one of the worst carbon polluters on the planet - the US isn't solely to blame for climate change, let alone the US President. And nobody else except your Green Jill Stein is going to stop US emissions rising in the next few years. Voting for her? If so, all good - but I don't like her prospects, even if she got in, well Congress and the states and the Supreme Court would stop her.

Think of it this way: one of Obama's key promises was closing Guantanamo Bay prison. And he couldn't do it in eight years. And you expect a US President to be able to get the US off oil, coal and natural gas? Carter tried it 40 years ago, lost the next election and Reagan took down his solar panels. It's not going to happen.

Your checks and balances stop US Presidents from being able to do much more on their own than blow shit up. That's why at some point they all do that.

Kyle-
I acknowledge that you think the rest of world gains from American weakness. Thinking of America as simply a power player in struggling for global influence, that may be true.

But American foreign policy was designed--not perfectly, but in aspiration--to support Liberal values of freedom of expression, self government, and the opportunity to flourish that was first described in America's founding documents. George W. Bush enacted unwise policies, but he always described these values as a goal. Trump's foreign policy truly seems to be abandoning those values. You can argue that his choices are tactical or pragmatic, but a side effect of ceding the role as a global guarantor of security is that the influence will be picked up by the other Great Powers, which are fairly open in their distaste for these values.

The US foreign policy affects global security, but it also loses a moral dimension when not paired with these values.

I would posit that anything Trump does that is beneficial for the country or the world is an accidental byproduct of the reason he does anything, which is to benefit himself. He’s morally bankrupt (probably financially, too).

And by the way, Hillary did not call PEOPLE deplorable but rather the beliefs and organizations that espouse deplorable shit. But if the shoe fits ...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BlueHouse on October 31, 2019, 10:34:47 AM
I had NO IDEA that other Republicans would enable and back him. 
I truly thought our Constitution was so strong and beautifully thought out, but now I see you can drive a truck through it. 

I thought we had some degree of safety because really, how much damage could one person do? 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BECABECA on October 31, 2019, 10:42:01 AM
...we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

That’s what I see the impeachment proceedings doing. Public opinion continues to trend more favorably for it and it gives the GOP a way out, since it’ll be up to them in the senate to take down Trump. But we've been seeing a lot of Republican congressmen just opting to not seek re-election when they disagree with Trumpism, gonna need them to instead stick around and speak up.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on October 31, 2019, 11:18:13 AM
I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

I read this and couldn't help but think of Harry Potter, and how so many former Death Eaters claimed they were controlled by the Imperious Curse once he was defeated, and they were allowed to return (mostly) to their normal lives.  Of course many were flat out lying about being under a curse, and secretly continued to support the dark lord and his racist, "wizard-first" agenda.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on October 31, 2019, 11:48:34 AM
But American foreign policy was designed--not perfectly, but in aspiration--to support Liberal values of freedom of expression, self government, and the opportunity to flourish that was first described in America's founding documents.

Do you guys not get world history in the US?  What you're saying is laughably and demonstrably false.

You know why the Iranians hate America?  It's because the US orchestrated the overthrow the democratically elected government to implement a dictator . . . who the Iranian people were forced to live under until the the Iranian revolution several decades later.  This pattern repeats over and over through history.

1960 - Democratic Republic of Congo:  Democratic president overthrown by the CIA to institute a dictator (Mobutu Sese Seko)
1964 - Brazil: Operation Brother Sam overthrew democratically elected government to institute a dictator (General Branco) who immediately arrested 50,000 political opponents
1967 - Indonesia:  Aided in toppling democratically elected government to institute a military dictator (General Suharto).  Aided and encouraged mass killings/genocide
1970 - Cambodia:  Aided in toppling democratically elected government via coup, instituting years of unrest and civil war
1973 - Chile: Engineered the coup to topple democratically elected government to institute a military dictator (Augusto Pinochet)
1980s - Afghanistan: Provided weapons and training to mujaheddin jihadi guerrillas (Operation Cyclone) to fight soviets.
mid1980s - Nicaragua: Trained contras in techniques to bomb/terrorize civilians, assassinate judges, and blackmail ordinary citizens in an attempt to overthrow the government.  The US directly caused many civilian deaths by mining Corinto harbour, and blowing up bridges.
1991 - Haiti:  Trained the people involved, and set up the coup to depose democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.


Of course, there's the more recent stuff:
- Illegally (under international law, and the Geneva conventions) kidnapping and detaining (for decades) people accused of being terrorists . . . based on evidence so flimsy that none of the detainees has ever been convicted in a real court.  Performing routine torture (waterboarding, beatings, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, rapes) and murders under the US flag.
- Illegally (under international law) executing civilians and suspecting enemy combatants alike via drone strike.
- Crushing the regime of Saddam . . . but then retreating from Iraq without establishing a strong government, allowing Saddam's old military leaders to create ISIS.

This list could go on, and on, and on with many more examples of the US doing things that have made lives around the world significantly worse.



George W. Bush enacted unwise policies, but he always described these values as a goal. Trump's foreign policy truly seems to be abandoning those values. You can argue that his choices are tactical or pragmatic, but a side effect of ceding the role as a global guarantor of security is that the influence will be picked up by the other Great Powers, which are fairly open in their distaste for these values.

The US foreign policy affects global security, but it also loses a moral dimension when not paired with these values.

US foreign policy has always had an effect on global security.  It has always been in US interests though . . . doing an awful lot of harm to the world in the process.

It seems that you're placing Trump as merely the latest in a long line of consistent stewards of US foreign policy. Perhaps I am a naiffe, but I'll aspire to better, with the thought that someone other than Trump could take us to this.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on October 31, 2019, 11:49:48 AM
Trump is just about exactly as bad as I thought he would be. It just seemed so obvious. He is a cancer on our country, and on the world at large.

I still can't believe any thinking person voted for him.

Isn't it amazing that what seems so obvious to you and me is not all all obvious to so many other people? That's the part that I am still struggling to understand.

My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  And comments like these make him hold his ground even harder.  I think he may have admitted long ago that Trump is a loser, if I hadn't been saying "I told you so" or demeaning his base all these months. 

My BIL is quite intelligent and even pretty thoughtful.  He's usually fair and impartial, so I really don't get it, but to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on October 31, 2019, 12:01:02 PM
Two points:
1) the Iranian government is against US foreign policy.  One could even fairly say they "hate" the US.  The Iranian people (by and large) do not "hate America".  Big difference.
2) evaluating a country's role in the world solely on perceived failures or unintended consequences will undoubtedly lead you to your preordained conclusion.  To be fair one should look at the broader picture and outcomes, good and bad.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on October 31, 2019, 12:54:18 PM
Two points:
1) the Iranian government is against US foreign policy.  One could even fairly say they "hate" the US.  The Iranian people (by and large) do not "hate America".  Big difference.
2) evaluating a country's role in the world solely on perceived failures or unintended consequences will undoubtedly lead you to your preordained conclusion.  To be fair one should look at the broader picture and outcomes, good and bad.

What broader picture good outcomes have come from the common US policy of toppling democratically elected governments in order to institute dictators?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on October 31, 2019, 12:59:11 PM
Two points:
1) the Iranian government is against US foreign policy.  One could even fairly say they "hate" the US.  The Iranian people (by and large) do not "hate America".  Big difference.
2) evaluating a country's role in the world solely on perceived failures or unintended consequences will undoubtedly lead you to your preordained conclusion.  To be fair one should look at the broader picture and outcomes, good and bad.

What broader picture good outcomes have come from the common US policy of toppling democratically elected governments in order to institute dictators?

It helped a few oil and fruit company executives make a lot of money.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BECABECA on October 31, 2019, 02:58:26 PM
Two points:
1) the Iranian government is against US foreign policy.  One could even fairly say they "hate" the US.  The Iranian people (by and large) do not "hate America".  Big difference.
2) evaluating a country's role in the world solely on perceived failures or unintended consequences will undoubtedly lead you to your preordained conclusion.  To be fair one should look at the broader picture and outcomes, good and bad.

What broader picture good outcomes have come from the common US policy of toppling democratically elected governments in order to institute dictators?

All of your examples of toppling governments are from the Cold War, where the Soviet Union was already interfering in those countries. If the U.S. didn’t get involved, it would just have meant that the Soviet Union would have been consolidated more power and then realize it could operate unopposed and start occupying Western European countries. The “broader picture good outcome” of this is that the Cold War stayed cold and the world didn’t get dragged into World War III as it very likely could have if the Soviet Union didn’t face the resistance that they did from U.S. forces.

We learned our lesson not “interfering” early enough with WWII. Let’s not forget about that specific democratically elected government that I think everyone can agree needed toppling.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: js82 on October 31, 2019, 04:12:45 PM
My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  And comments like these make him hold his ground even harder.  I think he may have admitted long ago that Trump is a loser, if I hadn't been saying "I told you so" or demeaning his base all these months. 

My BIL is quite intelligent and even pretty thoughtful.  He's usually fair and impartial, so I really don't get it, but to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?

I think the approach depends on the person and the situation.  I think part of it is acknowledging some of their frustrations that may have led them to vote for Trump(or perhaps against Clinton, as the case may be).  And then, depending on what their reasons are, there may or may not be an avenue.  (For instance, if they have hardline views on immigration, you're probably not going to persuade them)

If you're trying to be persuasive, don't go down the "how could you possibly have voted for that (negative adjective)" road.  Instead, focus on the ways in which Trump hasn't lived up to the reasons that that person may have chosen to vote for him.  Point out empty promises.  For instance "Drain the Swamp" looks and sounds absurd when your Secretary of Education comes from a family of Republican megadonors, you appoint your daughter and son-in-law to official positions, your Secretary of Transportation was a previous Cabinet member(and the spouse of the Senate majority leader), and you actually thought it was appropriate to try to schedule a G-8(G-7?) meeting at your own property.

Also, offer information rather than judgement - if you try to tell someone what to think it'll backfire 99 times out of 100.  If you help by giving them access to information/examples that support an alternative perspective you may have more success.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Leisured on October 31, 2019, 11:07:06 PM
I have admired Kyle Schuant's posts in the past, but her post at reply #10 puzzles me. Kyle, you seem to say that Trump is trying to return the US to the isolationist stance it had in the remote past, but the world is more enmeshed now than it was in the past. WW2 and the aftermath showed the US that it can use its great economic and military power to influence other parts of the world its way, and that American Way fits well with the goals of other rich countries.

Trump clearly does not understand what he is doing, now how the American Constitution works. Other nations work around Trump's missteps.

I strongly recommend the book below, 'War by Other Means', which declares that the US relies too much on military power and not enough on statecraft, or geo-economics, that is using foreign aid and foreign investment to influence other parts of the world towards the US, the way Russia and China use statecraft to influence other parts of the world their way.

https://www.amazon.com/War-Other-Means-Geoeconomics-Statecraft/dp/0674979796/ref=sr_1_1?crid=538UV3586BN5&keywords=war+by+other+means&qid=1572583819&s=books&sprefix=war+by+othefr+means%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C1105&sr=1-1

Russia is not the superpower it was during the Cold War, so NATO military power might be adequate to counter Russian military power.


Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on November 01, 2019, 12:09:19 AM

I would posit that anything Trump does that is beneficial for the country or the world is an accidental byproduct of the reason he does anything, which is to benefit himself. He’s morally bankrupt (probably financially, too).
Sure. But being hurt or helped by accident leads to the same end result as being hurt or helped on purpose. You're worse or better off. I don't care what Drumpf really feels or intends, I care about results.

Quote
And by the way, Hillary did not call PEOPLE deplorable but rather the beliefs and organizations that espouse deplorable shit. But if the shoe fits ...
Yep, you keep talking that way, insulting 100 million of your fellow Americans - that's exactly what Drumpf wants, to keep the middle class divided from the working class, so that the working class will keep voting for him. If you want him back in 2020, you just keep doing what you're doing.

Kyle, you seem to say that Trump is trying to return the US to the isolationist stance it had in the remote past, but the world is more enmeshed now than it was in the past.

I've no idea what Drumpf is trying to do, and I'm not convinced he does, either. My impression was that he was honestly surprised to win the election - notice that for months before anyone even voted he was going on about Dem-sponsored voting fraud, he was preparing to lose and then whinge about it. And he obviously had no idea who he wanted in his Cabinet - I mean, Jill Stein probably doesn't have a Cabinet lined up, either, you don't if you expect to lose. Probably it was all just a way to boost his brand.

But the result of what we can generously call his "policies" is a more isolationist US. And at this stage in history that's good for the world. I don't care about his feelings or intentions, only the results.

That the world is enmeshed is irrelevant. Do you know who the world's biggest trading partners were in 1914? The UK and Germany. It's like homicide - usually the people know each-other well, after all how much can you be annoyed by a complete stranger? The more closely countries are entwined, the more they have to argue about. Now, we might think that more intelligent people can resolve disagreements without the use of force, but Drumpf is the dumbest President you've had for a while (Dubya was dumber objectively, but he at least knew he was dumb and listened to other people's advice, which was both good and bad, oh hello there Cheney) and he's managed not to invade anyone, much to the disappointment of other Presidential candidates, apparently. Maybe there's a good side to having a cowardly draft-dodger in the White House?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on November 01, 2019, 12:19:26 AM
All of your examples of toppling governments are from the Cold War, where the Soviet Union was already interfering in those countries. If the U.S. didn’t get involved, it would just have meant that the Soviet Union would have been consolidated more power and then -
And yet the people in those countries are not grateful to the US. Sad! It's like Kipling told the US back in 1899, you'll get the blame of these ye better, those half-devil, half-children! But we can't expect those savages to know what's good for them, better bomb them into civilisation, eh?

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!


Alternately, rather than engaging in racist supremacy, you could just leave other countries alone. You can encourage things like democracy and rule of law without bombing, invading or assassinating anyone. Not that democracy and rule of law are part of US foreign policy (hi there Saudis!), but anyway... nice theory.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 01, 2019, 02:17:45 AM
But American foreign policy was designed--not perfectly, but in aspiration--to support Liberal values of freedom of expression, self government, and the opportunity to flourish that was first described in America's founding documents. George W. Bush enacted unwise policies, but he always described these values as a goal. Trump's foreign policy truly seems to be abandoning those values. You can argue that his choices are tactical or pragmatic, but a side effect of ceding the role as a global guarantor of security is that the influence will be picked up by the other Great Powers, which are fairly open in their distaste for these values.

The US foreign policy affects global security, but it also loses a moral dimension when not paired with these values.


All of your examples of toppling governments are from the Cold War, where the Soviet Union was already interfering in those countries. If the U.S. didn’t get involved, it would just have meant that the Soviet Union would have been consolidated more power and then realize it could operate unopposed and start occupying Western European countries. The “broader picture good outcome” of this is that the Cold War stayed cold and the world didn’t get dragged into World War III as it very likely could have if the Soviet Union didn’t face the resistance that they did from U.S. forces.

We learned our lesson not “interfering” early enough with WWII. Let’s not forget about that specific democratically elected government that I think everyone can agree needed toppling.

We can't have it both ways.  Either we're supporting governments in our own interests regardless of who is running them, or we're promoting liberal democracy and freedom to choose.  The Soviets crushed any whispers of freedom in their sphere of influence and we just stood by and watched in the name of peace.  We waged war in Vietnam for a decade to bring them democracy in order to give communism a bloody nose long after we realized it wasn't working.  President Bush Sr. told the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam because he's such a bad character, but we did nothing to help because getting rid of him was a distant second to maintaining order in the region.  Fast forward 20 years and we freed them of Saddam, but then got upset when they elected a religious fundamentalist who didn't like us.  We'll preach about freedom all day long, but only do something about it when it intersects our strategic interests.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 01, 2019, 09:29:11 AM
Can I break into this excellent discussion of diplomacy to complain about Trump's 8:52 am tweet on the monthly jobs report (I have a Ph.D. in labor economics and study the economy intensely for my current employer):





Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 01, 2019, 09:32:05 AM
Can I break into this excellent discussion of diplomacy to complain about Trump's 8:52 am tweet on the monthly jobs report (I have a Ph.D. in labor economics and study the economy intensely for my current employer):

  • He shouldn't comment on the report within the first hour
  • He inflated the numbers to claim it was a fantastic report
  • He won't subtract the striking GM workers' jobs next month (ask me how I know...)
  • He didn't need to do any of this deception because it was actually a decent report that shows the labor market is still expanding, and because Trump's economic record is pretty good in general

Ok, question for you @talltexan - given your background how would you say they compare to the last ~6 years of Obama's presidency?  I ask because from my perspective it seems like they are more or less the same... the economy continues to expand, slowly, and things continue to get better, albeit slowly.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 01, 2019, 09:41:24 AM
Can I break into this excellent discussion of diplomacy to complain about Trump's 8:52 am tweet on the monthly jobs report (I have a Ph.D. in labor economics and study the economy intensely for my current employer):

  • He shouldn't comment on the report within the first hour
  • He inflated the numbers to claim it was a fantastic report
  • He won't subtract the striking GM workers' jobs next month (ask me how I know...)
  • He didn't need to do any of this deception because it was actually a decent report that shows the labor market is still expanding, and because Trump's economic record is pretty good in general

Ok, question for you @talltexan - given your background how would you say they compare to the last ~6 years of Obama's presidency?  I ask because from my perspective it seems like they are more or less the same... the economy continues to expand, slowly, and things continue to get better, albeit slowly.
Is it correct to say that it would be hard not to have at least a decent economy with Fed rates kept this low? Is there a hidden downside when we don't have room to wiggle with Fed rates in the next recession (unless we want to just go to negative rates)? With unemployment rates very low, is it really worth trying to gas the economy more with low rates? I would be in favor of increasing them again during the good times. Open to other points of view on this. What am I missing?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on November 01, 2019, 09:49:30 AM
Can I break into this excellent discussion of diplomacy to complain about Trump's 8:52 am tweet on the monthly jobs report (I have a Ph.D. in labor economics and study the economy intensely for my current employer):

  • He shouldn't comment on the report within the first hour
  • He inflated the numbers to claim it was a fantastic report
  • He won't subtract the striking GM workers' jobs next month (ask me how I know...)
  • He didn't need to do any of this deception because it was actually a decent report that shows the labor market is still expanding, and because Trump's economic record is pretty good in general

But if he was honest about something it might set precedent he doesn't want to maintain.

At first I wrote that sarcastically, but there's probably some truth in it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 01, 2019, 09:56:43 AM
There's a joke about old NYers moving to Florida in here somewhere....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/trump-new-york-florida-primary-residence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR2uzcd3PaFdJQYRFAOZV-cPAhSAxAk__UPK5TvpkeY-jFjNHt6elfxjGL0

From the article:
Quote
White House officials declined to say why Mr. Trump changed his primary residence, but a person close to the president said the reasons were primarily for tax purposes.

In his Twitter posts on Thursday night, the president claimed that he paid “millions of dollars in city, state and local taxes each year.” There is no way to fact-check his assertion; he has never released his tax returns.

Mr. Trump, who is deeply unpopular in New York, was infuriated by a subpoena filed by Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, seeking the tax returns, the person close to the president said. Changing his residence to Florida is not expected to have any effect on Mr. Vance’s case, which Mr. Trump has sought to thwart with a federal lawsuit.

It was unclear how much time he would spend in New York in the future or if he would keep his triplex at the top of Trump Tower. Under New York law, if he spends more than 184 days a year there, he will have to pay state income taxes.

Florida, which does not have a state income tax or inheritance tax, has long been a place for the wealthy to escape the higher taxes of the Northeast.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: gaja on November 01, 2019, 10:22:58 AM
Beginning with the odd maneuvers of US troops to secure Kurdish oil fields: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQxsTslcTlAhWyiOAKHVv2A38QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2019%2F10%2Ftrump-syria-oil-war-crime.html&usg=AOvVaw1AJmpkSYr1gLcTUUcUQHjt (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQxsTslcTlAhWyiOAKHVv2A38QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2019%2F10%2Ftrump-syria-oil-war-crime.html&usg=AOvVaw1AJmpkSYr1gLcTUUcUQHjt)


As an inhabitant of a oil rich nation, this article is SCARY. We all know that oil has been one of the reasons behind earlier "interventions", but to say outright that the US should get the income from oil fields they "liberate"? That is new. How long before they need to "liberate" the oil fields in the North Sea, or Greenland?

One the positive side; last week we celebrated the 75th anniversary of Sovjet kicking the Germans out of northern Norway. After the war, they politely left again. Maybe it is time to reconsider NATO and get friendly with the eastern bear?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 01, 2019, 10:41:59 AM
Beginning with the odd maneuvers of US troops to secure Kurdish oil fields: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQxsTslcTlAhWyiOAKHVv2A38QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2019%2F10%2Ftrump-syria-oil-war-crime.html&usg=AOvVaw1AJmpkSYr1gLcTUUcUQHjt (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQxsTslcTlAhWyiOAKHVv2A38QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2019%2F10%2Ftrump-syria-oil-war-crime.html&usg=AOvVaw1AJmpkSYr1gLcTUUcUQHjt)


As an inhabitant of a oil rich nation, this article is SCARY. We all know that oil has been one of the reasons behind earlier "interventions", but to say outright that the US should get the income from oil fields they "liberate"? That is new. How long before they need to "liberate" the oil fields in the North Sea, or Greenland?

One the positive side; last week we celebrated the 75th anniversary of Sovjet kicking the Germans out of northern Norway. After the war, they politely left again. Maybe it is time to reconsider NATO and get friendly with the eastern bear?

Long before his run for the presidency Trump would frequently comment that we ought to have taken some of the oil when NATO liberated Kuwait, and then again during the second Gulf War. Apparently he's ignored (or simply doesn't care) all of the people who ahve correctly told him that would be a war crime under the Geneva Convention, or that the oil was never ours to begin with.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 01, 2019, 10:50:42 AM
Beginning with the odd maneuvers of US troops to secure Kurdish oil fields: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQxsTslcTlAhWyiOAKHVv2A38QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2019%2F10%2Ftrump-syria-oil-war-crime.html&usg=AOvVaw1AJmpkSYr1gLcTUUcUQHjt (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQxsTslcTlAhWyiOAKHVv2A38QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2019%2F10%2Ftrump-syria-oil-war-crime.html&usg=AOvVaw1AJmpkSYr1gLcTUUcUQHjt)


As an inhabitant of a oil rich nation, this article is SCARY. We all know that oil has been one of the reasons behind earlier "interventions", but to say outright that the US should get the income from oil fields they "liberate"? That is new. How long before they need to "liberate" the oil fields in the North Sea, or Greenland?

One the positive side; last week we celebrated the 75th anniversary of Sovjet kicking the Germans out of northern Norway. After the war, they politely left again. Maybe it is time to reconsider NATO and get friendly with the eastern bear?

Long before his run for the presidency Trump would frequently comment that we ought to have taken some of the oil when NATO liberated Kuwait, and then again during the second Gulf War. Apparently he's ignored (or simply doesn't care) all of the people who ahve correctly told him that would be a war crime under the Geneva Convention, or that the oil was never ours to begin with.
Trump is transactional and selfish to his core. He is also not smart enough to know when (or how) to do something by sleight of hand instead of by bluster. See also: his entire foreign policy and domestic agenda.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 01, 2019, 11:07:14 AM
Can I break into this excellent discussion of diplomacy to complain about Trump's 8:52 am tweet on the monthly jobs report (I have a Ph.D. in labor economics and study the economy intensely for my current employer):

  • He shouldn't comment on the report within the first hour
  • He inflated the numbers to claim it was a fantastic report
  • He won't subtract the striking GM workers' jobs next month (ask me how I know...)
  • He didn't need to do any of this deception because it was actually a decent report that shows the labor market is still expanding, and because Trump's economic record is pretty good in general

Ok, question for you @talltexan - given your background how would you say they compare to the last ~6 years of Obama's presidency?  I ask because from my perspective it seems like they are more or less the same... the economy continues to expand, slowly, and things continue to get better, albeit slowly.

I'd agree with this. TCJA caused a "sugar rush" during 2018, but I haven't seen evidence that investment was higher because of it. A lot of people forget about the spending deal in March 2018, but that also was a fiscal stimulus that the GOP House never seemed inclined to provide to Obama.

I also think that--had Romney been elected in 2012--you would have seen some version of TCJA appear in 2013, and it would have truly been the greatest economy ever. Simply based on timing, and Republicans providing votes for his economy that they were never going to provide to Obama or Harry Reid.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 01, 2019, 12:19:10 PM
Two points:
1) the Iranian government is against US foreign policy.  One could even fairly say they "hate" the US.  The Iranian people (by and large) do not "hate America".  Big difference.
2) evaluating a country's role in the world solely on perceived failures or unintended consequences will undoubtedly lead you to your preordained conclusion.  To be fair one should look at the broader picture and outcomes, good and bad.

What broader picture good outcomes have come from the common US policy of toppling democratically elected governments in order to institute dictators?

All of your examples of toppling governments are from the Cold War, where the Soviet Union was already interfering in those countries.

I get it.  You believe that democracy is only OK for a country when the people pick the leaders that you want them to.  And if they don't, it's better that you put a murderer like Pinochet in power than that they be allowed the freedom to choose.



If the U.S. didn’t get involved, it would just have meant that the Soviet Union would have been consolidated more power and then realize it could operate unopposed and start occupying Western European countries. The “broader picture good outcome” of this is that the Cold War stayed cold and the world didn’t get dragged into World War III as it very likely could have if the Soviet Union didn’t face the resistance that they did from U.S. forces.

I don't agree with your reasoning.  If a cop "knows" that someone he stops is a bad guy, but can't find any evidence, should the officer be allowed to execute the person stopped?  Because with this post you're saying that the imagined ends justify any means - so as long as there's an enemy on the horizon any action can be excused.

This is indeed the same line of reasoning that OK'd American servicemen and women for torturing, sexually assaulting, raping, and murdering prisoners in Abu Grahib or Guantanamo.  It's why Americans execute civilians (and yes, occasionally suspected terrorists) with impunity via drone strike in northern Pakistan.  All in the name of the ends justifying the means.  The thing is, I don't think that even a clear cut case for 'the ends' can be made.



We learned our lesson not “interfering” early enough with WWII. Let’s not forget about that specific democratically elected government that I think everyone can agree needed toppling.

When the second World War ended, America didn't institute another Hitler or Pinochet.  The US helped rebuild Japan and Germany.  A lot of money and effort was spent in preventing the kind of shitty conditions that led to the second world war from happening again.  That was a sensible thing to do, and benefited the world.  Ditto with MacArthur and Japan.

It was a long, slow, painstaking procedure though.  And at some point in history, it's almost like the US decided it wasn't worth fixing problems anymore because of the effort, it was better to half ass it and then walk away.  You can't just yell "COMMIES ARE BAD" and use that to justify putting Pinochet (and many others like him) in power.  Pinochet was bad.  And he was real.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 01, 2019, 12:23:09 PM
Trump is just about exactly as bad as I thought he would be. It just seemed so obvious. He is a cancer on our country, and on the world at large.

I still can't believe any thinking person voted for him.

Isn't it amazing that what seems so obvious to you and me is not all all obvious to so many other people? That's the part that I am still struggling to understand.

Fox News is a helluva drug.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 01, 2019, 12:28:51 PM
He's avoided more pointless endless foreign conflicts which the rest of the Western world get dragged into, and pulled the US out of treaties favouring the US, leaving remaining participants to negotiate better deals.

Donald Trump is the best US President the rest of the world has ever had. Trump 2020! And if his followers are ambitious and brave enough, they can make Trump 2024 happen, too!

I'm serious. And I'm more serious when I say that unless his opponents grasp why people voted for him, and why they will again (here's a tip: calling 100 million Americans deplorable racists isn't the key to getting them to vote for you instead), he will keep on winning elections.

"I'm serious" about a hypothetical unconstitutional power grab.  Ok.  Sure.

Here's a tip - calling every person who doesn't bow down to you "human scum" isn't the key to getting them to vote for you.

Troll on.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 01, 2019, 01:07:17 PM
Can I break into this excellent discussion of diplomacy to complain about Trump's 8:52 am tweet on the monthly jobs report (I have a Ph.D. in labor economics and study the economy intensely for my current employer):

  • He shouldn't comment on the report within the first hour
  • He inflated the numbers to claim it was a fantastic report
  • He won't subtract the striking GM workers' jobs next month (ask me how I know...)
  • He didn't need to do any of this deception because it was actually a decent report that shows the labor market is still expanding, and because Trump's economic record is pretty good in general

But if he was honest about something it might set precedent he doesn't want to maintain.

At first I wrote that sarcastically, but there's probably some truth in it.

As far as I can tell, the improvement in the economy that happened in Nov. 2016 was basically 35% of our country decided that we were suddenly and unexpectedly going to have a Republican, business-friendly administration, so things were going to be good.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 01, 2019, 01:12:26 PM
Can I break into this excellent discussion of diplomacy to complain about Trump's 8:52 am tweet on the monthly jobs report (I have a Ph.D. in labor economics and study the economy intensely for my current employer):

  • He shouldn't comment on the report within the first hour
  • He inflated the numbers to claim it was a fantastic report
  • He won't subtract the striking GM workers' jobs next month (ask me how I know...)
  • He didn't need to do any of this deception because it was actually a decent report that shows the labor market is still expanding, and because Trump's economic record is pretty good in general

But if he was honest about something it might set precedent he doesn't want to maintain.

At first I wrote that sarcastically, but there's probably some truth in it.

As far as I can tell, the improvement in the economy that happened in Nov. 2016 was basically 35% of our country decided that we were suddenly and unexpectedly going to have a Republican, business-friendly administration, so things were going to be good.

35%?  How did you arrive at that?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 01, 2019, 01:29:42 PM
As far as I can tell, the improvement in the economy that happened in Nov. 2016 was basically 35% of our country decided that we were suddenly and unexpectedly going to have a Republican, business-friendly administration, so things were going to be good.

35%?  How did you arrive at that?

I see 25% based on 62M/247M adults. 26% of adults wanted to continue the commie, anti-business, policies of the Democrats.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 01, 2019, 01:39:57 PM
Wikipedia tells me that there were an estimated 250,056,000 voting age population, and 138,847,000 votes, for a turnout of 55.5%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections)
Other articles says 136,669,276 votes, 46.09% went to Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election)

Gets you betwen 25.1 and 25.6% of voting age people voted for Trump.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 01, 2019, 06:34:20 PM
Can I break into this excellent discussion of diplomacy to complain about Trump's 8:52 am tweet on the monthly jobs report (I have a Ph.D. in labor economics and study the economy intensely for my current employer):

  • He shouldn't comment on the report within the first hour
  • He inflated the numbers to claim it was a fantastic report
  • He won't subtract the striking GM workers' jobs next month (ask me how I know...)
  • He didn't need to do any of this deception because it was actually a decent report that shows the labor market is still expanding, and because Trump's economic record is pretty good in general

But if he was honest about something it might set precedent he doesn't want to maintain.

At first I wrote that sarcastically, but there's probably some truth in it.

It appears to me that for him good things can't just naturally happen. It has to be by his doing, and he's going to ensure he takes credit.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Leisured on November 02, 2019, 04:57:27 AM
I've no idea what Drumpf is trying to do, and I'm not convinced he does, either.

Back to the old Kyle Schuant. Good. I misunderstood you for a while. I liked your quote from Rudyard Kipling's The White Man's burden. I think the British Empire worked fairly well for India, but the results in Africa are patchy. I saw a TV program recently where an Indian teacher in an upper class private school in India described British efforts at educating Indians as a Renaissance for India, as British and European knowledge entered India.

Nehru was the first President of an independent India, and he was born into wealth, spent decades in Britain as a barrister I think, and absorbed the British way of life. Once he was President of India he sometimes sarcastically referred to himself as the last Englishman to rule India.

Britain admired the Roman Empire and the Pax Romana, and imposed its own Pax Britannica. The Pax Americana emerged at the end of WW2, and we still live under that Pax today.

I think you underestimate global good will towards the US and Britain, Kyle. BBC radio and TV is listened to worldwide. The rise of China allows people to compare China's heavy handed approach at global influence with that of the US. I cannot imagine a Chinese version of the White Man's Burden. China learns from us; we do not learn from China.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on November 02, 2019, 07:05:08 AM
My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  […] to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?

I think the approach depends on the person and the situation.  I think part of it is acknowledging some of their frustrations that may have led them to vote for Trump(or perhaps against Clinton, as the case may be).  And then, depending on what their reasons are, there may or may not be an avenue.  (For instance, if they have hardline views on immigration, you're probably not going to persuade them)

If you're trying to be persuasive, don't go down the "how could you possibly have voted for that (negative adjective)" road.  Instead, focus on the ways in which Trump hasn't lived up to the reasons that that person may have chosen to vote for him.  Point out empty promises.  For instance "Drain the Swamp" looks and sounds absurd when your Secretary of Education comes from a family of Republican megadonors, you appoint your daughter and son-in-law to official positions, your Secretary of Transportation was a previous Cabinet member(and the spouse of the Senate majority leader), and you actually thought it was appropriate to try to schedule a G-8(G-7?) meeting at your own property.

Also, offer information rather than judgement - if you try to tell someone what to think it'll backfire 99 times out of 100.  If you help by giving them access to information/examples that support an alternative perspective you may have more success.

I quite like the line "Being elected was not enough by itself for Trump to be President, he also had to take the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  Everyone who voted for Trump knew he would have to take that oath and would have expected him to keep it.  Because he has broken his oath to defend the Constitution he no longer deserves anyone's vote in a future election."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kl285528 on November 02, 2019, 08:28:40 AM
Trump is just about exactly as bad as I thought he would be. It just seemed so obvious. He is a cancer on our country, and on the world at large.

I still can't believe any thinking person voted for him.
This.
My wife and I discuss it everyday.
It is as if a large percentage of the population has embraced ignorance as a virtue.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: SpeedReader on November 02, 2019, 09:20:34 AM
I have maintained for years that this country's biggest crisis is in education.  Trump's election proved it to me.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Psychstache on November 02, 2019, 11:39:52 AM
Trump is just about exactly as bad as I thought he would be. It just seemed so obvious. He is a cancer on our country, and on the world at large.

I still can't believe any thinking person voted for him.

Isn't it amazing that what seems so obvious to you and me is not all all obvious to so many other people? That's the part that I am still struggling to understand.

I saw a great post of a friends recently that said "Fox News did to our parents what they said video games would do to us."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on November 02, 2019, 05:21:35 PM
Back to the old Kyle Schuant. Good. I misunderstood you for a while. I liked your quote from Rudyard Kipling's The White Man's burden. I think the British Empire worked fairly well for India, but the results in Africa are patchy.
The US results have been disastrous in recent years.

In any case: unless and until the left in the US stop this "deplorables" nonsense and acknowledge the very real problems of the working class in the US, and how protectionism has improved things for them, Trump will win in 2020, and I am quite serious when I say that if his supporters are ambitious enough, he could with the right il/legal shenanigans win again in 2024.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 02, 2019, 05:50:59 PM
Back to the old Kyle Schuant. Good. I misunderstood you for a while. I liked your quote from Rudyard Kipling's The White Man's burden. I think the British Empire worked fairly well for India, but the results in Africa are patchy.
The US results have been disastrous in recent years.

In any case: unless and until the left in the US stop this "deplorables" nonsense and acknowledge the very real problems of the working class in the US, and how protectionism has improved things for them, Trump will win in 2020, and I am quite serious when I say that if his supporters are ambitious enough, he could with the right il/legal shenanigans win again in 2024.

It's statements like those which make me completely discount your other commentary on US politics. A person (Trump) who has never had the majority support of the populace, who lost the house and barely held onto the Senate under the most favorable electoral and economic conditions is not going to be able to illegally maintain power past 2024.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on November 02, 2019, 06:13:23 PM
You have to be popular to subvert the democratic process and rule of law, now? I better chuck out those history books.

I love how the reasoning goes.
"This one is awful because he violates the Constitution!"
"So he could stay in power after his term ends?"
"No! That would violate the Constitution, which is impossible to violate!"
"But -"
"He violates it in that way, but could never violate it in this other way!"

Anyway, it can be changed, and has been many times. That's why I said, "if his followers are ambitious enough."

That's the problem after your current problem, though. You must get through 2020 before worrying about 2024. You current problem is an inability to understand why abusing a large chunk of the electorate and ignoring their issues, and that there issues are now no longer as bad as a result - they believe - of policies instituted by Drumpf - why doing that is going to make them vote the "wrong" way, for him. Tens of millions of working class Americans are, you say, horribly racist. But these same people - for example, in Michigan - voted for Obama last time. So not only are you insulting potential voters, you're ignoring reality.

"Hey, we tried this in 2016, and we lost. Let's try it again! Hey, let's double down and impeach him!"

I recognise this kind of stupidity, because it's shared by the left here in Australia in the form of the ALP. When a left-wing party takes the group historically their strongest supporters - the working class - and by its policies makes them unemployed and poor, and then abuses them as racist - well, that party tends not to do so well at the ballot box.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 02, 2019, 11:38:05 PM
But these same people - for example, in Michigan - voted for Obama last time. So not only are you insulting potential voters, you're ignoring reality.

Look at the number of voters in MI in 2008 and 2012. Look at the number of voters in MI in 2016. You'll see the total number of voters for President declined.

If you look at the population growth of Michigan, you'll notice that Michigan gained adults from 2012 to 2016.

What happened here?

Sometimes, a lackluster candidate can affect the outcome, even among the party faithful. This is particularly important in Michigan where Wayne County (Detroit) carries the state. Low turnout in Wayne County limits the number of votes for the Democrat.*

That's what happened in Michigan. Trump didn't win from hordes of voters switching parties; he won because there were voters that decided that Clinton wasn't worth enough energy to go the polls.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on November 03, 2019, 01:45:32 AM
Interesting:-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/02/facebook-twitter-donald-trump-lies

The problem today, apparently, is that FB et al allow people to spread lies, unlike traditional journalism, and that people listen to those lies, unlike traditional journalism. Since the masses are too dimwitted to discern truth from lies, we must act on their behalf, break up Facebook, Twitter and similar platforms, and then... there will be no more lies? And people will, presumably, return to the traditional media, full of good wholesome truths (like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, one assumes).

Reich is speaking, of course, to the middle-class lefty audience of The Guardian, but he is not speaking OF them. The proles should know their place.

Can you see how even if the working class don't read this sort of article, the attitude carries through, and leads to people deciding to either not turn out to vote for the people who speak of them in this insulting and patronising way, or even voting for the other guy? If you carry on allowing people like Reich and Clinton to speak for the left in the US, you will make certain Drumpf's future victories.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on November 03, 2019, 03:17:27 AM
Interesting:-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/02/facebook-twitter-donald-trump-lies

The problem today, apparently, is that FB et al allow people to spread lies, unlike traditional journalism, and that people listen to those lies, unlike traditional journalism. Since the masses are too dimwitted to discern truth from lies, we must act on their behalf, break up Facebook, Twitter and similar platforms, and then... there will be no more lies? And people will, presumably, return to the traditional media, full of good wholesome truths (like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, one assumes).

Reich is speaking, of course, to the middle-class lefty audience of The Guardian, but he is not speaking OF them. The proles should know their place.

Can you see how even if the working class don't read this sort of article, the attitude carries through, and leads to people deciding to either not turn out to vote for the people who speak of them in this insulting and patronising way, or even voting for the other guy? If you carry on allowing people like Reich and Clinton to speak for the left in the US, you will make certain Drumpf's future victories.

Also note that political ad spending on Facebook and especially Twitter is minuscule (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/twitter-facebook-political-ads/601174/), and more generally, "Everyone always talks about how much money there is in politics. This is the wrong framing. The right framing is Ansolabehere et al’s: why is there so little money in politics?" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/). Surely, the amount of misinformation being generated organically by individuals on their own time is many orders of magnitude larger in impact than political advertisement spending on these platforms. The argument that breaking up Twitter or Facebook would reduce that problem is a tough sell... With the amount of content being generated every day across FB, Twitter, YT, etc., policing community standards (let alone truth content) is a daunting challenge; e.g., "There is No Algorithm for Truth" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leX541Dr2rU).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 03, 2019, 05:34:48 AM
You have to be popular to subvert the democratic process and rule of law, now? I better chuck out those history books.

I love how the reasoning goes.
"This one is awful because he violates the Constitution!"
"So he could stay in power after his term ends?"
"No! That would violate the Constitution, which is impossible to violate!"
"But -"
"He violates it in that way, but could never violate it in this other way!"

Anyway, it can be changed, and has been many times. That's why I said, "if his followers are ambitious enough."

That's the problem after your current problem, though. You must get through 2020 before worrying about 2024. You current problem is an inability to understand why abusing a large chunk of the electorate and ignoring their issues, and that there issues are now no longer as bad as a result - they believe - of policies instituted by Drumpf - why doing that is going to make them vote the "wrong" way, for him. Tens of millions of working class Americans are, you say, horribly racist. But these same people - for example, in Michigan - voted for Obama last time. So not only are you insulting potential voters, you're ignoring reality.

"Hey, we tried this in 2016, and we lost. Let's try it again! Hey, let's double down and impeach him!"

I recognise this kind of stupidity, because it's shared by the left here in Australia in the form of the ALP. When a left-wing party takes the group historically their strongest supporters - the working class - and by its policies makes them unemployed and poor, and then abuses them as racist - well, that party tends not to do so well at the ballot box.

No, Kyle.  You've chosen to misconstrue one of multiple reasons why your "Trump in 2024!" push is destined to fail (his popularity/unpopularity) and once again ignored all of the other problems raised with your proposal.  Then you've erroneously accused me of calling tens of millions of people 'horribly racist', and tell me I'm 'ignoring reality'. Your claims that Trump's strongest supporters are largely the unemployed and poor is not even accurate.

You bring some good commentary and an Australian perspective to this forum, but you keep  banging on this drum despite all the counter-arguments.  It's not debate or an opinion - it's trolling.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on November 03, 2019, 07:46:22 AM
I honestly did not think Trump the President would be as bad as Trump the candidate. I felt that Trump the candidate was a) not really serious, but doing it to get attention, disrupt the proceedings. But once he was elected, that he would take it seriously, as well as have moderating influences aka checks and balances of feedback from generals, long term administrative staff, diplomats inform him what's what. Well, none of that stuff happened. Trump the president is Trump the candidate. He is still campaigning. He sees this primarily as a popularity contest and will say and even do whatever outrageous thing to get attention (and in his mind adoration). The things I did not predict. Trump is not as cognitively intact as I assumed he was. That even if he was ignorant of the constitution, as well as the various powers and limitations on the executive branch, his unwillingness to learn or follow those rules and laws of our land. And lastly the degree that Republicans as a group chose holding onto power via Trump, over their allegiance to the country and our constitution. It has shocked me.

We all know that Trump in addition to his admiration for dictators who do things like kill journalists, and his own words demeaning and dehumanizing his political opponents (recently called never Trumper Republicans "human scum" and worse than Democrats)  as well as whoever he perceives as his enemy (the free press) with "joking" suggestions for people to use their 2nd amendment rights to deal with it, the Republicans are following his cue.
Just now they hand delivered empty packages with a bow and "get packing" scrawled on it to Democrats involved in the impeachment process. Since the 2016 election Democrats have been sent threatening letters as well as defused pipe bombs from people worked up by Trump to be angry at Democrats.  The Republicans excused their behavior by saying it was a "joke". White house police had to be called, told the aides not the touch the packages, and needed to examine the packages as potential bomb threats.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/democrats-facing-tough-races-receive-suspicious-packages-impeachment-vote
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on November 03, 2019, 08:38:54 AM
RE “deplorables”: so Hillary Clinton made ONE statement with ONE word that was then taken out of context and held up as the reason she lost the election. And repeated a million times.

And OTOH you have Trump and his minions using far more insulting language about anyone and everyone more times than anyone could count, and that’s okay why?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on November 03, 2019, 09:40:41 AM
RE “deplorables”: so Hillary Clinton made ONE statement with ONE word that was then taken out of context and held up as the reason she lost the election. And repeated a million times.

And OTOH you have Trump and his minions using far more insulting language about anyone and everyone more times than anyone could count, and that’s okay why?
There were a bunch of articles documenting the increasingly smug tone of American liberal discourse that came out in 2016, indicating the issue extended far beyond that single emblematic HC comment. This somewhat lengthy article (https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism), which came out prior to the 2016 election, covers the major highlights; among other things, it notes (warns?):

"Smug liberals said George [W. Bush] was too stupid to get elected, too stupid to get reelected, too stupid to pass laws or appoint judges or weather a political fight. Liberals misunderestimated George W. Bush all eight years of his presidency."

But who knows, maybe Trump is too crude, misogynistic, and treasonous to get reelected--in which case, it won't matter how Democrats frame his supporters this time around. However, US politics doesn't need more shrillness in it. Before you label someone as evil and dumb, maybe consider instead that they are merely biased and misinformed.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BlueHouse on November 03, 2019, 01:47:04 PM
My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  And comments like these make him hold his ground even harder.  I think he may have admitted long ago that Trump is a loser, if I hadn't been saying "I told you so" or demeaning his base all these months. 

My BIL is quite intelligent and even pretty thoughtful.  He's usually fair and impartial, so I really don't get it, but to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?

I think the approach depends on the person and the situation.  I think part of it is acknowledging some of their frustrations that may have led them to vote for Trump(or perhaps against Clinton, as the case may be).  And then, depending on what their reasons are, there may or may not be an avenue.  (For instance, if they have hardline views on immigration, you're probably not going to persuade them)

If you're trying to be persuasive, don't go down the "how could you possibly have voted for that (negative adjective)" road.  Instead, focus on the ways in which Trump hasn't lived up to the reasons that that person may have chosen to vote for him.  Point out empty promises.  For instance "Drain the Swamp" looks and sounds absurd when your Secretary of Education comes from a family of Republican megadonors, you appoint your daughter and son-in-law to official positions, your Secretary of Transportation was a previous Cabinet member(and the spouse of the Senate majority leader), and you actually thought it was appropriate to try to schedule a G-8(G-7?) meeting at your own property.

Also, offer information rather than judgement - if you try to tell someone what to think it'll backfire 99 times out of 100.  If you help by giving them access to information/examples that support an alternative perspective you may have more success.
@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 03, 2019, 02:15:11 PM

@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

I think this is why voter numbers have gone up in Canada over the last 3 elections - the Conservatives don't really resonate with a lot of voters and the ABC (anyone but Conservatives) voters are getting out and voting.  Voting against a party or candidate is just as valid as voting for a candidate or party - especially here, when you have a choice between several parties/candidates.  We have recounts going on in 3 ridings right now, so a small number of votes can make a big difference.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 03, 2019, 06:06:49 PM

@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

I think this is why voter numbers have gone up in Canada over the last 3 elections - the Conservatives don't really resonate with a lot of voters and the ABC (anyone but Conservatives) voters are getting out and voting.  Voting against a party or candidate is just as valid as voting for a candidate or party - especially here, when you have a choice between several parties/candidates.  We have recounts going on in 3 ridings right now, so a small number of votes can make a big difference.

Not to mention that the number of ridings in Canada (338) with the lower population (29MM adults) means there’s way fewer people per riding than we have here in the US with our 435 congressional districts and 210MM people

*Canada averages 86,000 adults per riding, whereas in the US the mean number of voters per congressional district is 483,000, roughly 5.6x more people per representative. 
**The number of congressional representatives has been frozen at 435 since 1929.  Given our current population the US has among the most people per representative of any modern democracy.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 03, 2019, 07:14:11 PM

@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

I think this is why voter numbers have gone up in Canada over the last 3 elections - the Conservatives don't really resonate with a lot of voters and the ABC (anyone but Conservatives) voters are getting out and voting.  Voting against a party or candidate is just as valid as voting for a candidate or party - especially here, when you have a choice between several parties/candidates.  We have recounts going on in 3 ridings right now, so a small number of votes can make a big difference.

Not to mention that the number of ridings in Canada (338) with the lower population (29MM adults) means there’s way fewer people per riding than we have here in the US with our 435 congressional districts and 210MM people

*Canada averages 86,000 adults per riding, whereas in the US the mean number of voters per congressional district is 483,000, roughly 5.6x more people per representative. 
**The number of congressional representatives has been frozen at 435 since 1929.  Given our current population the US has among the most people per representative of any modern democracy.

That is so many people per riding/district, but how can 435 representatives manage?  Adding more seats would be even more awkward. 

Automatic recounts: "An automatic recount is triggered when the difference in the number of votes received by the top-finishing candidates equals 0.1 per cent or less of the total number of votes cast".  I am guessing most of your elections have only 2 or at most 3 candidates?  Of course normally (except in Quebec) we have 3 main candidates as well, so this does work.

Our 3 contested ridings had vote differences of 328, 325, and 153 between the first and second place candidates.  Even multiplied by 5.6, that is only a difference of about 1800 and 900.  Not a lot if there are an average of 483,000 voters in a district.  We have 3 recounts for 338 ridings - that would be maybe 4 or 5 for you?  Not huge, but not nothing, either.

I guess basically my point is that even with large numbers of voters per district, each vote can make a difference if the district is at all close, especially if a third party candidate is pulling votes away.  (Not that I want to try to explain the Bloc to non-Canadians, but look at what they did to everyone else this time.)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 04, 2019, 09:29:50 AM
My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  And comments like these make him hold his ground even harder.  I think he may have admitted long ago that Trump is a loser, if I hadn't been saying "I told you so" or demeaning his base all these months. 

My BIL is quite intelligent and even pretty thoughtful.  He's usually fair and impartial, so I really don't get it, but to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?

I think the approach depends on the person and the situation.  I think part of it is acknowledging some of their frustrations that may have led them to vote for Trump(or perhaps against Clinton, as the case may be).  And then, depending on what their reasons are, there may or may not be an avenue.  (For instance, if they have hardline views on immigration, you're probably not going to persuade them)

If you're trying to be persuasive, don't go down the "how could you possibly have voted for that (negative adjective)" road.  Instead, focus on the ways in which Trump hasn't lived up to the reasons that that person may have chosen to vote for him.  Point out empty promises.  For instance "Drain the Swamp" looks and sounds absurd when your Secretary of Education comes from a family of Republican megadonors, you appoint your daughter and son-in-law to official positions, your Secretary of Transportation was a previous Cabinet member(and the spouse of the Senate majority leader), and you actually thought it was appropriate to try to schedule a G-8(G-7?) meeting at your own property.

Also, offer information rather than judgement - if you try to tell someone what to think it'll backfire 99 times out of 100.  If you help by giving them access to information/examples that support an alternative perspective you may have more success.
@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

While where I live--North Carolina--is supposedly purple, I can already see the conservatives around me beginning the gymnastics they need to go through over the next year in order to wind up voting for Trump.

Here's my plan to persuade them to stay home: talk about how great the economy is, and why I think it won't be a close election.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 04, 2019, 09:58:07 AM
The Spectator, a British publication, is reporting that Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s chief adviser and son-in-law, was allegedly involved in the plot against murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The whistleblower claims that Kushner also gave MBS the go-ahead to arrest Khashoggi.

A second source told the Spectator that Turkish intelligence has an intercept of the call between Kushner and MBS — and that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan used it as leverage to persuade Trump to move U.S. troops out of northern Syria ahead of Turkey’s invasion last month.

The Spectator leans conservative, by the way.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 04, 2019, 10:38:15 AM
WH Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham (who you may recall replaced Sarah Sanders) said that four-star Marine General John Kelly was "totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President." Seriously.

Denigrating one of the military's most storied living heros. But hey, as long as he keeps tossing billions to the military it's all good, right?  Oh wait, he's robbing the military of congressionally appointed funds to pay for a few hundred miles of boarder fencing.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 04, 2019, 11:06:44 AM
I go away for one hour, and--when I return--there are basically three new scandals in two posts.

I simply cannot keep up!
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 04, 2019, 11:12:46 AM
The Spectator, a British publication, is reporting that Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s chief adviser and son-in-law, was allegedly involved in the plot against murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The whistleblower claims that Kushner also gave MBS the go-ahead to arrest Khashoggi.

A second source told the Spectator that Turkish intelligence has an intercept of the call between Kushner and MBS — and that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan used it as leverage to persuade Trump to move U.S. troops out of northern Syria ahead of Turkey’s invasion last month.

The Spectator leans conservative, by the way.

This is terrible if true. It will be interesting to see if this has enough backup to have legs.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 04, 2019, 11:21:48 AM
saying "we won't object if you arrest Khashoggi" is a quantum-leap difference from saying "we give you the green light to kill him."

It's unclear which, if either, actually happened. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on November 04, 2019, 12:15:34 PM
saying "we won't object if you arrest Khashoggi" is a quantum-leap difference from saying "we give you the green light to kill him."

It's unclear which, if either, actually happened.
The bigger issue to my mind is that whatever did happen provided the scope for the President of Turkey to blackmail the President of the USA into withdrawing USA troops from Syria, leading to the betrayal and murder of the the USA's Kurdish allies by Turkey.

It was already clear that Kushner was a shit, but when his shittiness puts the Trump at the mercy of Erdogan then that is a serious breach of national security and the President's oath of office.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on November 04, 2019, 12:21:12 PM
I remember him in 1990 when the Marla Maples story was big.  I thought he was a disgusting sexist a$$ then, and he only got worse. 

To second rab-bit, the real problem is how so many people can look at the same thing and see a great man doing everything right.  WTF?

I recently watched a dose of Fox News. If a person's primary news source is Fox News then it is likely that person is UNaware of his misteps. Fox News was lying by omission.

They were still ranting and raving about liberals. Old news in some cases. Hilary Clinton ought not come up in any conservative ranting at this point. She holds no office, has little influence, not part of any election.

If a person was reading certain websites and watching Fox News and surrounded by people who were doing the same it would be easy to believe in Trump.

It doesn't take long looking at any other news outlets to realize how insular the conservative media is though. And reality is easy to find in most places around the country.

I wonder if the WV coal miners have a different opinion of Trump in 2019. 

Trump is as bad or worse than I expected. And the Kurds. I am surprised that someone didn't stand up at the Pentagon for the Kurds who have helped the US missions in the middle east. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on November 04, 2019, 12:25:22 PM
My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  And comments like these make him hold his ground even harder.  I think he may have admitted long ago that Trump is a loser, if I hadn't been saying "I told you so" or demeaning his base all these months. 

My BIL is quite intelligent and even pretty thoughtful.  He's usually fair and impartial, so I really don't get it, but to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?

I think the approach depends on the person and the situation.  I think part of it is acknowledging some of their frustrations that may have led them to vote for Trump(or perhaps against Clinton, as the case may be).  And then, depending on what their reasons are, there may or may not be an avenue.  (For instance, if they have hardline views on immigration, you're probably not going to persuade them)

If you're trying to be persuasive, don't go down the "how could you possibly have voted for that (negative adjective)" road.  Instead, focus on the ways in which Trump hasn't lived up to the reasons that that person may have chosen to vote for him.  Point out empty promises.  For instance "Drain the Swamp" looks and sounds absurd when your Secretary of Education comes from a family of Republican megadonors, you appoint your daughter and son-in-law to official positions, your Secretary of Transportation was a previous Cabinet member(and the spouse of the Senate majority leader), and you actually thought it was appropriate to try to schedule a G-8(G-7?) meeting at your own property.

Also, offer information rather than judgement - if you try to tell someone what to think it'll backfire 99 times out of 100.  If you help by giving them access to information/examples that support an alternative perspective you may have more success.
@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

A lot of analysis indicates, that Trump is likely in the 2020 election to lose the popular vote, and win the electoral vote again. He can even lose 2 of the states he previously won and still win the electoral college. So, I have to say unless something substantially changes, there is a real likelihood we will have another 4 years of Trump. Sure our populations is becoming younger and more diverse. But not in the states that matter. Shocking but true. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/how-trump-could-lose-5-million-votes-still-win-2020-n1031601
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on November 04, 2019, 12:29:28 PM
Do you guys not get world history in the US?  What you're saying is laughably and demonstrably false.

Actually - we don't, or - I didn't. I mean the information is available but when i went through school (70s/80s) the history teaching plan ended around the Great Depression. When I took history parts 1 and 2 in college - the teaching plan ended before WWII. I live in a Red state and have wondered if this figured into the teaching plan. Discussions with our kids seem to indicate the same happened in their classes.

20th century history is very important but the history classes I took focused heavily on early American history. Perhaps they were avoiding controversial recent topics?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 04, 2019, 12:32:56 PM
Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 04, 2019, 12:44:43 PM
Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on November 04, 2019, 01:04:36 PM
Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.

Yep. Very possible.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 04, 2019, 01:06:26 PM
Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.

Yep. Very possible.

Bill Clinton was impeached midway through his second term, and the results didn't seem to help Al Gore in 2000. I'm not seeing the comparison here.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 04, 2019, 01:10:26 PM
None of this surprises me at this point, but I find that I am still capable of disgust.

Former Ambassador To Ukraine Says She Was Told To 'Watch Her Back' (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776092575/congress-releases-first-transcripts-from-closed-door-trump-impeachment-depositio)

Quote
Yovanovitch said, per the transcript of her deposition, the first she heard that Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, was targeting her was from Ukrainian officials. She also noted that Ukrainian officials told her she should "watch her back," because now-arrested Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman wanted a different ambassador in the post.

-----

Yovanovitch detailed a campaign to oust her from her post, and when she spoke to Sondland about the campaign against her, he told her that she should tweet her praise for Trump.

"You need to, you know, tweet out there that you support the president and that all these are lies and everything else," Yovanovitch said, paraphrasing what Sondland told her. "And, you know, so, you know, I mean, obviously, that was advice. It was advice that I did not see how I could implement in my role as an ambassador and as a foreign service officer."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 04, 2019, 01:12:10 PM
Do you guys not get world history in the US?  What you're saying is laughably and demonstrably false.

Actually - we don't, or - I didn't. I mean the information is available but when i went through school (70s/80s) the history teaching plan ended around the Great Depression. When I took history parts 1 and 2 in college - the teaching plan ended before WWII. I live in a Red state and have wondered if this figured into the teaching plan. Discussions with our kids seem to indicate the same happened in their classes.

20th century history is very important but the history classes I took focused heavily on early American history. Perhaps they were avoiding controversial recent topics?

That would explain some comments I've heard about the US's role in the world.  It's a lot rosier and more defensible if we assume history stopped at WWII.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 04, 2019, 01:21:11 PM
Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.

Yep. Very possible.

Bill Clinton was impeached midway through his second term, and the results didn't seem to help Al Gore in 2000. I'm not seeing the comparison here.

True, not a solid comparison but Bill's approval ratings bounced back from his impeachment and he was well liked at the end of his 2nd term. Trump's ratings, while not high in the first place, only need to bounce back enough for Republicans to go to the polls.

If there are enough Republicans that are ambivalent about his quid pro quo -- and, currently, that's the case -- then it'll hurt his chances in the purple states.



Eta: Bill was popular before the trial and his numbers didn't drop too much after the Senate rejected the articles. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/03/clintons-impeachment-barely-dented-his-public-support-and-it-turned-off-many-americans/

He did end on a high note, with approval in the mid 70s.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BlueHouse on November 04, 2019, 01:32:04 PM
Do you guys not get world history in the US?  What you're saying is laughably and demonstrably false.

Actually - we don't, or - I didn't. I mean the information is available but when i went through school (70s/80s) the history teaching plan ended around the Great Depression. When I took history parts 1 and 2 in college - the teaching plan ended before WWII. I live in a Red state and have wondered if this figured into the teaching plan. Discussions with our kids seem to indicate the same happened in their classes.

20th century history is very important but the history classes I took focused heavily on early American history. Perhaps they were avoiding controversial recent topics?

That would explain some comments I've heard about the US's role in the world.  It's a lot rosier and more defensible if we assume history stopped at WWII.
I agree with @Just Joe  .  US History ended at WWII, but then there was an added chapter on Vietnam.  Was it accurate?  Sure...from the American government perspective.  US interference is toned down or described as us helping the less fortunate and less-able countries.  I remember my own history teacher in 8th grade refused to call the civil war anything other than "the war of northern aggression".  This was in NJ.  We just thought it was cute and didn't understand the significance of whitewashing history. 

Remember also that textbook selection in the US is heavily influenced by politics and political donors.  It's pretty eye-opening when you reach adulthood and start learning what really happened. 

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 04, 2019, 01:37:51 PM
Another American chiming in that US history class ended in WWII. The sum total of my high school education about Vietnam was a Hollywood movie my history teacher showed. I can't really remember, but I'm guessing it was Apocalypse now. However, with literally no actual supporting materials, the movie didn't teach me hardly anything (and the history teacher in question was one of the football coaches and frankly used movies and "worksheets" and stuff in class somewhere in the area of 50% of the time-- not to teach, but to eat up class time so he did not have to teach).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 04, 2019, 01:48:01 PM
Another American chiming in that US history class ended in WWII. The sum total of my high school education about Vietnam was a Hollywood movie my history teacher showed. I can't really remember, but I'm guessing it was Apocalypse now. However, with literally no actual supporting materials, the movie didn't teach me hardly anything (and the history teacher in question was one of the football coaches and frankly used movies and "worksheets" and stuff in class somewhere in the area of 50% of the time-- not to teach, but to eat up class time so he did not have to teach).

Gah, using gym teachers to teach history and social studies is such a disservice.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 04, 2019, 01:57:16 PM
Another American chiming in that US history class ended in WWII. The sum total of my high school education about Vietnam was a Hollywood movie my history teacher showed. I can't really remember, but I'm guessing it was Apocalypse now. However, with literally no actual supporting materials, the movie didn't teach me hardly anything (and the history teacher in question was one of the football coaches and frankly used movies and "worksheets" and stuff in class somewhere in the area of 50% of the time-- not to teach, but to eat up class time so he did not have to teach).

Wait, did we go to the same high school? My senior year gov't teacher was one of the assistant football coaches. Half the varsity team and all three senior cheerleaders were in the class, and the football team was undefeated that season. I'm sure you can imagine how much actual education happened in that classroom.

We learned laughably little about Vietnam, even in AP US History. Husband and I just finished watching the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary on Netflix (which is excellent, BTW) and were appalled at how little we knew, not only about the battles and US politics, but the underlying world politics.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 04, 2019, 02:12:58 PM
Yeah, we ended roughly at the Marshal Plan, and that IIRC was the last week when no one was really paying attention anymore.  We spent boatloads of time on the colonial years, including first settlements, first governments, the various allegiances with European nations (e.g. the English, the Dutch, the French and the Spanish).
Then weeks of the Revolutionary War and the drafting of the constitution (with mention of the articles of confederation).  Somewhere in there the French & Indian war was mentioned.
Then another few weeks of the US Civil war, and then the industrialization of our country and its shift from agrarian to factories. 
We barely touched the First World War - honestly we spent more time on the roaring 20s and the Great Depression. WWII took probably a whole quarter. 
THen... that was largely it.  no Korean War, no Vietnam, no war protests or Watergate or Cold War.  The Gulf War (part I) was only a few years old when I was in high school, but we didn’t study that at all.

History for the US ends circa 1950.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 04, 2019, 02:32:18 PM
Yeah, we ended roughly at the Marshal Plan, and that IIRC was the last week when no one was really paying attention anymore.  We spent boatloads of time on the colonial years, including first settlements, first governments, the various allegiances with European nations (e.g. the English, the Dutch, the French and the Spanish).
Then weeks of the Revolutionary War and the drafting of the constitution (with mention of the articles of confederation).  Somewhere in there the French & Indian war was mentioned.
Then another few weeks of the US Civil war, and then the industrialization of our country and its shift from agrarian to factories. 
We barely touched the First World War - honestly we spent more time on the roaring 20s and the Great Depression. WWII took probably a whole quarter. 
THen... that was largely it.  no Korean War, no Vietnam, no war protests or Watergate or Cold War.  The Gulf War (part I) was only a few years old when I was in high school, but we didn’t study that at all.

History for the US ends circa 1950.

Yep. Pretty sure I learned more about WWI politics from a Canadian novel (Rilla of Ingleside, last of the Anne of Green Gables series) than I ever did in school. I think we're about the same age, as Gulf War part 1 happened when I was in junior high.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: MKinVA on November 04, 2019, 03:02:31 PM
I wanted to add a comment to Just Joe's comments about news sources. I heard one commentator bemoan Fox news' lack of real journalistic standards on programs that purport to deliver news. He suggested that one real problem is Fox news, Daily Mail, local talk radio, etc., are FREE sources of news. In depth reporting like the Post, NYTimes, and other sources that may provide more well reasoned discussion cost money. You have to pay a subscription fee. I believe there is a lot of truth to this.
I am trying to convince local sources in my area to devote time/ink to basic civics lessons, taught in plain language, to help people who didn't learn these things in school. People complain about taxes constantly and have no idea how much they actually pay and where that money goes.
I, too, spent years in school hearing about the War of Northern Agression and wondering what the hell they were talking about.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 04, 2019, 03:08:11 PM
There's a saying in marketing:
If you aren't paying for a product, and it is not obvious who is paying for the product, then you ARE the product.



It applies to media outlets, social networking sites and other things we consider "free".
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: MKinVA on November 04, 2019, 03:19:56 PM
And the Dems think they are going to explain the president's transgressions and crimes to the American people and have the people rise up (figuratively) and call for his removal. I have my doubts. The MSM can't seem to explain anything in a logical manner. And having the whole thing come to a head during the Thanksgiving and Christmas/New Year holidays is crazy. The Dems long ago stopped shooting themselves in the foot and are now just aiming for the head.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: js82 on November 04, 2019, 08:15:50 PM
Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.

Unless there are some heretofore unknown revelations that pop up, I don't think the impeachment changes a lot.  It'll pass the house, die in the Senate mostly on party lines, plus or minus a couple votes in swing states.  Trump's base is largely loyal to him, and I don't see that changing, barring something utterly earth-shattering.

I see 2 possible scenarios:

1) The economy holds on for the next 12 months, in which case we get a 2016 repeat, plus or minus a few percent.  Of course, plus or minus a few percent means that the following states are theoretically in play with 2016 margins of victory <4%:

-Arizona (R+3.5% in 2016)
-Florida (R+1.2%)
-Maine(D+3%)
-Michigan(R+0.2%)
-Minnesota(D+1.5%)
-Nevada(D+2.4%)
-New Hampshire(D+0.4%)
-North Carolina(R+3.7%)
-Pennsylvania(R+0.7%)
-Wisconsin(R+0.8%)

In this scenario, it all comes down A) Turnout, and B) Democrats nominating a candidate and focusing on a message that can win the swing states.  2016 showed us that Trump is an unconventional candidate, and that contributed to a polling miss in the Midwest.  2020 could be equally difficult to poll, particularly if the democrats nominate an unconventional candidate of their own.

2) The economy starts to turn south, and Trump gets crushed.  There are enough voters whose reasons for supporting trump can be summed up as "I got a tax cut and the economy's doing well" that the state of the economy will be pivotal in the 2020 election.  It won't take much of a hiccup to shave a percent or two of support away from Trump - and that's probably enough to make the difference between a close election and a landslide, given the number of closely-contested states in 2016.  Of course, this means it's a pretty sure bet that the Republican party will start clamoring for economic stimulus, and Trump will assault the Fed with an epic tweetstorm at the first sign of a blip.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on November 04, 2019, 08:22:54 PM
This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 05, 2019, 06:03:26 AM
This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

Yep.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GreenEggs on November 05, 2019, 06:53:58 AM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: eljefe-speaks on November 05, 2019, 07:32:34 AM
This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 05, 2019, 07:52:39 AM
This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.

We've always had these tendencies, of course. That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that we fell asleep at the wheel and managed to get a president who flung open the lid to Pandora's box.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 05, 2019, 07:59:24 AM
This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.

We've always had these tendencies, of course. That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that we fell asleep at the wheel and managed to get a president who flung open the lid to Pandora's box.

Fell asleep at the wheel?  American Republicans are happy with what Trump is doing.  He's not a mistake.  He's a conscious choice, and has been supported every step of the way.  His actions (distasteful as you and I find them) are the preference of a large number of folks in the US.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 05, 2019, 08:06:01 AM
The first two transcripts are out, and make for interesting reading for anyone so inclined.  With the caveat that few actually will read them, and least of all supporters of the president - but I can’t see how this could possibly help his case.  In sum it confirms a disturbingly heavy and intentional pressure by the WH to push Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation of Biden, and highlights how those trying to do their jobs on behalf of their country were threatened, removed and marginalized.

The GOP questions seem even less likely to help the cause, not landing any real blows on credibility and frequently seeming like they were grasping for anything to complain about, regardless of how inconsequential. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 05, 2019, 08:12:38 AM
This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.

We've always had these tendencies, of course. That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that we fell asleep at the wheel and managed to get a president who flung open the lid to Pandora's box.

Fell asleep at the wheel?  American Republicans are happy with what Trump is doing.  He's not a mistake.  He's a conscious choice, and has been supported every step of the way.  His actions (distasteful as you and I find them) are the preference of a large number of folks in the US.

Yes. Definitely Republicans are.

But the rest of us didn't do enough to counter the bullshit. Not nearly enough.

And we're in danger of not doing enough in 2020 either.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 05, 2019, 08:27:50 AM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 05, 2019, 08:31:07 AM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 05, 2019, 08:44:08 AM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

But do you honestly think that after three plus years of Trump and the right-wing media feeding his supporters a steady diet of lies and conspiracy theories, that they well ever believe he died of natural causes? If Trump dies in office, pretty much every one of his rank and file supporters will believe the left assassinated him.

I'm kinda with talltexan on this one.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: eljefe-speaks on November 05, 2019, 09:06:22 AM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

Wait, what!? I thought he had a doctor's note saying something like he would be the HEALTHIEST president to EVER hold office in the HISTORY of the COUNTRY, EVER.

talltexan - I am fearful of widespread violence even in the event of impeachment. Look no further than a threat of violence tweeted out by an MLB umpire. If he died in office of natural causes the conspiracy theorists would come unglued.  It would be a very dangerous time to live in this country.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 05, 2019, 09:16:33 AM
The consipracy theorists are already unglued.  Any facts or revelations which come out threaten their preconceived beliefs - not to mention all the mental energy they've already put behind DJT (one major correlation between a person's willingness to change their opinion is how much energy they've already invested in that position). 

There are people who still think Elvis is alive (he'd be 84 btw), Kennedy was never shot, chem-trails are aeresoling drugs to make us docile,  the moon landings were faked and the mole king exists.  THey aren't going to become any more unhinged than they already are.

More to the point, the GOP would get Pence, who's like Trump but without all the "Trumpiness".  It's probably their best-case scenario.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on November 05, 2019, 09:28:05 AM
The consipracy theorists are already unglued.  Any facts or revelations which come out threaten their preconceived beliefs - not to mention all the mental energy they've already put behind DJT (one major correlation between a person's willingness to change their opinion is how much energy they've already invested in that position). 

There are people who still think Elvis is alive (he'd be 84 btw), Kennedy was never shot, chem-trails are aeresoling drugs to make us docile,  the moon landings were faked and the mole king exists.  THey aren't going to become any more unhinged than they already are.

More to the point, the GOP would get Pence, who's like Trump but without all the "Trumpiness".  It's probably their best-case scenario.

Perhaps not, but it could still be a catalyst which gives the unhinged a reason to act on something they've already planned.

And we shouldn't discount the extent to which otherwise rational people are increasingly buying into conspiracy theories either. There is a tipping point where mob mentality takes over and otherwise sane people start believing that violence is justified. Hopefully we won't get anywhere close to that tipping point but I do believe it exists.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 05, 2019, 09:31:24 AM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

But do you honestly think that after three plus years of Trump and the right-wing media feeding his supporters a steady diet of lies and conspiracy theories, that they well ever believe he died of natural causes? If Trump dies in office, pretty much every one of his rank and file supporters will believe the left assassinated him.

I'm kinda with talltexan on this one.

Finally, an argument for gun control that the right in the US could get behind?  :P
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: eljefe-speaks on November 05, 2019, 09:33:08 AM
And we shouldn't discount the extent to which otherwise rational people are increasingly buying into conspiracy theories either.

Had a friend at work, funny guy, likable. One day he pulls me into his cube to tell me he is convinced that Sandy Hook was a hoax. I was horrified.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 05, 2019, 09:47:02 AM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

But do you honestly think that after three plus years of Trump and the right-wing media feeding his supporters a steady diet of lies and conspiracy theories, that they well ever believe he died of natural causes? If Trump dies in office, pretty much every one of his rank and file supporters will believe the left assassinated him.

I'm kinda with talltexan on this one.

Finally, an argument for gun control that the right in the US could get behind?  :P

LOL, nope. Don't forget, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

And all those nutters think they're the "good" guys.

And they disproportionally own most of the guns.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 05, 2019, 10:03:01 AM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.
This would depend a lot on how Pence and co handled things. A quick, obsequious, call to Hannity would solve a lot.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on November 05, 2019, 12:05:09 PM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

Wait, what!? I thought he had a doctor's note saying something like he would be the HEALTHIEST president to EVER hold office in the HISTORY of the COUNTRY, EVER.

talltexan - I am fearful of widespread violence even in the event of impeachment. Look no further than a threat of violence tweeted out by an MLB umpire. If he died in office of natural causes the conspiracy theorists would come unglued.  It would be a very dangerous time to live in this country.

Yes according to his doctor (well, Trump did help with the wordsmithing) that
"His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary. If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."

And what happened afterwards, 3 guys storming his doctor's office to take all copies of Trump's medical records. That's normal, right? According to Sarah Sanders, that's "standard operating procedures"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/02/trump-dictated-glowing-health-report-his-doctor-gave-mediathat-trump-dictated-glowing-rump-doctor-sa/572038002/
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: cliffhanger on November 05, 2019, 12:13:56 PM
Not surprised in the slightest it took barely 3 pages into the newest Trump-hate thread for someone to hope for the US President's death. Do you people even read/follow MMM blog?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 05, 2019, 12:30:46 PM
Not surprised in the slightest it took barely 3 pages into the newest Trump-hate thread for someone to hope for the US President's death. Do you people even read/follow MMM blog?

Trump should be protected from the same type of violence that he himself incites?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889)
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-ways-that-donald-trump-incites-violence/ (https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-ways-that-donald-trump-incites-violence/)

Or if you want it from the horses mouth:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCLvJE26wGY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCLvJE26wGY)


I don't hope for the presidents death at the gun of a madman.  But if violent rhetoric bothers you, how do you feel about the words the president uses to urge people who support him to commit violent acts?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on November 05, 2019, 12:57:02 PM
Not surprised in the slightest it took barely 3 pages into the newest Trump-hate thread for someone to hope for the US President's death. Do you people even read/follow MMM blog?

Please don't assume everyone who dislikes Trump feels the same way. The last time I saw someone mention hoping for the accidental death of Trump on these forums it was... GreenEggs.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/so-let's-speculate-about-the-future-of-a-full-trump-presidency/msg2410363/#msg2410363

On the other hand I think the country would be better off without him, assuming the violence discussed above doesn't occur.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 05, 2019, 01:00:44 PM
Yes, the country would be 100% better off without him.

I personally would be fine with his resignation, though.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: MKinVA on November 05, 2019, 01:07:31 PM
I am also not comfortable with the talk about the violent end of any president. Luckily, we have a constitution that allows for impeachment of a president. Cause the original framers knew what could happen if a despot were elected one day.

I think the struggle is going to be how do we get our country back?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 05, 2019, 01:43:41 PM
Not surprised in the slightest it took barely 3 pages into the newest Trump-hate thread for someone to hope for the US President's death. Do you people even read/follow MMM blog?

People, do not feed the trolls. This poster has all Off Topic posts, and their last post was 9 months ago on a previous political thread.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 05, 2019, 01:51:06 PM
Gordon Sondland, ambassador to EU and someone who raised $1million plus for Trumps 2016 campaign, has revised his testimony to the Congressional impeachment investigation, and now admits that he extorted Ukraine, on behalf of Trump, to publicly announce investigations into one of Trump's political rivals, in exchange for previously promised military aid to assist Ukraine in defending itself from Russian annexation of additional Ukraine territory. Please also note that Ukraine is not a part of the EU.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OurTown on November 05, 2019, 02:01:25 PM
Assuming, for the purposes of argument, Trump is impeached by the House and further assuming, also for the purposes of argument, he is acquitted by the Senate, he is likely to do something really, really stupid and dangerous between his trial and the next election.  He will be totally convinced of his own invincibility.  The Senate would be well served to convict him because once they let him off the hook and he runs off and drops a bomb on someone, literally or figuratively, it's on them forever.  I realize they are chicken-shit afraid of his voters, but sweet Jesus.

If the Senate were to vote by secret ballot, like a real jury, I have no doubt Trump would be convicted and removed.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 05, 2019, 02:08:08 PM
Assuming, for the purposes of argument, Trump is impeached by the House and further assuming, also for the purposes of argument, he is acquitted by the Senate, he is likely to do something really, really stupid and dangerous between his trial and the next election.  He will be totally convinced of his own invincibility.  The Senate would be well served to convict him because once they let him off the hook and he runs off and drops a bomb on someone, literally or figuratively, it's on them forever.  I realize they are chicken-shit afraid of his voters, but sweet Jesus.

If the Senate were to vote by secret ballot, like a real jury, I have no doubt Trump would be convicted and removed.

The Senate can censure; they don't have to remove.

This would give Senate Republicans some cover from their base. Trump would tweet up "Traitors!" but he wouldn't be able to primary any of them.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 05, 2019, 02:17:05 PM
The constitution requires a supermajority 2/3s vote to remove an executive officer who has been impeached. I'm informed by constitutional scholars on Twitter that this means it could require less than 67 senators voting to remove, if there are less than 100 senators present for the vote. Maybe there will be a case of the flu running rampant through the Republican Senate delegation at the time of any such vote.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 05, 2019, 02:32:13 PM
Assuming, for the purposes of argument, Trump is impeached by the House and further assuming, also for the purposes of argument, he is acquitted by the Senate, he is likely to do something really, really stupid and dangerous between his trial and the next election.  He will be totally convinced of his own invincibility.  The Senate would be well served to convict him because once they let him off the hook and he runs off and drops a bomb on someone, literally or figuratively, it's on them forever.  I realize they are chicken-shit afraid of his voters, but sweet Jesus.

If the Senate were to vote by secret ballot, like a real jury, I have no doubt Trump would be convicted and removed.

The Senate can censure; they don't have to remove.

This would give Senate Republicans some cover from their base. Trump would tweet up "Traitors!" but he wouldn't be able to primary any of them.

TBH this would be my preference, and probably the only way the GOO doesnt come off looking like an utter goat. Censure, then resoundly beaten in the elections, losing both the popular vote (again. But by a few million more) as well as the electoral college (say losing Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 05, 2019, 02:46:24 PM
The constitution requires a supermajority 2/3s vote to remove an executive officer who has been impeached. I'm informed by constitutional scholars on Twitter that this means it could require less than 67 senators voting to remove, if there are less than 100 senators present for the vote. Maybe there will be a case of the flu running rampant through the Republican Senate delegation at the time of any such vote.

I'd love to see this happen, but given their surprisingly uniform support of every terrible thing Trump has done . . . not sure it's a good idea to hold my breath that they'll take a principled stand this time.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 05, 2019, 02:58:14 PM
My favorite line of the day...

Quote
I’m informed by constitutional scholars on Twitter...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 05, 2019, 03:10:56 PM
The constitution requires a supermajority 2/3s vote to remove an executive officer who has been impeached. I'm informed by constitutional scholars on Twitter that this means it could require less than 67 senators voting to remove, if there are less than 100 senators present for the vote. Maybe there will be a case of the flu running rampant through the Republican Senate delegation at the time of any such vote.

I'd love to see this happen, but given their surprisingly uniform support of every terrible thing Trump has done . . . not sure it's a good idea to hold my breath that they'll take a principled stand this time.

In short, it will only come to pass if it is advantageous to Mitch McConnell.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: kenmoremmm on November 05, 2019, 03:26:50 PM
what happens in the event trump doesn't want to relinquish the office?

say he's impeached by both house and senate. but then doesn't leave.

or, he loses 2020 election and says it's rigged and won't leave.

who removes him?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 05, 2019, 03:34:17 PM
what happens in the event trump doesn't want to relinquish the office?

say he's impeached by both house and senate. but then doesn't leave.

or, he loses 2020 election and says it's rigged and won't leave.

who removes him?

The FBI is under the executive branch but he's insulted them numerous times over his Presidency. The FBI has arrest powers.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: MKinVA on November 05, 2019, 03:43:44 PM
Someone would have to ask a court for a writ of mandamus which requires a governmental entity or official to follow the law. Who would have standing to ask for the writ? Um, Congress? Any voter? The Speaker?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 05, 2019, 04:07:39 PM
One thing I don’t think DJT has ever appreciated is that the various components of the government are beholden to the office of the president, not the individual who is president.  The military, for example, has been loathe to contradict him or earlier presidents because of the office.  As soon as that is gone there is no loyalty to the person. Particularly one who’s denigrated their top ranks, avoided service and used them as pawns. 

I imagine similar department feel the same way.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 05, 2019, 04:14:36 PM
One thing I don’t think DJT has ever appreciated is that the various components of the government are beholden to the office of the president, not the individual who is president.  The military, for example, has been loathe to contradict him or earlier presidents because of the office.  As soon as that is gone there is no loyalty to the person. Particularly one who’s denigrated their top ranks, avoided service and used them as pawns. 

I imagine similar department feel the same way.
But the counternarrative is that the Deep State is disloyal to the President... *sigh*
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: js82 on November 05, 2019, 08:16:10 PM
This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.

We've always had these tendencies, of course. That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that we fell asleep at the wheel and managed to get a president who flung open the lid to Pandora's box.

While Trump may have flung open the lid, we've been the ones stuffing that box for the past several decades.

On some level, Trump is a symptom of several decades' worth of civic rot.  Until we as a nation own up to the fact that Trump is merely a symptom of deeper issues within our nation and make a concerted effort to address said issues, there will be others like him.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 05, 2019, 08:16:59 PM
It looks the Virginia House and Senate went to the Democrats.

Quote from: 538
If Democrats win both the Senate and the House of Delegates, this would be the first time Democrats have had full control of Virginia government since the early 1990s.

Trump's approval rating is -6 in Virginia so it's no surprise.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 05, 2019, 10:13:28 PM
It looks the Virginia House and Senate went to the Democrats.

Quote from: 538
If Democrats win both the Senate and the House of Delegates, this would be the first time Democrats have had full control of Virginia government since the early 1990s.

Trump's approval rating is -6 in Virginia so it's no surprise.

And just a day after Trump urged support for the GOP candidates in Virginia.

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.

Democrats claim victory over Trump-backed Kentucky governor, seize Virginia legislature (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/democrats-claim-victory-over-trump-backed-kentucky-governor-seize-virginia-legislature-idUSKBN1XF1EU)

If this keeps up, next year’s GOP congressional candidates will be begging Trump to shut up about their campaigns.

True to form, he made these elections all about himself:
Quote
In a speech in Lexington, Kentucky, on Monday night, Trump - who won Kentucky by 30 percentage points in 2016 - told voters that they needed to re-elect Bevin, or else pundits would say the president “suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world.”
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 06, 2019, 04:51:58 AM

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.


I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 06, 2019, 07:50:06 AM
Reliable Republican Suburban counties (Boone, Campbell, Kenton) in Northern Kentucky turned against Bevin. Those were the difference-makers.

Reliable Republican suburban counties around Philadelphia (Chester, Wilkes) were Democratic sweeps at the local level last night.

What could possibly be bugging people about the Republican party?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 06, 2019, 07:54:54 AM

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.


I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.

Except at the presidential level because of the electoral college, as we saw in 2000 and 2016. Presidential elections are not one person, one vote.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 06, 2019, 08:15:32 AM

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.


I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.

Except at the presidential level because of the electoral college, as we saw in 2000, 2004 and 2016. Presidential elections are not one person, one vote.
Yes they are, they are just winner take all in 48 states.  That doesn’t negate my point that intensity of your supporters means nothing if they aren’t also a plurality.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 06, 2019, 08:16:44 AM
I'm sure you didn't mean to include 2004 on that list. Bush won both popular vote and EC.

On election night, it probably felt as though everything came down to Ohio, but popular vote was there for Bush, too.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 06, 2019, 08:21:58 AM
I'm sure you didn't mean to include 2004 on that list. Bush won both popular vote and EC.

On election night, it probably felt as though everything came down to Ohio, but popular vote was there for Bush, too.

Nope, you’re right. Thanks for catching that!
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 06, 2019, 08:26:21 AM

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.


I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.

Except at the presidential level because of the electoral college, as we saw in 2000, 2004 and 2016. Presidential elections are not one person, one vote.
Yes they are, they are just winner take all in 48 states.  That doesn’t negate my point that intensity of your supporters means nothing if they aren’t also a plurality.

I would argue that “winner-takes-all” negates “one person, one vote” because the former is not truly representative of the will of the electorate. For those 48 states, the outcome at the electoral college level would be the same whether the vote was 50.1% vs. 49.9% or 99% vs. 1%.

I also don’t understand why states can apply different electoral college rules for a federal election (seems like there should be a national standard), but that’s a different discussion.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 06, 2019, 11:30:29 AM

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.


I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.

Except at the presidential level because of the electoral college, as we saw in 2000, 2004 and 2016. Presidential elections are not one person, one vote.
Yes they are, they are just winner take all in 48 states.  That doesn’t negate my point that intensity of your supporters means nothing if they aren’t also a plurality.

I would argue that “winner-takes-all” negates “one person, one vote” because the former is not truly representative of the will of the electorate. For those 48 states, the outcome at the electoral college level would be the same whether the vote was 50.1% vs. 49.9% or 99% vs. 1%.

We are discussing different matters in that case.  Yes, in 'winner-take-all' scenarios some states will skew heavily towards one candidate while others ('battle-ground states') may be deided by < 0.2% (e.g. Michigan).

My point was that the passion (or disgust) of any one voter within a state doesn't make that vote count more.  And a frequent narrative is how Trump is politically invincible because he's core supporters won't leave him no matter what he does.  The problem with that logic is passion doesn't matter when it comes to counting absolute votes.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 06, 2019, 02:23:18 PM
This is not strictly related to Trump, but rather more broadly how he fits into the larger GOP project.

I'm listening to this podcast right now, recommended by a friend.

It discusses the extent to which even the respectable elements of the right are gearing up to give themselves permission to drop the entire facade of any of any commitment to small-l liberal small-d democracy entirely.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-rise-of-the-illiberal-right/id1462703434?i=1000444329258&fbclid=IwAR0nJqaxnLSrbfDr8GBY1dr01ZHS19SU0TUqrq9Ay_peyNrSUwpDz8z7688

Pretty relevant to today's latest news that Kentucky Republicans are trying to figure out how to basically just ignore the actual results of the governor's election they just lost, and name their guy the winner anyway.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 06, 2019, 02:52:57 PM
Conservatism is what conservatives are doing.

Protecting their access to power by pulling the levers of power--this includes limiting immigration, gerrymandering, and voter suppression, but also reliance on the undemocratic parts of our founding--is their solution to the supposed rise of minority power that many project over the next thirty years.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 06, 2019, 03:13:33 PM
Conservatism is what conservatives are doing.

Protecting their access to power by pulling the levers of power--this includes limiting immigration, gerrymandering, and voter suppression, but also reliance on the undemocratic parts of our founding--is their solution to the supposed rise of minority power that many project over the next thirty years.

I guess power makes sense. They're not conserving anything else, certainly not national finances, or the environment, or small government, or even their own arbitrary moral and social standards (see: Trump).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 07, 2019, 05:42:16 PM
So what's the difference between a 'quid-pro-quo' and flat out bribery?

Seems the interactions between are shaping up to be more threatening, less mutual help.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 07, 2019, 06:32:22 PM
So what's the difference between a 'quid-pro-quo' and flat out bribery?

Seems the interactions between are shaping up to be more threatening, less mutual help.

Not a grammatical expert, but it seems like bribery goes one way while quid pro quo can go both ways.

"Here's money, do me a favor" vs "do something for me, and I'll do something for you." 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on November 08, 2019, 02:13:02 AM
So what's the difference between a 'quid-pro-quo' and flat out bribery?

Seems the interactions between are shaping up to be more threatening, less mutual help.

Not a grammatical expert, but it seems like bribery goes one way while quid pro quo can go both ways.

"Here's money, do me a favor" vs "do something for me, and I'll do something for you."
More like a protection racket -

"If you don't go public with fake investigations against Biden and Hilary I'll let the Russians kill your people and take your land."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 08, 2019, 04:48:26 AM
The key in this circumstance is that the aid to Ukraine had already been approved by congress. 
This wasn’t the WH offering to give something in return for something (a quid-pro-quo) - it was a threat to take something away unless they did what they wanted.

That doesn’t seem like it was a two-way street.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 08, 2019, 07:31:31 AM
The key in this circumstance is that the aid to Ukraine had already been approved by congress. 
This wasn’t the WH offering to give something in return for something (a quid-pro-quo) - it was a threat to take something away unless they did what they wanted.

That doesn’t seem like it was a two-way street.

That's extortion, not bribery or quid pro quo.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on November 08, 2019, 07:39:34 AM
The key in this circumstance is that the aid to Ukraine had already been approved by congress. 
This wasn’t the WH offering to give something in return for something (a quid-pro-quo) - it was a threat to take something away unless they did what they wanted.

That doesn’t seem like it was a two-way street.

That's extortion, not bribery or quid pro quo.

yes that seems to be the correct term. Kind of like, if you don't don't pay us to protect your business, something might happen to your nice business. The Mafia found it very profitable.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on November 08, 2019, 08:13:14 AM
The key in this circumstance is that the aid to Ukraine had already been approved by congress. 
This wasn’t the WH offering to give something in return for something (a quid-pro-quo) - it was a threat to take something away unless they did what they wanted.

That doesn’t seem like it was a two-way street.

That's extortion, not bribery or quid pro quo.

yes that seems to be the correct term. Kind of like, if you don't don't pay us to protect your business, something might happen to your nice business. The Mafia found it very profitable.

I think you could make an argument that all of these terms would apply to what Trump did but also that they don't fully describe his actions.

Quid pro quo means favor for a favor. He's offering the favor of releasing funds to Ukraine but he's not actually the one giving them. Congress has already done that.

Bribery is more or less the same, usually with the understanding that the transaction is illegal.

Extortion is obtaining something through force or threat. Trump isn't directly threatening Ukraine, but he is threatening to put the country in a less protected situation. If he is working directly with Russia, this would be pretty close to what he's doing.

But I still think there must be a more accurate description - withholding something that belongs to someone else in exchange for a favor. Like when a parent gives their kid 2 cookies and says "give one to you brother" but then the first kid tries to trade the cookie for something.

Or basically what Trump has been doing with his charitable foundation for years. Donors give money to the foundation, Trump doles out the money for personal favors.


Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 08, 2019, 08:52:13 AM
....I guess?  The arguments being made though sound too much like Ukraine had much of a choice, and that the US didn’t really put anything in jeopardy... kind of like the asinine argument that “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people, and the bullet is fired by the gun - all the person does is aim and pul the trigger”. 

  I mean, the most adept analogy I can come up with goes something like this:  You own an apartment building with lots of people and there’s a fire.  The fire trucks arrive with the fire chief, and he says “well we can put out the fire, but before we do so I need you to do something for me.”  Meanwhile the building continues to burn and people are quite literally in mortal danger.

That isn’t a favor for a favor, and it seems a bit sick to call that “using leverage” as if this were some business deal where one company might lose more market share.  It does seem like extortion, if not an out-and-out threat that people will die and territory will be lost if you don’t do what is demanded.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on November 08, 2019, 09:10:56 AM
....I guess?  The arguments being made though sound too much like Ukraine had much of a choice, and that the US didn’t really put anything in jeopardy... kind of like the asinine argument that “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people, and the bullet is fired by the gun - all the person does is aim and pul the trigger”. 

  I mean, the most adept analogy I can come up with goes something like this:  You own an apartment building with lots of people and there’s a fire.  The fire trucks arrive with the fire chief, and he says “well we can put out the fire, but before we do so I need you to do something for me.”  Meanwhile the building continues to burn and people are quite literally in mortal danger.

That isn’t a favor for a favor, and it seems a bit sick to call that “using leverage” as if this were some business deal where one company might lose more market share.  It does seem like extortion, if not an out-and-out threat that people will die and territory will be lost if you don’t do what is demanded.

I was thinking of a "favor" as simply doing something for someone but this definition:

favor - an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual

does not apply to the discussion at hand or the fire chief analogy. The thing of value being withheld is due.

ETA: So is there a word that means "withholding what is due to until a favor is provided"?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: EvenSteven on November 08, 2019, 09:16:17 AM
....I guess?  The arguments being made though sound too much like Ukraine had much of a choice, and that the US didn’t really put anything in jeopardy... kind of like the asinine argument that “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people, and the bullet is fired by the gun - all the person does is aim and pul the trigger”. 

  I mean, the most adept analogy I can come up with goes something like this:  You own an apartment building with lots of people and there’s a fire.  The fire trucks arrive with the fire chief, and he says “well we can put out the fire, but before we do so I need you to do something for me.”  Meanwhile the building continues to burn and people are quite literally in mortal danger.

That isn’t a favor for a favor, and it seems a bit sick to call that “using leverage” as if this were some business deal where one company might lose more market share.  It does seem like extortion, if not an out-and-out threat that people will die and territory will be lost if you don’t do what is demanded.

I was thinking of a "favor" as simply doing something for someone but this definition:

favor - an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual

does not apply to the discussion at hand or the fire chief analogy. The thing of value being withheld is due.

ETA: So is there a word that mean "withholding what is due to until a favor is provided"?

Marriage?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on November 08, 2019, 09:17:37 AM
I think if Trump were re-elected we would really get into, I was holding back for my first term/you aint seen nothing/ hold my beer territory. I'm sure it will be very entertaining but disastrous for the stability of our country.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 08, 2019, 09:32:16 AM
....I guess?  The arguments being made though sound too much like Ukraine had much of a choice, and that the US didn’t really put anything in jeopardy... kind of like the asinine argument that “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people, and the bullet is fired by the gun - all the person does is aim and pul the trigger”. 

  I mean, the most adept analogy I can come up with goes something like this:  You own an apartment building with lots of people and there’s a fire.  The fire trucks arrive with the fire chief, and he says “well we can put out the fire, but before we do so I need you to do something for me.”  Meanwhile the building continues to burn and people are quite literally in mortal danger.

That isn’t a favor for a favor, and it seems a bit sick to call that “using leverage” as if this were some business deal where one company might lose more market share.  It does seem like extortion, if not an out-and-out threat that people will die and territory will be lost if you don’t do what is demanded.

I was thinking of a "favor" as simply doing something for someone but this definition:

favor - an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual

does not apply to the discussion at hand or the fire chief analogy. The thing of value being withheld is due.

ETA: So is there a word that means "withholding what is due to until a favor is provided"?

Yes.  Extortion.

Extortion - the practice of obtaining something, through force or threats.

In this case the threat is to withhold what is due.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 08, 2019, 10:58:35 AM
The term is abuse of power, which is almost the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. He used is position of power to attempt to force a foreign power to interfere in US elections to his own personal benefit. There are additional layers of conspiracy in which Giuliani was attempting to leverage access to dirt (true or otherwise, it doesn't matter) from criminals in Europe awaiting extradition to the US in exchange for reducing the threat of extradition to the US. Having Ukraine produce dirt, either though connections to criminal enterprises or the government, also allows Russia to further their claim that they didn't interfere in the 2016 elections, but that it was the Ukranians all along (hence the weird references to a Crowdstrike server). This is obviously not definitive, but it smells a lot like a continuation of 2016 collusion between the Trump camp and Putin.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 08, 2019, 11:34:33 AM
I think if Trump were re-elected we would really get into, I was holding back for my first term/you aint seen nothing/ hold my beer territory. I'm sure it will be very entertaining but disastrous for the stability of our country.

I'm constantly offended by the daily scandals, yet I cannot imagine how this would be possible.

The most outrageous thing Trump has floated lately was the G7 summit taking place at Trump Doral, and he back-peddled on that. Do you think he wouldn't back-peddle on that in a second term?

Tea partiers talked about how Obama would really become unconstrained if he got re-elected, but it felt like the opposite happened, that the Senate Republicans found ways to twist the screws in tighter to the point that he really didn't have much political capital to spend.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on November 08, 2019, 12:45:06 PM
Guitarstv, not so much Trump, but the people around him that makes me feel this way that it's going to be a free for all. There were career and more practical minded people who were holding Trump back from even more missteps and bad judgments, but those people in the 2 years have either resigned or been fired by Trump. The other remaining checks, Trump has been very active in appointing activist judges, the most prominent being Kavanaugh who has now gone on record with his belief that the POTUS while in office can't be prosecuted for ANYTHING (yes, stealing bars from Fort Knox, shooting someone in broad daylight, the argument is him being arrested and prosecuted for that would interfere with his duties as a sitting president, so we can't have that?).
 The third check is Congress. Republicans in congress and the senate, rather than having a clear line, any line that is unacceptable for a president to do, are instead allowing Trump do basically do anything as long as he is not considered a political liability. So, we've lost our checks and balances.
 
Also now that the tax cuts have been enacted, the deficit is inflating at a rapid pace, everything is set up for Republicans to now argue cuts to Medicare and Social security have to happen. Especially when the recession hits and the deficit balloons. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/08/23/trumps-second-term-plan-for-social-security-starve-the-beast/#163044d23794
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Fireball on November 08, 2019, 05:05:09 PM
Also now that the tax cuts have been enacted, the deficit is inflating at a rapid pace, everything is set up for Republicans to now argue cuts to Medicare and Social security have to happen. Especially when the recession hits and the deficit balloons. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/08/23/trumps-second-term-plan-for-social-security-starve-the-beast/#163044d23794

Can I just say, what kind of repulsive monsters are those whose biggest wet dream is depriving the poor and old of the tiny bit of government assistance they use to survive? I'm looking at you, GOP.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 09, 2019, 01:53:18 PM
Seems appropriate for this thread.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on November 09, 2019, 02:36:21 PM
Seems appropriate for this thread.

I'm interested in the  resolution of Vindman's pickle   vis-à-vis his duty under the UCMJ, the doctrine of separation of powers, and Trump's prerogative of executive privilege.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on November 09, 2019, 03:11:58 PM
Seems appropriate for this thread.

I'm interested in the  resolution of Vindman's pickle   vis-à-vis his duty under the UCMJ, the doctrine of separation of powers, and Trump's prerogative of executive privilege.
The Supreme Court said in US v Nixon "the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence".
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 09, 2019, 03:20:34 PM
Seems appropriate for this thread.

I'm interested in the  resolution of Vindman's pickle   vis-à-vis his duty under the UCMJ, the doctrine of separation of powers, and Trump's prerogative of executive privilege.
The Supreme Court said in US v Nixon "the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence".

Yeah... integrity-wise, I don't think it's much of a pickle.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Leisured on November 10, 2019, 04:40:36 AM
Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on November 10, 2019, 05:05:02 AM
Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

Agreed.  One of the big problems with the news coverage that I've seen so far is that it is framed as "digging up dirt on the Bidens" whereas what is really required of Ukraine is "manufacturing dirt on the Bidens".  That's a whole 'nother layer of fucked up corruption by Trump trying to impose corruption on Ukraine.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 10, 2019, 07:45:30 AM
Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

I’m an American, and from my perspective your assessment is spot-on.

I think many of us feel helpless. My congressional reps are all Democrats (my House Rep is Rashida Tlaib) so it seems that all I can do is keep supporting them and keep fighting for voter rights and education.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: wenchsenior on November 10, 2019, 08:05:28 AM
Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

I’m an American, and from my perspective your assessment is spot-on.

I think many of us feel helpless. My congressional reps are all Democrats (my House Rep is Rashida Tlaib) so it seems that all I can do is keep supporting them and keep fighting for voter rights and education.

Helpless is the word.

Mine are all Republicans, and not one of them will vote to impeach and/or remove (despite at least one of the remove votes being a senator who I am certain despises Trump on a personal level).  In fact, they are flooding my email with messages of how hard they are resisting 'the democrats' witch hunt inquiry' on a weekly basis.

It's party before country here, at all times, for both parties.  There are a bare handful of states/districts where the voter population is truly mixed and voter pressure is actually effective in swaying votes or changing the representation to the competing party (or :snort: a third party).  The bulk of the country is self-sorted and/or gerrymandered so that control by one party is effectively absolute and almost impossible to change.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on November 10, 2019, 09:09:11 AM
Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

Gerald Ford (he pardoned Nixon) quipped    that a  ham sandwich can be impeached just for being a ham sandwich.

Ford also stated  that a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives agrees it is  at any given time in history.

Thus, if you agree with Ford as I do,  the House of Representatives  is not bound by what the Framers considered impeachable; it has broad latitude as to which acts or derelictions are and which are not.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 10, 2019, 10:59:06 AM
Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.


Gerald Ford (he pardoned Nixon) quipped    that a  ham sandwich can be impeached just for being a ham sandwich.

Ford also stated  that a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives agrees it is  at any given time in history.

Thus, if you agree with Ford as I do,  the House of Representatives  is not bound by what the Framers considered impeachable; it has broad latitude as to which acts or derelictions are and which are not.
The House is bound by what the Framers intended. The contextual meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors includes self dealing and maladministration. The first impeachment cases was John Pickering was a judge who was impeached for showing up to the bench drunk and generally going on like a madman. Strictly illegal things aside, self dealing, suing office to enrich yourself, and abuse of power are all impeachable offenses in the context of the Framer’s intent. The other element is if it is something that is an actual problem for the republic. Undermining faith in the electoral process, or what the bounds of acceptable political behavior, or substituting personal political interests for the national interest (eg, witholding congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to hold back Russia in exchange for generating political damage to Biden) are impeachable. Paying off a porn star with hush money is unethical, but not really a threat to the republic and therefore (in my mind) not impeachable. If the allegations about leveraging a foreign government to create politically damaging situations for a political opponent is true, then it is absolutely impeachable within the Framer’s intent.

A parallel question is the degree to which we allow cynicism to become normalized as a policy and political action baseline. If we strip something like impeachment to ONLY be political and done for political ends, then it creates a dangerous vacuum for executive action in which the only metric is if the congressional majority in a single house happens to like the president. This attitude increases polarization because it sets up a framework in which principled action is the exception and is pre-emptively viewed through a politically cynical lens. As a side note, there is some irony in your handle being John Galt when this very point of view being what Ayn Rand railed against as being normalized. Demanding the principled action even if politically damaging to your own party is what should be the norm.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on November 10, 2019, 12:17:04 PM
I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

I keep hoping he'll have a spoiled brat hissy fit and just quit. Not unlike Sarah Palin who thought being governor was too hard or  - - - whatever.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on November 10, 2019, 01:40:07 PM

The House is bound by what the Framers intended. The contextual meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors includes self dealing and maladministration.


James Madison argued against  "maladministration" as grounds for impeachment.

He succeeded in persuading George Mason that "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a preferable clause.

The revolving-door staffing of Trump's Administration is an unacceptable  instability that  is a manifestation of  Trump's most undesirable mercurial tendency.

  I think the Trump Administration's  instability is conspicuous evidence of maladministration that does suffice as grounds for impeachment.

^

This is what I was thinking of when  I posted that the House of Representatives is not bound, is not limited, by what the Framers considered impeachable acts and derelictions.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 10, 2019, 06:22:09 PM
I think this is a common reading of that change in criteria from maladministratin to misdemeanor. However, the argument was made that they did not want to have maladministration default to serving at the pleasure of the Senate, hence the change. Interestingly, the legal references they were using during the framing specifically cited maladministration as a type of misdemeanor. So, the change in criteria was actually a broadening, rather than a narrowing, but took the emphasis away from maladministration.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on November 11, 2019, 07:54:30 AM
I think this is a common reading of that change in criteria from maladministratin to misdemeanor. However, the argument was made that they did not want to have maladministration default to serving at the pleasure of the Senate, hence the change. Interestingly, the legal references they were using during the framing specifically cited maladministration as a type of misdemeanor. So, the change in criteria was actually a broadening, rather than a narrowing, but took the emphasis away from maladministration.

Noted.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 12, 2019, 07:29:52 AM
Nikki Haley seemed to be one of the only Trump appointees who left this administration without being greatly diminished politically / dragged through the mud.  Now with Rex Tillerson firing back after Haley's latest memoir I wonder if that will soon change.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 12, 2019, 08:17:35 AM
I used to think the same of Rick Perry, but now it's clear that he was wayyy more caught up in this "Shadow" foreign policy with Ukraine than anyone realized.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: six-car-habit on November 13, 2019, 12:48:38 AM
 Well, unsure if this is directly attributable to Trump but from todays Reuters article :

 "U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik said the State Department violated federal law by letting Defense Distributed, a Texas-based nonprofit, publish downloadable blueprints for the untraceable, undetectable, mainly plastic firearms, as part of a June 2018 legal settlement.

Lasnik cited the State Department’s prior view that publishing such instructions could threaten U.S. foreign policy, national security and even world peace by enabling criminals, including terrorists outside the United States, to obtain the firearms.

“Against these findings, the federal defendants offer nothing” to support the reversal, the Seattle-based judge wrote. “Because the agency action was arbitrary and capricious, it is unlawful and must be set aside.”

The State Department is reviewing the decision. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the agency, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. "

 and this also from the article :

"“It is baffling that the Trump administration continued to work so hard to allow domestic abusers, felons and terrorists access to untraceable, undetectable 3D-printed guns,” Washington state’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said in a statement.

He said Republican President Donald Trump tweeted one day after the July 2018 lawsuit was filed that he was looking into the public sale of 3-D guns and had spoken to the National Rifle Association, and said the guns did not “seem to make much sense!”

“I’m thankful the court agrees,” said Ferguson, a Democrat.

California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia were among the more populous states to join Ferguson’s lawsuit.

Defense Distributed had argued that the earlier ban violated its constitutional rights to free speech and to bear arms under the First and Second Amendments. It had hoped to make its blueprints available to the public in August 2018. "

 What, the companies free speech has been curtailed ??  detailed plans for weapons qualifies ??  I think the 2nd amendment says, a citizen has a right to bear arms, as part of a well regulated militia [ nor is the word gun or firearm found in the amendment] . I suppose DefenseDistributed owners and employees are all part of the National Guard ?  Because none of the 2nd amendment "boosters" that i'm acquainted with are in any sort of regulated militia....

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 13, 2019, 05:31:01 AM
...I guess I would find 'untraceable, easily accessibly' 3D printed guns to be more of a problem if it wasn't already so easy for just about anyone to purchase a firearm with little to no scrutiny and little to no accountability.

put another way: who cares about illegal 3D printed guns when you can get aa traditional one even easier?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 13, 2019, 06:53:44 AM
What's the quality like on these 3D-printed guns?

I remember an episode of "The Rifle Man" with a guy who said he hated ever firing a gun because of how it altered its condition. Can these plastic ones fire more than 3-5 rounds? Seems like a 5-use gun would remove a lot of the mass-shooting concerns.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on November 13, 2019, 07:18:44 AM
What's the quality like on these 3D-printed guns?

I remember an episode of "The Rifle Man" with a guy who said he hated ever firing a gun because of how it altered its condition. Can these plastic ones fire more than 3-5 rounds? Seems like a 5-use gun would remove a lot of the mass-shooting concerns.

https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/worlds-first-fully-3-d-printed-gun-here/

Quote from:  Popular Science
the test version fired 6 shots (out of a magazine of 10) before breaking.
[]
A later design [] fired 600 rounds just fine.

Article is from 2013
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 13, 2019, 09:22:48 AM
The cynic in me suspects the NRA thinks these guns "don't make much sense" because they take business away from existing manufacturers... and it is pretty clear that the NRA is primarily interested in gun sales these days and has wandered very far from where it was in the 60s and before.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on November 13, 2019, 09:56:07 AM

   I think the 2nd amendment says, a citizen has a right to bear arms, as part of a well regulated militia [ nor is the word gun or firearm found in the amendment] . I suppose DefenseDistributed owners and employees are all part of the National Guard ?  Because none of the 2nd amendment "boosters" that i'm acquainted with are in any sort of regulated militia....

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 13, 2019, 10:13:53 AM

   I think the 2nd amendment says, a citizen has a right to bear arms, as part of a well regulated militia [ nor is the word gun or firearm found in the amendment] . I suppose DefenseDistributed owners and employees are all part of the National Guard ?  Because none of the 2nd amendment "boosters" that i'm acquainted with are in any sort of regulated militia....

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.


Further, I believe it was allso in DC v Heller that Scalia wrote in his opinion that no right afforded to a citizen in the constitution is so absolute that reasonable restrictions cannot be placed upon it by the legislature.  As an example, tt is perfectly legitimate to restrict the sale of howitzers to a person even though he has a constititonal right to bear arms.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on November 13, 2019, 10:55:33 AM



no right afforded to a citizen in the constitution is so absolute that reasonable restrictions cannot be placed upon it by the legislature.

Yes.

When discussing exercise of constitutional rights, "No constitutional right may be exercised absolutely," is the watchword to keep in mind.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PKFFW on November 13, 2019, 03:26:31 PM
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.
IANAL but I must say, it still boggles my mind the amount of mental gymnastics it must have taken to come up with a rational argument as to why an entire part of the 2nd Amendment should be ignored so as to make the case that it is an individual right.  Especially coming from someone such as Scalia who always claimed to be of the position that one must adhere to the original framer's intent.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on November 13, 2019, 05:38:40 PM
I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 13, 2019, 05:43:31 PM
I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/

Are you suggesting, again, that it is “the people for whom things aren’t working” who are Trump’s core supporters? Because we have gone over multiple times why that is erroneous.

There is lots to change to help the disenfranchised and downtrodden, but it’s a mistake to suggest that years of ignoring them has led to our current president.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 13, 2019, 06:11:17 PM
I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/
That piece also felt like a bubble of libertarian smugness. "If only people would separate into their own states and magically agree to compromise, everything would be okay." This also somehow manages to attempt to blame PG&E's poor maintenance (a failure of unfettered capitalism, if anything ideological is to be invoked there) on progressive policies in California. The only thing it was really missing was over use of the phrase "cognitive dissonance", the irony of which usage is usually lost on the author.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 14, 2019, 02:38:40 AM
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.
IANAL but I must say, it still boggles my mind the amount of mental gymnastics it must have taken to come up with a rational argument as to why an entire part of the 2nd Amendment should be ignored so as to make the case that it is an individual right.  Especially coming from someone such as Scalia who always claimed to be of the position that one must adhere to the original framer's intent.

This was mentioned in the Vegas mass shootings discussion here, but the idea of the 2nd Amendment applying to individuals rather than "the militia" goes back to Supreme Court cases from the very early 1800s and throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries.  I'm not disagreeing that their choice of words is confusing, but pointing out that this is definitely not something new.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 14, 2019, 07:33:02 AM
I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/

Thread creator here. Can you go into more detail about why you concluded this was the intent of this thread?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 14, 2019, 07:48:02 AM
I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/

Thread creator here. Can you go into more detail about why you concluded this was the intent of this thread?

As Glenstache pointed out, the author of the article Kyle linked (John Michael Greer) is not a ‘leftist socialist.’  He’s a self described moderate conservative and has libertarian-leanings. There’s nothing in his writings to suggest he is a socialist. As a Druid-priest he’s deeply concerned about shifts in the natural world.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 14, 2019, 08:08:23 AM
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.
IANAL but I must say, it still boggles my mind the amount of mental gymnastics it must have taken to come up with a rational argument as to why an entire part of the 2nd Amendment should be ignored so as to make the case that it is an individual right.  Especially coming from someone such as Scalia who always claimed to be of the position that one must adhere to the original framer's intent.

This was mentioned in the Vegas mass shootings discussion here, but the idea of the 2nd Amendment applying to individuals rather than "the militia" goes back to Supreme Court cases from the very early 1800s and throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries.  I'm not disagreeing that their choice of words is confusing, but pointing out that this is definitely not something new.

Actually, the choice of language isn't confusing.  It's pretty straight forward.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Since a well regulated militia is necessary for security, people should be allowed to have weapons.

If you're bending over backwards to conclude that it was intended to allow private individuals to always have weapons irrespective of their status as militiamen . . . that's when it suddenly gets confusing.  Because that's a very different interpretation than the language written.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 15, 2019, 06:58:15 AM
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.
IANAL but I must say, it still boggles my mind the amount of mental gymnastics it must have taken to come up with a rational argument as to why an entire part of the 2nd Amendment should be ignored so as to make the case that it is an individual right.  Especially coming from someone such as Scalia who always claimed to be of the position that one must adhere to the original framer's intent.

This was mentioned in the Vegas mass shootings discussion here, but the idea of the 2nd Amendment applying to individuals rather than "the militia" goes back to Supreme Court cases from the very early 1800s and throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries.  I'm not disagreeing that their choice of words is confusing, but pointing out that this is definitely not something new.

Actually, the choice of language isn't confusing.  It's pretty straight forward.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Since a well regulated militia is necessary for security, people should be allowed to have weapons.

If you're bending over backwards to conclude that it was intended to allow private individuals to always have weapons irrespective of their status as militiamen . . . that's when it suddenly gets confusing.  Because that's a very different interpretation than the language written.

The Supreme Court has been saying precisely that since 1811.  Paraphrasing: An able-bodied militia is a product of an individual right to bear arms rather than a militia being a prerequisite for individuals to bear arms.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 15, 2019, 07:22:01 AM
As the legal logic goes, a militia differs from a standing army, insomuch that a militia is composed of civilians who band together as needed and who's formation is independent of the government.  Limit arms solely to an existing militia and it curtails the ability and efficacy of future militias to form and function. The founders believed strongly in the ability for these militias to freely form and defend, and were distrustful of large, standing armies enforcing domestic tranquility.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 15, 2019, 09:36:59 AM
As the legal logic goes, a militia differs from a standing army, insomuch that a militia is composed of civilians who band together as needed and who's formation is independent of the government.  Limit arms solely to an existing militia and it curtails the ability and efficacy of future militias to form and function. The founders believed strongly in the ability for these militias to freely form and defend, and were distrustful of large, standing armies enforcing domestic tranquility.

Disregarding the fact that at the time the founders wrote the document a militia would only include able bodied land-owning white men (and by extension black people, the elderly, and women should not be allowed to privately own weapons . . . why does the modern US have a large standing army then?  Certainly not because everyone realized that militias in the modern day militias are largely useless for the defense of a country . . . which kinda undermines the whole original reason for the 2nd amendment anyway.  :P

And I get it.  Americans want guns, and will jump through any logical loopholes necessary to get them.  But pointing at the 2nd amendment is a particularly ridiculous way to argue for civilians to own guns.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 15, 2019, 09:48:31 AM
As the legal logic goes, a militia differs from a standing army, insomuch that a militia is composed of civilians who band together as needed and who's formation is independent of the government.  Limit arms solely to an existing militia and it curtails the ability and efficacy of future militias to form and function. The founders believed strongly in the ability for these militias to freely form and defend, and were distrustful of large, standing armies enforcing domestic tranquility.

Disregarding the fact that at the time the founders wrote the document a militia would only include able bodied land-owning white men (and by extension black people, the elderly, and women should not be allowed to privately own weapons . . . why does the modern US have a large standing army then?  Certainly not because everyone realized that militias in the modern day militias are largely useless for the defense of a country . . . which kinda undermines the whole original reason for the 2nd amendment anyway.  :P

And I get it.  Americans want guns, and will jump through any logical loopholes necessary to get them.  But pointing at the 2nd amendment is a particularly ridiculous way to argue for civilians to own guns.

FWIW I'm not a gun-owner, and I find the 'slippery-slope' arguments of the gun lobby to be ridiculous.
That said, to address your comment militias and armies are not the same thing.  Except in truly extreme circumstances the army has no domestic role in keeping law and order, and that is as intended.  As a colony the States were policed (and abused) by the British army, despite being British citizens themselves.

As for "Americans want guns" - I think that's too broad.  A minority of Americans live in households with a firearm.  But many of those that do are extremely loud about the whole bit.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 15, 2019, 09:49:03 AM
Meanwhile, Trump appears to have been called out for intimidating and disparaging a witness during testimony this morning. Even a Fox News anchor thought it was a bad move by Trump.
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/15/20966520/trump-twitter-impeachment-hearings-witness-intimidation?fbclid=IwAR0FWY-Y_khWDPT27NjCtrqKnDoRiUvxNMp0dh0ROETr9G5OEvM1-0JEdjo

Quote
Schiff went on to characterize Trump’s tweets as a form of witness intimidation.

“I want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously,” he said.

Even Fox News’s Bret Baier thought Trump’s tweets were ill-advised. After Yovanovitch’s hearing adjourned for a break, Baier said that “this whole hearing turned on a dime when the president tweeted about her [in] real time and during the questioning Adam Schiff stopped the Democratic questioning to read the president’s tweet to her and get her response.”

“Now that enabled Schiff to then characterize that tweet as intimidating the witness or tampering the witness, which is a crime — adding essentially an article of impeachment in real time as this hearing is going on,” Baier continued. “That changed this entire dynamic of this first part of this hearing, and Republicans now are going to have to take the rest of this hearing to probably clean that up.”
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 15, 2019, 09:58:09 AM
Roger Stone:  Guilty on all counts.

Mark up one more for the Mueller investigation.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 15, 2019, 10:36:46 AM
Roger Stone:  Guilty on all counts.

Mark up one more for the Mueller investigation.

What are the odds-makers saying regarding a Stone pardon? I've been relatively surprised we haven't seen Trump pardoning more of his co-conspirators, but then again maybe the whole 5th amendment issue makes that too difficult for his team to contemplate.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 15, 2019, 10:55:43 AM
Roger Stone:  Guilty on all counts.

Mark up one more for the Mueller investigation.
This witch hunt sure does seem to be finding a lot of witches.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 15, 2019, 11:01:55 AM
Roger Stone:  Guilty on all counts.

Mark up one more for the Mueller investigation.
This witch hunt sure does seem to be finding a lot of witches.

That's how you know it's a witch hunt.  :P
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 15, 2019, 11:03:57 AM
Roger Stone:  Guilty on all counts.

Mark up one more for the Mueller investigation.
This witch hunt sure does seem to be finding a lot of witches.

That's how you know it's a witch hunt.  :P
Seems to be good at uncovering hoaxes as well.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 15, 2019, 01:39:28 PM
Roger Stone:  Guilty on all counts.

Mark up one more for the Mueller investigation.

What are the odds-makers saying regarding a Stone pardon? I've been relatively surprised we haven't seen Trump pardoning more of his co-conspirators, but then again maybe the whole 5th amendment issue makes that too difficult for his team to contemplate.

Part of me wants Trump to be so dumb. Stone's been found guilty - nothing will change that. A pardon will be just another example of him trying to subvert justice - yet another act of self-preservation over job our country.  It probably won't change much from his supporters, but lately they haven't bothered much defending his conduct, resorting instead to attacking the scrutiny and process.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 15, 2019, 01:44:21 PM
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone. He abandons people at the drop of a hat if he sees them lose. Hell, he even went so far as to delete a tweet supporting Sean Spicer on Dancing With The Stars once Spicer lost. Why would he stick with Stone?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 15, 2019, 01:57:47 PM
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone. He abandons people at the drop of a hat if he sees them lose. Hell, he even went so far as to delete a tweet supporting Sean Spicer on Dancing With The Stars once Spicer lost. Why would he stick with Stone?

Yep. Stone could flip and spill details about Wikileaks and the Trump campaign but the Senate GOP won't care. Trump knows that.

I'm just surprised that anyone trusts him anymore. Are these people desperate or stupid? Or they hope to make money and escape his reach before he throws them under a bus?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 15, 2019, 02:02:45 PM
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone. He abandons people at the drop of a hat if he sees them lose. Hell, he even went so far as to delete a tweet supporting Sean Spicer on Dancing With The Stars once Spicer lost. Why would he stick with Stone?

Yep. Stone could flip and spill details about Wikileaks and the Trump campaign but the Senate GOP won't care. Trump knows that.

I'm just surprised that anyone trusts him anymore. Are these people desperate or stupid? Or they hope to make money and escape his reach before he throws them under a bus?

Trump is a very stupid man.  It's possibly hubris that they think they can outwit him.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on November 15, 2019, 02:11:33 PM
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone. He abandons people at the drop of a hat if he sees them lose. Hell, he even went so far as to delete a tweet supporting Sean Spicer on Dancing With The Stars once Spicer lost. Why would he stick with Stone?

OMG That's hilarious. Does he not know people can screenshot?
He never backs losers. And if he did, it never happened.

https://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spicer-dancing-with-the-stars-trump-delete-tweet-praise-2019-11
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DaMa on November 15, 2019, 05:35:46 PM
I've been thinking, it would be so easy for the Senators to turn on Trump now.  We know from before he got the nomination that none of them really care for him.  The 2018 and 2019 elections saw more Democrats elected. They could put Pence in place and spend the next year making him look good.  Pence could even keep on with the Trump positions that his supporters like, without all the crazy. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 15, 2019, 05:37:25 PM


I'm just surprised that anyone trusts him anymore. Are these people desperate or stupid? Or they hope to make money and escape his reach before he throws them under a bus?

I've been thinking, it would be so easy for the Senators to turn on Trump now.  We know from before he got the nomination that none of them really care for him.  The 2018 and 2019 elections saw more Democrats elected. They could put Pence in place and spend the next year making him look good.  Pence could even keep on with the Trump positions that his supporters like, without all the crazy. 


"My Party, right or wrong."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 15, 2019, 06:04:19 PM
Friday night pardons that seem to have pretty starkly different views depending on what news source you look at:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/11/16/trump-grants-clemency-to-troops-in-three-controversial-war-crimes-cases/

Either 1) he just pardoned war criminals or, 2) he just decided that the military justice system is broken and the convictions were in error. Thoughts? I have not been following this. The timing of the pardons feels like something that he hopes unfriendly media will forget about by Monday.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 15, 2019, 08:13:27 PM
Friday night pardons that seem to have pretty starkly different views depending on what news source you look at:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/11/16/trump-grants-clemency-to-troops-in-three-controversial-war-crimes-cases/

Either 1) he just pardoned war criminals or, 2) he just decided that the military justice system is broken and the convictions were in error. Thoughts? I have not been following this. The timing of the pardons feels like something that he hopes unfriendly media will forget about by Monday.

For Lorance, almost his entire platoon testified against him that he ordered them to fire on unarmed men.  His appeals have been based on statements from others that they were armed earlier in the day or were known Taliban associates.  Gallagher's trial was an absolute mess with witnesses confessing to murder while under immunity on the stand and some weirdness in the prosecution team that is causing Navy JAG to take hard look internally.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/07/01/army-officer-convicted-of-murder-in-afghanistan-to-get-another-look-by-civilian-court/ (https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/07/01/army-officer-convicted-of-murder-in-afghanistan-to-get-another-look-by-civilian-court/)

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/07/02/seal-war-crimes-suspect-not-guilty-on-murder-charge/ (https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/07/02/seal-war-crimes-suspect-not-guilty-on-murder-charge/)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on November 15, 2019, 10:47:12 PM
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone.
The danger of pardoning someone is that while it's just them accused, they can't be compelled to testify; once pardoned, they can be. So while a charge or conviction gives an incentive to a person to flip and dob in everyone else, there's a chance they might shut up; but if pardoned, they must testify under oath and drag down everyone else with them.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on November 16, 2019, 05:05:40 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/16/billionaires-americas-super-rich-elections-2020 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/16/billionaires-americas-super-rich-elections-2020)

They're being chickenshits, since Drumpf will of course win in 2020. Still, it's nice to see billionaires getting nervous.

Look, if the Democrats really want the mirror image of Drumpf, why not put up Oprah? She's also billionaire, will "speak to Americans" (rather than to the media and pundits) yet not scare elites with any actual policies of substance, has her own media company to promote herself, and so on. She ticks a lot of the lefty grievance culture boxes, too. She'd send Drumpf into a spasm of misogynistic racist tweets, and she could note that she built her wealth while he inherited it, and so on.

And she got a million votes for Obama with her endorsement, which is about half a million more than most of the current Dems candidates could get for themselves.

But I she was against invading Afghanistan, and I guess the Dems are determined to lose, again.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Roland of Gilead on November 16, 2019, 06:23:55 AM
The Democrats are waging a war against the rich.  It is a drag you down to our level type of campaign that will only lead to Trump winning.

2020 is being given to Trump and it is a sad thing.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: js82 on November 16, 2019, 07:33:15 AM
The Democrats are waging a war against the rich.  It is a drag you down to our level type of campaign that will only lead to Trump winning.

2020 is being given to Trump and it is a sad thing.

"The rich" have been fighting a mostly one-sided war against the rest of us since the Reagan administration, and yet it only becomes a topic of conversation when the non-rich push back against it.

Don't get me wrong, Warren/Sanders are too far to the left on many issues for my own personal tastes.  But according today's Republican party, any economic policy that isn't cutting taxes and benefits is "a war against the rich".

The problem is that we're in a era where well-reasoned, measured, well-articulated policy-making doesn't sell.  Demagoguery does.  It got us Trump, and there's a good chance it'll get us Warren or Sanders to oppose him in 2020.  To a significant extent, this is the product of our broken-to-all-hell primary system which encourages politicians to abandon the center to win over their party's "base".
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Roland of Gilead on November 16, 2019, 07:39:32 AM
There is a big difference between cutting taxes on the rich and having discussions about taxing them at 70% to 95%

I never will be in the rich category but I still don't think it is fair to lump them all together and stomp on them.   There are hard workers and innovators among them, even if there are a few bad apples.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 16, 2019, 08:13:47 AM
There is a big difference between cutting taxes on the rich and having discussions about taxing them at 70% to 95%

Strangely, that progressive tax bracket system worked just fine in the Eisenhower era. Odd how so many public infrastructure projects date back to that era.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: js82 on November 16, 2019, 08:43:21 AM
There is a big difference between cutting taxes on the rich and having discussions about taxing them at 70% to 95%

I never will be in the rich category but I still don't think it is fair to lump them all together and stomp on them.   There are hard workers and innovators among them, even if there are a few bad apples.

I don't support a wealth tax/95% tax rates on upper incomes, but those who claim that the ultra-wealthy have successfully lobbied for the modification of the tax code in order to screw the rest of us over, are absolutely correct.  As of 2017, the wealthiest Americans paid the *LOWEST* effective tax rates.

Below's an article that sums up the history of effective taxation in the US pretty well.  The shift from 1980-2018 speaks for itself.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 16, 2019, 08:54:52 AM
(https://i.huffpost.com/gen/267149/MARGINAL-TAX-RATES.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on November 16, 2019, 10:07:04 AM

Don't get me wrong, Warren/Sanders are too far to the left on many issues for my own personal tastes. 

Political analyst Mark Halperin said they are unelectable because  their  healthcare and tax policies are "disqualifying."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 16, 2019, 10:52:54 AM
Just a reminder that marginal tax rates are above a threshold and that the percentage is only useful so long as it is discussed in the context of the threshold that accompanies it (in a known year's $ value).

The simple fact of the matter is that strongly inequal wealth distribution is bad for society and bad for the economy (unless you sell 350 foot private yachts, then it is very good for you). This is independent of any concept of if the rich are good/bad or any policy that would lead to or reallocate that. It is bad because it concentrates power (and is thus undemocratic) and because money is useful in the economy when it is used. By used I mean passes through many transactions. This happens more when it is distributed more broadly across society. As a policy question, there is an analysis to be done at how best to keep money flowing through the economy and how to protect democratic norms against concentrations of power through money. Citizens United certainly didn't help on this front. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Roland of Gilead on November 16, 2019, 11:05:05 AM
Strangely, that progressive tax bracket system worked just fine in the Eisenhower era. Odd how so many public infrastructure projects date back to that era.

The effective tax rate on the really rich during Eisenhower was only about 45%, even with the 91% income tax rate because capital gains were not taxed that high.  Most of the really rich don't actually have that much income, which is why some of these income tax proposals don't bring in the money you think they would.

Of course you could obviously raise the tax on everything to get to that 90% effective tax rate. 

None of this is a good idea.   
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 16, 2019, 01:57:27 PM
Strangely, that progressive tax bracket system worked just fine in the Eisenhower era. Odd how so many public infrastructure projects date back to that era.

The effective tax rate on the really rich during Eisenhower was only about 45%, even with the 91% income tax rate because capital gains were not taxed that high.  Most of the really rich don't actually have that much income, which is why some of these income tax proposals don't bring in the money you think they would.


the LTCG was 25%, 67% higher than it is today.  In 2018 the effective tax rate of the richest filers was about 22% - during the Eisenhower admin it was double. By any measure the rich pay far less as a percentage of their income in taxes now than during the late 1950s.  Or 60s or 70s or 80s or 90s, for that matter.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: dang1 on November 17, 2019, 10:17:46 AM
wondering if Trump really is a Russian agent. Pretty much alot of what he does benefits Russia, in detriment to US interests.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Roland of Gilead on November 17, 2019, 10:19:59 AM
wondering if Trump really is a Russian agent. Pretty much alot of what he does benefits Russia, in detriment to US interests.

Yes, he is a very deep cover Russian agent.  Similar to the tv show The Americans.

This of course makes much more sense than the other option, that he is an egotistical fool who forgot to pay for a twitter account handler.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on November 17, 2019, 10:31:23 AM
wondering if Trump really is a Russian agent. Pretty much alot of what he does benefits Russia, in detriment to US interests.

Yes, he is a very deep cover Russian agent.  Similar to the tv show The Americans.

This of course makes much more sense than the other option, that he is an egotistical fool who forgot to pay for a twitter account handler and whose every foreign policy decision favours the country which has been bankrolling his failing real estate business for decades.

FTFY
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 17, 2019, 01:21:25 PM
wondering if Trump really is a Russian agent. Pretty much alot of what he does benefits Russia, in detriment to US interests.

Yes, he is a very deep cover Russian agent.  Similar to the tv show The Americans.

This of course makes much more sense than the other option, that he is an egotistical fool who forgot to pay for a twitter account handler.

One of the most common ways that foreign governments get citizens to work for them is to get leverage over them.  Trump has worked and tried to work in Russia for decades. It's not outlandish to suspect that he i) owes great sums of money or ii) the Russians have compromising information on him or iii) he's been promised better access (translation: profits) in exchange for certain coorporations.  i & iii could at least partially be addressed with a thorough accounting of his finances, which he has fought on multiple fronts all the way to SCOTUS.  ii has been suggested but neither confirmed nor refuted by the 'five-eyes' intelligence agencies
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Tabitha on November 17, 2019, 05:39:21 PM
That would explain some comments I've heard about the US's role in the world.  It's a lot rosier and more defensible if we assume history stopped at WWII.

Sadly not if you consider the colonization of the Philippines in 1898.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines_(1898–1946)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: oldtoyota on November 17, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone. He abandons people at the drop of a hat if he sees them lose. Hell, he even went so far as to delete a tweet supporting Sean Spicer on Dancing With The Stars once Spicer lost. Why would he stick with Stone?

Yep. Stone could flip and spill details about Wikileaks and the Trump campaign but the Senate GOP won't care. Trump knows that.

I'm just surprised that anyone trusts him anymore. Are these people desperate or stupid? Or they hope to make money and escape his reach before he throws them under a bus?

Trump is a very stupid man.  It's possibly hubris that they think they can outwit him.

I am not sure he is stupid. He's been conning people successfully for years, so he must have some sort of brain.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on November 17, 2019, 07:19:11 PM
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone. He abandons people at the drop of a hat if he sees them lose. Hell, he even went so far as to delete a tweet supporting Sean Spicer on Dancing With The Stars once Spicer lost. Why would he stick with Stone?

Yep. Stone could flip and spill details about Wikileaks and the Trump campaign but the Senate GOP won't care. Trump knows that.

I'm just surprised that anyone trusts him anymore. Are these people desperate or stupid? Or they hope to make money and escape his reach before he throws them under a bus?

Trump is a very stupid man.  It's possibly hubris that they think they can outwit him.

I am not sure he is stupid. He's been conning people successfully for years, so he must have some sort of brain.

He has...high EQ of a sort? Narcissistic charm? Riding-his-coattails pull?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on November 18, 2019, 01:12:53 AM
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone. He abandons people at the drop of a hat if he sees them lose. Hell, he even went so far as to delete a tweet supporting Sean Spicer on Dancing With The Stars once Spicer lost. Why would he stick with Stone?

Yep. Stone could flip and spill details about Wikileaks and the Trump campaign but the Senate GOP won't care. Trump knows that.

I'm just surprised that anyone trusts him anymore. Are these people desperate or stupid? Or they hope to make money and escape his reach before he throws them under a bus?

Trump is a very stupid man.  It's possibly hubris that they think they can outwit him.

I am not sure he is stupid. He's been conning people successfully for years, so he must have some sort of brain.

He has...high EQ of a sort? Narcissistic charm? Riding-his-coattails pull?
Trump's a bully. Until 2016 he had a small circle of people to bully: his family, women he subjected to his sexual attentions, those in his small family business or contracting to it.  People either submitted to the bullying or moved away from it.  There wasn't a lot of conning people, he mostly didn't fool them into scams, he just didn't pay his debts.

Since 2016 he's had a much wider field of people to bully, many of whom were unable to get away from his bullying and some of whom are now fighting back.  Sadly the courts have so far been unable to cut through his crap (although they will at some point, possibly quite soon) and the election cycle seems a long one.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 18, 2019, 07:28:16 AM
I like this "circle of widening bullying", but it leaves out the important dimension of self-promotion, where--and I must be clear-eyed--Trump is a goddamned genius.

The skill at self-promotion was enhanced by the narcissism and personality and inherited wealth, but he really did manage to put together a set of extraordinary circumstances in a way no one else really has. It should be recognized that he observed and walked this path to power. I think he essentially outsmarted James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

He also deserves scrutiny and--in my judgment--condemnation for the ways he's used this power once he won it, and the ways he won responsibilities that he lacked the skills to use.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 25, 2019, 07:13:31 AM
Another career public servant and military brass has been shoved out the door - this time none other than SECNAV Richard Spencer.

I've never encountered so many high-ranking officials meet an abrupt and embarrassing end as there have been under this administration. Will the forced-dismissal of Spencer (and Mattis, and McMaster, and Kelly, and the conviction of Flynn) blunt the support of the rank-and-file military?

Trump isn't really a "General's president" anymore...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 25, 2019, 07:15:17 AM
What is a "General's President"?  We don't have "General's Prime Ministers".
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 25, 2019, 07:23:11 AM
What is a "General's President"?  We don't have "General's Prime Ministers".

Right... but Canada’s prime minister isn’t the commander in chief. POTUS is.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 25, 2019, 07:25:30 AM
What is a "General's President"?  We don't have "General's Prime Ministers".

Trump bragged during the 2016 election that "the Generals Love me" and he has a habit of using possessive language when talking abotu them ("my generals" and "my military"). He had Flynn give a full-throated endorsement at the 2016 RNC, where he led a massive chant of "lock her [Hillary Clinton] up!"

All of this is highly unorthodox, as the space between our elected leaders and the military brass sworn to follow the President's command has been sacrosanct until now.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 25, 2019, 08:15:25 AM
What is a "General's President"?  We don't have "General's Prime Ministers".

Right... but Canada’s prime minister isn’t the commander in chief. POTUS is.

I mean . . . technically, our commander in Chief of the military is the queen.  But I'd be surprised if we ever actually went to war on her say so.  It's a ceremonial title.  :P
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 25, 2019, 08:16:34 AM
That rhetoric ceased when McMaster was replaced by Bolton and then Kelly was replaced by Mulvaney. Trump ran out of generals.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 25, 2019, 08:26:43 AM
What is a "General's President"?  We don't have "General's Prime Ministers".

Right... but Canada’s prime minister isn’t the commander in chief. POTUS is.

I mean . . . technically, our commander in Chief of the military is the queen.  But I'd be surprised if we ever actually went to war on her say so.  It's a ceremonial title.  :P

Right. I was just explaining part of the reason that anyone in the US would think a "general's president" is something important.

And why a dude who faked bone spurs to get out of serving would pander so hard to the faux patriots in our country, and use that kind of BS language to do it.

It doesn't explain how they're gullible enough to fall for it, though.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 25, 2019, 09:18:18 AM
Thanks everyone. This was much more informative than a Google search would have been.

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on November 25, 2019, 09:27:56 AM
Thanks everyone. This was much more informative than a Google search would have been.

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

Well, the separation of powers was supposed to take care of that.

Unfortunately, the founders didn't seem to have been able to see the GOP turning into amoral sycophants.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on November 25, 2019, 09:28:54 AM
Thanks everyone. This was much more informative than a Google search would have been.

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

We should move to the Roman system of having 2 presidents that alternate every day.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 25, 2019, 09:38:58 AM
What is a "General's President"?  We don't have "General's Prime Ministers".

Right... but Canada’s prime minister isn’t the commander in chief. POTUS is.

I mean . . . technically, our commander in Chief of the military is the queen.  But I'd be surprised if we ever actually went to war on her say so.  It's a ceremonial title.  :P

When I worked for the Canadian government I had to sign a declaration that I would work for her majesty the Queen should she ever require my service. That felt exceptionally weird as a US citizen.  The way it was worded it made it sound like the queen could just call me up and crash on my couch whenever she wanted.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 25, 2019, 09:52:29 AM
What is a "General's President"?  We don't have "General's Prime Ministers".

Right... but Canada’s prime minister isn’t the commander in chief. POTUS is.

I mean . . . technically, our commander in Chief of the military is the queen.  But I'd be surprised if we ever actually went to war on her say so.  It's a ceremonial title.  :P

When I worked for the Canadian government I had to sign a declaration that I would work for her majesty the Queen should she ever require my service. That felt exceptionally weird as a US citizen.  The way it was worded it made it sound like the queen could just call me up and crash on my couch whenever she wanted.

Ha ha, if she brought along a couple of her corgis, I would probably be fine with it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 25, 2019, 09:56:37 AM

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 25, 2019, 10:09:48 AM

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.

What's kinda funny looking back at it is the result that the founders got for their concern.  The US (with it's intended to by non-tyrannical president as military leader) has been at war what, more than 90 odd percent of it's time as a country?  Contrast with Canada's military history under the 'tyrannical' lead of the English monarch.  :P
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 25, 2019, 10:24:39 AM

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.

What's kinda funny looking back at it is the result that the founders got for their concern.  The US (with it's intended to by non-tyrannical president as military leader) has been at war what, more than 90 odd percent of it's time as a country?  Contrast with Canada's military history under the 'tyrannical' lead of the English monarch.  :P

So much wrong in such a short statement :-P
For starters, the intent was never to prevent future military conflicts - the founders were fairly practical in this regard.  Next, no - the US has not 'been at war' for >90% of its history.  Armed conflict abroad is not war.  And contrasting with Canada's military history doesn't seem to highlight a force constantly at rest - near as I can tell the British Empire has been involved in military conflicts abroad nearly continuously for 400+ years, and more recently Canada's been holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years.
Sooo.... tomato, tomahto?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: ncornilsen on November 25, 2019, 11:35:52 AM

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.

What's kinda funny looking back at it is the result that the founders got for their concern.  The US (with it's intended to by non-tyrannical president as military leader) has been at war what, more than 90 odd percent of it's time as a country?  Contrast with Canada's military history under the 'tyrannical' lead of the English monarch.  :P

So much wrong in such a short statement :-P
For starters, the intent was never to prevent future military conflicts - the founders were fairly practical in this regard.  Next, no - the US has not 'been at war' for >90% of its history.  Armed conflict abroad is not war.  And contrasting with Canada's military history doesn't seem to highlight a force constantly at rest - near as I can tell the British Empire has been involved in military conflicts abroad nearly continuously for 400+ years, and more recently Canada's been holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years.
Sooo.... tomato, tomahto?

Not to mention, you currently have a sovereign that isn't a jackass, precisely because the world demanded changes to be more like the united states... representative government that the US more or less pioneered has put her in check.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on November 25, 2019, 11:43:43 AM
I don't see any reason why Trump would pardon Stone. He abandons people at the drop of a hat if he sees them lose. Hell, he even went so far as to delete a tweet supporting Sean Spicer on Dancing With The Stars once Spicer lost. Why would he stick with Stone?

Yep. Stone could flip and spill details about Wikileaks and the Trump campaign but the Senate GOP won't care. Trump knows that.

I'm just surprised that anyone trusts him anymore. Are these people desperate or stupid? Or they hope to make money and escape his reach before he throws them under a bus?

Trump is a very stupid man.  It's possibly hubris that they think they can outwit him.

I am not sure he is stupid. He's been conning people successfully for years, so he must have some sort of brain.

He has...high EQ of a sort? Narcissistic charm? Riding-his-coattails pull?

Sort of like a televangelist. Rather than promises about heaven, he makes empty promises about power and money. He is thought to have some so money might land in his believer's hands too if they go along with him. He is very charismatic like a cheap salesman and certain people really buy his schtick. His charisma seems so contrived and obvious that I can't believe people give him any attention but they do. I'm happy to report that DW and I seem to be immune to this type of schtick. I suppose if any of us here spent time learning to do these we too could be very rich by taking advantage of gullible people.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 25, 2019, 11:58:31 AM

Right. I was just explaining part of the reason that anyone in the US would think a "general's president" is something important.

And why a dude who faked bone spurs to get out of serving would pander so hard to the faux patriots in our country, and use that kind of BS language to do it.

It doesn't explain how they're gullible enough to fall for it, though.

I also wonder why so many were gullible enough to buy into such rhetoric.  My working theory i that DJT identified a few constituencies that could be swayed from HRC despite all his obvious handicaps/limited experience in those areas.  Evangelicals, the military, blue-collar workers. Over-promise right out of the gate.  Nevermind that you are a thrice-married serial adulterer who has no discernible faith.  Never-mind that you dodged the draft and denigrated the military for years. Nevermind that you inherited hundreds of millions, went to private academies and literally sit on a gold-plated throne inside a gold-plated nyc skyscraper.

He got key leaders (e.g. Flynn) to back him by promising them positions (no accident Flynn wound up NSA, until he got busted).  Promise the evangelical leaders you'll appoint uber-conservative judges (one promise kept!) and promote faith-based exemptions and they'll overlook your sins and godlessness.  Tell workers in a dying industry you 'dig coal' and they'll ignore their own analyses and all the writing on the wall. 
Overpromise, win, then to hell with everyone.

Question is - can it work a second time?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 25, 2019, 12:36:46 PM
For starters, the intent was never to prevent future military conflicts - the founders were fairly practical in this regard. 

Fair enough.


Next, no - the US has not 'been at war' for >90% of its history.  Armed conflict abroad is not war.

War - A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States)

?


And contrasting with Canada's military history doesn't seem to highlight a force constantly at rest - near as I can tell the British Empire has been involved in military conflicts abroad nearly continuously for 400+ years, and more recently Canada's been holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years.

The British Empire has certainly been at war often, particularly while it was building it's empire in the 17 and 18 hundreds.  Not sure that the same can really be said about Canada though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Canada)

You can check for yourself, but Canada has certainly not been "holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years."




Not to mention, you currently have a sovereign that isn't a jackass, precisely because the world demanded changes to be more like the united states... representative government that the US more or less pioneered has put her in check.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you on that.  Britain has been moving away from powerful monarchy and towards democracy since the 1400s (when democracy and voting were first implemented), then accelerating with the great revolution of 1688 (when they removed and then re-installed the monarch in a greatly weakened state).  The reform act in the 1800s continued this change that had already been under way for some time.

I mean, I'm sure that the continued success of democracy in the US helped the cause, but it certainly wasn't the sole source of the change.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on November 25, 2019, 01:51:38 PM

Not to mention, you currently have a sovereign that isn't a jackass, precisely because the world demanded changes to be more like the united states... representative government that the US more or less pioneered has put her in check.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you on that.  Britain has been moving away from powerful monarchy and towards democracy since the 1400s (when democracy and voting were first implemented), then accelerating with the great revolution of 1688 (when they removed and then re-installed the monarch in a greatly weakened state).  The reform act in the 1800s continued this change that had already been under way for some time.

I mean, I'm sure that the continued success of democracy in the US helped the cause, but it certainly wasn't the sole source of the change.
These Johnny-come-lately colonials constantly over-estimate their effect on a State which has been evolving the concepts of rule of law and democracy since 1215.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: RangerOne on November 25, 2019, 02:44:14 PM

I'm somewhat surprised the Founders put that much power in the hands of the executive branch.

For a bit of historical context - the founders were terrified at having the military under the control of a king or other permanent head of state, as well as having a military that was subservient to no one (possibly leading to a military state, as it had elsewhere).  At the same time they realized that no country could survive without a robust army.

 Their solution was to make an elected civilian (POTUS) the commander in chief, and have him directly answerable to elections every four years. At the same time the gave congress and congress alone the power to declare war.  Today's executive branch is way more powerful than it was for the first 70 years of our nation.   The wartime powers act (1973) also explicitly limited a president's authority to order military action abroad to 60 days without the consent of Congress. Of course Reagan, Clinton, 'W', Obama and now Trump have all found ways to bend this law past its original intent.

What's kinda funny looking back at it is the result that the founders got for their concern.  The US (with it's intended to by non-tyrannical president as military leader) has been at war what, more than 90 odd percent of it's time as a country?  Contrast with Canada's military history under the 'tyrannical' lead of the English monarch.  :P

So much wrong in such a short statement :-P
For starters, the intent was never to prevent future military conflicts - the founders were fairly practical in this regard.  Next, no - the US has not 'been at war' for >90% of its history.  Armed conflict abroad is not war.  And contrasting with Canada's military history doesn't seem to highlight a force constantly at rest - near as I can tell the British Empire has been involved in military conflicts abroad nearly continuously for 400+ years, and more recently Canada's been holding the rifle alongside the US in almost every conflict over the last 150 years.
Sooo.... tomato, tomahto?

One could argue we have been in and out of a cold war with Russia and China for quite some time. A full scale traditional war appears to be simply to undesirable to the worlds major powers to commit to for the time being. So instead we all engage in constant and sustained proxy wars through tech, economics and some military force.

Cold wars appear to simply be the future among super power countries since nuclear weapons have pretty much squashed all hope of directly subjugating a major country.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 25, 2019, 07:59:13 PM


The British Empire has certainly been at war often, particularly while it was building it's empire in the 17 and 18 hundreds.  Not sure that the same can really be said about Canada though.


The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 25, 2019, 08:21:43 PM
Another career public servant and military brass has been shoved out the door - this time none other than SECNAV Richard Spencer.

I've never encountered so many high-ranking officials meet an abrupt and embarrassing end as there have been under this administration. Will the forced-dismissal of Spencer (and Mattis, and McMaster, and Kelly, and the conviction of Flynn) blunt the support of the rank-and-file military?

Trump isn't really a "General's president" anymore...

It appears that Spencer tried to work a deal with the President regarding Gallagher's SEAL status that smelled bad and also went right around the SECDEF.  The whole affair has been a mess.

https://taskandpurpose.com/eddie-gallagher-richard-spencer?fbclid=IwAR1EnOvh6Siq6JBn9hag5ONl7PipXCfnT6AeoVgdB9eWpc8q7xE3n2sl2VU (https://taskandpurpose.com/eddie-gallagher-richard-spencer?fbclid=IwAR1EnOvh6Siq6JBn9hag5ONl7PipXCfnT6AeoVgdB9eWpc8q7xE3n2sl2VU)


To answer your question - no. Cabinet and Service Secretaries come and go.  The rank and file will move on with their lives.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: rocketpj on November 25, 2019, 09:41:23 PM

The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?

It is a technical fact that Canada declared war in WWI and WWII separately from Great Britain, but it is also true that there was zero chance of it not happening.  Here in Canada our political mythology says that WWI defined us as a separate country, with its own seat at the table in the Armistice talks and Treaty negotiations at Versaille (said seat was something of a condition of our putting 10% of our population in uniform etc.

Between the wars Canada took no part in any conflicts that Britain engaged.  After the war we tended to stick with UN related things like Korea and peacekeeping.

Also, Canada has NOT participated in the bulk of US military adventurism in the last 50 years.  Not in Vietnam (in any meaningful way, some unarmed observers), not in Iraq, definitely not in any of the Central American stuff.  Yes in Afghanistan.

Not that Canada is a choirboy, we just don't have a lot of military capacity in peacetime.  And the only real military threat to Canada is the US, who are unbeatable militarily (but also has not yet figured out how to win a peace).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on November 26, 2019, 12:17:36 AM

The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?


Also, Canada has NOT participated in the bulk of US military adventurism in the last 50 years.  Not in Vietnam (in any meaningful way, some unarmed observers), not in Iraq, definitely not in any of the Central American stuff.  Yes in Afghanistan.

Not that Canada is a choirboy, we just don't have a lot of military capacity in peacetime.  And the only real military threat to Canada is the US, who are unbeatable militarily (but also has not yet figured out how to win a peace).

Nor would I ever expect Canada to do anything outside the confines of NATO given its location and military capacity.  I just thought it funny to point out there's a long stretch of Canadian history where it was indistinguishable politically from Great Britain.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: MKinVA on November 26, 2019, 06:25:02 AM
Back to nereo's question, will it work again? Will the rank and file military vote for him again? Will the farmers in the midwest after the tariffs have hurt them (to the point where we are paying them off)? Will the workers in the rust belt he told not to sell their homes, I'm gonna open up that factory again (and it never happened)? How about the coal miners he told he is bringing coal back (and several mines have closed in the last 2 years)? Or is everyone going to vote for him because at the moment, their stock market investments are doing well, and they have a job (or two).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 26, 2019, 07:48:48 AM
I think Trump polls worse against generic Democrats than he will perform in an election against a specific candidate.

Again, I see people all around me beginning the mental gymnastics they will need to go through to justify voting against Sanders or Warren.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 26, 2019, 08:01:00 AM

The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?


Also, Canada has NOT participated in the bulk of US military adventurism in the last 50 years.  Not in Vietnam (in any meaningful way, some unarmed observers), not in Iraq, definitely not in any of the Central American stuff.  Yes in Afghanistan.

Not that Canada is a choirboy, we just don't have a lot of military capacity in peacetime.  And the only real military threat to Canada is the US, who are unbeatable militarily (but also has not yet figured out how to win a peace).

Nor would I ever expect Canada to do anything outside the confines of NATO given its location and military capacity.  I just thought it funny to point out there's a long stretch of Canadian history where it was indistinguishable politically from Great Britain.

Is 1867 to 1918 that long a stretch? Before 1867 we had home rule but were several colonies.   We were somewhat involved in the Boer war, my great uncle fought there. Very nasty war.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on November 26, 2019, 08:34:13 AM

The British Empire/Great Britain was in a near-constant state of armed conflict during the same time period as the US, probably more so considering its colonial interests.  We certainly picked up the slack after the Empire started to fade.  As a subject nation of the Empire for most of its existence, at what point did Canada get the right to start its own wars if it chose to do so?  Did Canada volunteer for the World Wars or did it simply answer His Majesty's call?


Also, Canada has NOT participated in the bulk of US military adventurism in the last 50 years.  Not in Vietnam (in any meaningful way, some unarmed observers), not in Iraq, definitely not in any of the Central American stuff.  Yes in Afghanistan.

Not that Canada is a choirboy, we just don't have a lot of military capacity in peacetime.  And the only real military threat to Canada is the US, who are unbeatable militarily (but also has not yet figured out how to win a peace).

Nor would I ever expect Canada to do anything outside the confines of NATO given its location and military capacity.  I just thought it funny to point out there's a long stretch of Canadian history where it was indistinguishable politically from Great Britain.

I'm not sure that it's fair to call the time that Canada spent as a British colony a part of it's military history.  I wouldn't include the time that the US was a British colony as part of the United States military history . . . because it was before there was a United States.

Either way, when you look at what has happened militarily between the two countries after they became independent of the British, there's a pretty stark contrast in how war-like they have been.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on November 26, 2019, 08:59:11 AM
It's not fair to expect Canada to be a world power. They look big on maps, but--measured by size--their economy is roughly comparable to that of Texas.

No offense, Canadians, I love you guys, particularly Alberta. Everyone tells me Alberta is basically like Texas, but with the seasons flipped.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on November 26, 2019, 05:54:41 PM
You know, it occurs to me that there must be a lot of Republicans in office that really don't like Mike Pence given the amount of effort they are going to to keep Trump in office.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on November 26, 2019, 06:01:36 PM
You know, it occurs to me that there must be a lot of Republicans in office that really don't like Mike Pence given the amount of effort they are going to to keep Trump in office.

I don’t think one should read this as a dislike of Pence. Virtually every GOP member is terrified of losing Trump’s base of voters. If s/he angers Trump even mildly he makes it know via twitter and on the talk-show circuit.  That’s how Trump keeps them in line - he realizes that he’s got a good 25-30% of the voters in his pocket (...”i could shoot someone on 5th avenue”...)
Those in competitive districts/states can’t afford to lose even 5% of their voters and win re-election.  Those in ‘safe’ red districts/states fear a “pro-Trump’ primary challenger.

Unfortunately Pence has little to do with it.  I’ve often thought the GOP would be better off with Pence - all the same outcomes (tax cuts, conservative judges, etc) with none of the drama.  But at least right now bucking Trump means electoral defeat, so they toe the line in pubic while they quietly vent behind closed doors.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on November 26, 2019, 08:48:12 PM
Armed conflict abroad is not war. 
An interesting distinction which would not, I think, be made by anyone who had ever been on the two-way rifle range.

But if it saves you from asking and answering uncomfortable questions about your country's history, well that is a long tradition in many countries, so enjoy!
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: scottish on November 30, 2019, 07:27:36 PM
Check this out.   Boris Johnson is being portrayed as "Britain's Trump".

Bojo has said "it would be “best” if U.S. President Donald Trump does not get involved in Britain’s election when he visits London for a NATO summit next week."

Apparently the tweeter in chief doesn't realize how badly the Brits dislike him.


Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on November 30, 2019, 07:36:15 PM
Check this out.   Boris Johnson is being portrayed as "Britain's Trump".

Bojo has said "it would be “best” if U.S. President Donald Trump does not get involved in Britain’s election when he visits London for a NATO summit next week."

Apparently the tweeter in chief doesn't realize how badly the Brits dislike him.

His support has been bad news for US candidates in several high-profile elections lately. I can’t imagine his patronage would be any more successful overseas.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on December 01, 2019, 07:14:06 AM
In my mind I think of the majority of Trump supporters, as I'll hold my nose because he's nominating conservative judges, etc. But apparently a vast majority of Republicans fully support Trump, to the extent they think he is literally, the best president ever. Better president than Lincoln. So, comparing one president, who had to make extremely hard choices, had the fortitude to abolish slavery and despite the country split at war with each other, managed to keep the union intact, so that we still have the U.S.A. And another president, despite prosperity, technological advantages, etc, is OK letting foreign actors influence our elections and politics, and is OK ENCOURAGING tearing the country apart by fanning hostility of his supporters against other Americans and attacking basic institutions of Democracy for his own personal advantage. Will the Republicans ever feel shame that not only did they tolerate but they supported and encouraged this person? I feel the Republicans have lost their moral compass.

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 01, 2019, 10:10:13 AM
In my mind I think of the majority of Trump supporters, as I'll hold my nose because he's nominating conservative judges, etc. But apparently a vast majority of Republicans fully support Trump, to the extent they think he is literally, the best president ever. Better president than Lincoln. So, comparing one president, who had to make extremely hard choices, had the fortitude to abolish slavery and despite the country split at war with each other, managed to keep the union intact, so that we still have the U.S.A. And another president, despite prosperity, technological advantages, etc, is OK letting foreign actors influence our elections and politics, and is OK ENCOURAGING tearing the country apart by fanning hostility of his supporters against other Americans and attacking basic institutions of Democracy for his own personal advantage. Will the Republicans ever feel shame that not only did they tolerate but they supported and encouraged this person? I feel the Republicans have lost their moral compass.

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

I'm unconvinced the the average Republican is capable of feeling shame at this point.  Just anger and schadenfreude.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on December 01, 2019, 10:52:45 AM
In my mind I think of the majority of Trump supporters, as I'll hold my nose because he's nominating conservative judges, etc. But apparently a vast majority of Republicans fully support Trump, to the extent they think he is literally, the best president ever. Better president than Lincoln. So, comparing one president, who had to make extremely hard choices, had the fortitude to abolish slavery and despite the country split at war with each other, managed to keep the union intact, so that we still have the U.S.A. And another president, despite prosperity, technological advantages, etc, is OK letting foreign actors influence our elections and politics, and is OK ENCOURAGING tearing the country apart by fanning hostility of his supporters against other Americans and attacking basic institutions of Democracy for his own personal advantage. Will the Republicans ever feel shame that not only did they tolerate but they supported and encouraged this person? I feel the Republicans have lost their moral compass.

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

I'm unconvinced the the average Republican is capable of feeling shame at this point.  Just anger and schadenfreude.
The last 3 years is the perfect example of how easy it is to lead the average human being into believing repellent nonsense just by consistently lying to them about it.  See also the growth in conspiracy theories.

The problem is: how do you get back from here to something "normal"?  Or is this an unstoppable slide?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 01, 2019, 12:27:43 PM
The last 3 years is the perfect example of how easy it is to lead the average human being into believing repellent nonsense just by consistently lying to them about it.  See also the growth in conspiracy theories.

The problem is: how do you get back from here to something "normal"?  Or is this an unstoppable slide?

Anything we can do needs more revenue and that's off the tables. We're fucked unless we can get a Democratic President and Senate.

But look at it this way. Climate change will hit us no matter if we're sane or whether we follow QAnon.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 01, 2019, 12:49:44 PM
But look at it this way. Climate change will hit us no matter if we're sane or whether we follow QAnon.

Climate change will hit us all, no matter what.  But one political party has decided they don't like the idea of climate change, so consistently deny any measurement, science, or fact related to it and appear to be hellbent on increasing the problem as much as possible.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on December 01, 2019, 01:05:16 PM
Well how long has it been since we've had a liberal president? Basically FDR is the last liberal president we've had. Since then it's been a battle of middle-conservative or right-conservative.

The GOP strategy during the Obama years was to reframe Obama as an uber leftist, which I think most Americans now looking back realize, Obama was a pretty conservative leader.

The GOP only had 2 possible moves after that because what they did with Obama was cede the middle road to the Democrats. I thought that the GOP might make the Tory move, basically co-opt a few pieces left politics but otherwise maintain a right position. The reality was that the GOP turned absurdly right wing, rather than find a coalition with populists.

You could say that Trump ran on a few populist points, but he hasn't really delivered. So instead the GOP has been left with entrenching their power through the courts, and taking gerrymandering to a whole new level. They know they won't be winning the House anytime in the next 10 years, the Senate is swinging 50/50. So the GOP members with least amount of shame have taken on fascist traits of maintaining power through voter suppression, and redistricting games.

Dems need to take a multilayered approach:
1. Executive orders that can restore most of the damage done
2. Federal laws that will restore voting rights.
3. Making Puerto Rico and DC a state
4. A whole slew of new constitutional amendments: Eliminate the slavery exception clause in the 14th amendment, end electoral college, ERA, add term limits to all branches of government.
5. Pack the courts

There's more that needs to be done, but dems have to start playing hardball when they win the Senate back.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Leisured on December 02, 2019, 03:30:58 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

The room swam before my eyes when I read this link. My computer chair has arms, so I was able to avoid falling to the floor. The question is rather silly, because why would anyone regard Trump as better than Lincoln? One possibility is that many Republicans played a practical joke on the pollsters. I hope that is the case.


Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 02, 2019, 08:02:00 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

The room swam before my eyes when I read this link. My computer chair has arms, so I was able to avoid falling to the floor. The question is rather silly, because why would anyone regard Trump as better than Lincoln? One possibility is that many Republicans played a practical joke on the pollsters. I hope that is the case.

Not surprising at all to me.  Trump is the embodiment of what Republican voters want in a leader.

Lincoln would be drummed out of the Republican primaries so quickly it would make your head spin.  A moderate, self-made man . . . who isn't beholden to large corporations?  Who doesn't have a track record of disenfranchising minorities?  No chance.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 02, 2019, 08:05:38 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/53-percent-republicans-prefer-trump-lincoln-1474864

The room swam before my eyes when I read this link. My computer chair has arms, so I was able to avoid falling to the floor. The question is rather silly, because why would anyone regard Trump as better than Lincoln? One possibility is that many Republicans played a practical joke on the pollsters. I hope that is the case.

Not surprising at all to me.  Trump is the embodiment of what Republican voters want in a leader.

Lincoln would be drummed out of the Republican primaries so quickly it would make your head spin.  A moderate, self-made man . . . who isn't beholden to large corporations?  Who doesn't have a track record of disenfranchising minorities?  No chance.

This is true. I'd bet money that if you asked the average Republican voter these days to talk about why Trump is better than Lincoln, if you let them talk long enough, they'd start expressing their doubts that Lincoln's freeing of the slaves was a good idea.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 02, 2019, 09:29:50 AM
There is generally a recency bias in which people think that the current President is the worst ever (if they disagree with this policies) or the best ever (if he kept Hillary Clinton from being President).

Imagine for a second that the Supreme Court overturns Roe. There will probably be many people who will think that Trump was the greatest President ever.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 02, 2019, 09:38:37 AM
There is generally a recency bias in which people think that the current President is the worst ever (if they disagree with this policies) or the best ever (if he kept Hillary Clinton from being President).

Imagine for a second that the Supreme Court overturns Roe. There will probably be many people who will think that Trump was the greatest President ever.

Sure.  And if he struck down the 13th amendment and re-established slavery as a thing there would be many people who would think he was the greatest President ever.  History will judge his actions.


But I don't agree with your initial assumption.  I don't know too many left leaning folks who thought that Obama or Bill Clinton were the greatest presidents ever while they were in office.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 02, 2019, 09:48:31 AM
There is generally a recency bias in which people think that the current President is the worst ever (if they disagree with this policies) or the best ever (if he kept Hillary Clinton from being President).

Imagine for a second that the Supreme Court overturns Roe. There will probably be many people who will think that Trump was the greatest President ever.

Sure.  And if he struck down the 13th amendment and re-established slavery as a thing there would be many people who would think he was the greatest President ever.  History will judge his actions.


But I don't agree with your initial assumption.  I don't know too many left leaning folks who thought that Obama or Bill Clinton were the greatest presidents ever while they were in office.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 02, 2019, 09:54:26 AM
Neither Clinton nor Obama earned the undying fealty that Reagan seems to have, that's true.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 02, 2019, 10:51:47 AM
Neither Clinton nor Obama earned the undying fealty that Reagan seems to have, that's true.

What's interesting to me is that - from my own very unscientific observations - it seems like popular opinion among democrats of Obama and Clinton have dipped slightly.  Obama is now seen as not as progressive as many of his supporters hope, and Clinton has been diminished by the 'me-too' movement and a shift in opinion that his actions were definitely not ok.  At the same time Dem's disdain for 'W' has ebbed and his father is seen by many as a principled, cautious conservative.

OTOH, the GOP hates Obama just as much (if not more) than they did while he was in office, and now blame him for some of what has happened afterward.  Bill Clinton is as hated as ever, and perhaps moreso as some sort of 'enabler' of HRC's 'Evil Ambition'.  Reagan is still referenced as some sort of political founder/saint - even though I'm relatively certain the Gipper would be appalled at the positions many in today's GOP have taken.

I wonder what the GOP's opinion of Trump will be in  few years. Wild speculation - if he loses the WH and Senate he'll be tarred (metaphorically) as the ruiner of the GOP - even though he was gleefully supported all the way along. If he wins a second term (and the judges which will come with them) he'll be as popular as Reagan for decades to come.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on December 02, 2019, 03:53:39 PM
But I don't agree with your initial assumption.  I don't know too many left leaning folks who thought that Obama or Bill Clinton were the greatest presidents ever while they were in office.
It's the same in Australia. Once Howard was turfed out of his own seat, all of a sudden you couldn't find anybody who'd voted for him. "Who? What? Me? No, no, I was never taken in by that "children overboard" and "Iraq dossier" nonsense. And do you know he said he'd never ever bring in a GST, and then he did - and he still got back in? But nobody I know voted for him. Must have been electoral fraud or something. Maybe low-class poorly-educated people, all racists of course." But then with the recent string of PMs, Howard's starting to be rehabilitated in public opinion. And in ten years it'll go around again.

All these shenanigans are simply because nobody can bring themselves to say, "Well, I thought it was a good idea at the time, but I was wrong. Now I've changed my mind."

If Trump's actions cause the US stunning success, then in ten years everyone will say what a fine chap he was, except of course a few Democrats who say, "well it wasn't his success, really it was just a continuation of Obama's policies." And if Trump's actions cause the US stunning failure, then in ten years everyone will say how awful he was, "and if only he'd followed Obama's policies..."

Successes are always to my credit, and failures are always someone else's fault. I have always shared whatever progressive/conservative ideals are prominent right now, even twenty years ago, I was just really quiet about it. And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: six-car-habit on December 02, 2019, 06:44:56 PM

If Trump's actions cause the US stunning success, then in ten years everyone will say what a fine chap he was, except of course a few Democrats who say, "well it wasn't his success, really it was just a continuation of Obama's policies." And if Trump's actions cause the US stunning failure, then in ten years everyone will say how awful he was, "and if only he'd followed Obama's policies..."


 Maybe you don't know too many people with integrity ?
There's no way I'd let Trump spend a week around my family, with his corrosive morals and actions.
Not even if you offered all the money , free time, and human respect + adulation, that one person could use in a natural lifetime...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: MasterStache on December 03, 2019, 06:42:40 AM
But look at it this way. Climate change will hit us no matter if we're sane or whether we follow QAnon.

Climate change will hit us all, no matter what.  But one political party has decided they don't like the idea of climate change, so consistently deny any measurement, science, or fact related to it and appear to be hellbent on increasing the problem as much as possible.

There is a real irony to appreciate with that thought process. The flow off immigrants is partly a result of climate change itself as many crop fields are being wiped out due to severe drought. And since most of these farmers rely on these fields for their daily meals, what are they to do? Stay on starve to death or head north where we have ginormous grocery stores and food everywhere. Of course Trump credits "his" great economy. And his followers do as well.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 03, 2019, 07:42:29 AM

If Trump's actions cause the US stunning success, then in ten years everyone will say what a fine chap he was, except of course a few Democrats who say, "well it wasn't his success, really it was just a continuation of Obama's policies." And if Trump's actions cause the US stunning failure, then in ten years everyone will say how awful he was, "and if only he'd followed Obama's policies..."


 Maybe you don't know too many people with integrity ?
There's no way I'd let Trump spend a week around my family, with his corrosive morals and actions.
Not even if you offered all the money , free time, and human respect + adulation, that one person could use in a natural lifetime...

It's a higher order of self-awareness and intellectual honesty to be able to admit: I didn't know what would happen with Trump, but I was damn sure Clinton wouldn't be a good idea.

Plenty of people have normal amounts of integrity but don't have this.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 03, 2019, 10:15:48 AM
Trump's latest trade-war & currency war threats.  Particularly this idea of imposing a 100% tariff on French luxury goods, including wine. 

Remember way back in, oh, 2018 when Trump used "national security" as his tissue-thin justification for imposing steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and other allies?  Well he's dropped that fig-leaf entirely, and assumed unilateral authority to impose tariffs (or not) whenever and for whatever reason he feels like. 

In other words - Trump's given up all pretense of assuming Congress's tariff power, e.g.  "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" (Article I, Section VIII).

This latest French tariff feels more punitive and vindictive than purposeful or strategic. Trump just wants to poke Macron in the eye, and doesn't care if it's in the nation's best interests.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 03, 2019, 10:18:29 AM
This latest French tariff feels more punitive and vindictive than purposeful or strategic. Trump just wants to poke Macron in the eye, and doesn't care if it's in the nation's best interests.

Yep.

And Trump just threatened to send ISIS fighters to France, in front of Macron. On live TV.

President Trump is an imbecile.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/next-to-macron-trump-threatens-to-send-isis-fighters-to-france-on-live-tv-wOfJRbhjeUmnf0OLqH0w-A/?fbclid=IwAR0cQOiVZzX3Vqg28I5KuguIXitRS0OHb5rWU1X22Re51QTp6LK6LLRU7dY
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: ysette9 on December 03, 2019, 10:28:30 AM
I saw the photo of Macron next to Trump. One young, fit, educated, a great orator. In short, presidential, and the other the weird guy in the corner you would be embarrassed to be associated with.

I follow Macron on FB and just read his post honoring the 13 French soldiers recently killed in combat. The eulogy reads like poetry. It is evocative, painting a picture of the terrain they were in, the mission, the loss, and each individual person for who he was.

180* different from anything that would coke out of trump’s mouth or pen, in short.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 03, 2019, 11:27:08 AM
I saw the photo of Macron next to Trump. One young, fit, educated, a great orator. In short, presidential, and the other the weird guy in the corner you would be embarrassed to be associated with.

I follow Macron on FB and just read his post honoring the 13 French soldiers recently killed in combat. The eulogy reads like poetry. It is evocative, painting a picture of the terrain they were in, the mission, the loss, and each individual person for who he was.

180* different from anything that would coke out of trump’s mouth or pen, in short.

I find it fascinating that Macron speaks better English than Trump does.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 03, 2019, 11:54:17 AM
Macron has been really pragmatic in trying to cultivate a relationship with Trump. It's hard to watch (if you don't like Trump and want someone to just tell him to his face he's an idiot), but I truly comprehend the extent to which the world has depended on American soft power, and how greatly that has been diminished.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 03, 2019, 12:01:55 PM
Macron has been really pragmatic in trying to cultivate a relationship with Trump. It's hard to watch (if you don't like Trump and want someone to just tell him to his face he's an idiot), but I truly comprehend the extent to which the world has depended on American soft power, and how greatly that has been diminished.

Agreed. It's clear that Macron has to draw on all of his reserves to treat Trump as anything approaching an intellectual equal. I honestly doesn't know how he does it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 03, 2019, 12:10:14 PM
I find it fascinating that Macron speaks better English than Trump does.

::snort::
Having lived in French-speaking regions, I have frequently been impressed at how systematically they are taught English in school.  Whereas in the US we largely use "English class" to read literature and discuss plot, they spend a lot more time learning sentence structure and grammar. AS a result, few young people in the US can identify an adverb, whereas many French students have no trouble diagramming entire paragraphs (something I only learned to do when I was living there).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 03, 2019, 12:14:18 PM
I find it fascinating that Macron speaks better English than Trump does.

::snort::
Having lived in French-speaking regions, I have frequently been impressed at how systematically they are taught English in school.  Whereas in the US we largely use "English class" to read literature and discuss plot, they spend a lot more time learning sentence structure and grammar. AS a result, few young people in the US can identify an adverb, whereas many French students have no trouble diagramming entire paragraphs (something I only learned to do when I was living there).

On the whole, I'd say the French aren't the greatest language-learners compared to some other countries in Europe, but definitely better than the US. I was a French professor for many years before "retiring" to do other things, and the English faculty at the university where I taught always said that the language majors (particularly mine) were always the best at English grammar in their classes, precisely because they learned sentence structure and grammar through their language courses, not their English courses.

But above and beyond that, I am serious about Macron v. Trump. Macron's sentence structure, grasp of vocabulary, ability to express complex concepts, etc. in English are all superior to Trump's. The only thing Trump has that Macron doesn't is a native accent.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: ysette9 on December 03, 2019, 01:09:47 PM
I learned English grammar in elementary school but that school taught no writing. Then in public high school I learned all writing and no grammar. But like you say, it really took learning another language to teach me grammar and then infer back grammar in my own language.

There are things thou to that don’t translate directly. Like the subjunctive (“it is necessary that I be on time”) tense that almost doesn’t exist in English, or countable and non-countable words that don’t exist in French (“less” vs. “fewer”).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 03, 2019, 01:36:34 PM
Imagine how awesome "Would that my wife were ready on time!" could sound!
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: ysette9 on December 03, 2019, 01:38:53 PM
:)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 03, 2019, 03:03:23 PM

But above and beyond that, I am serious about Macron v. Trump. Macron's sentence structure, grasp of vocabulary, ability to express complex concepts, etc. in English are all superior to Trump's. The only thing Trump has that Macron doesn't is a native accent.
Oh, no arguments there.  As for Trump's accent - he's got a Queen's accent.  Not known for being the most desireable, and infamous for improper contractions and their own hard-to-decipher slang ('e.g. 'ain't', 'gonna', 'yooz', 'bigly')
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: meghan88 on December 03, 2019, 04:24:19 PM
Mastering a language involves a lot of listening to other people and observing rules, rather than willfully ignoring both in favour of one's inner animal/monster/child.  No surprise there.

On a related note, there was this article:  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-right-worships-donald-trump-915381/.  Seems like as long as the right is able to hold its collective nose, band together, and form a united front, it will prevail.  Actual critical thinking has fragmented the opposition to the point that there is no possibility for a cohesive alternative platform.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: RangerOne on December 03, 2019, 05:49:56 PM
Mastering a language involves a lot of listening to other people and observing rules, rather than willfully ignoring both in favour of one's inner animal/monster/child.  No surprise there.

On a related note, there was this article:  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-right-worships-donald-trump-915381/.  Seems like as long as the right is able to hold its collective nose, band together, and form a united front, it will prevail.  Actual critical thinking has fragmented the opposition to the point that there is no possibility for a cohesive alternative platform.

Who prevails is entirely going to be based on turnout. There are plenty of half motivated voters that can easily swing an election. But yeah nothing in the news right now is going to convince most Repub voters to switch sides. And yes many praise him for getting their supreme court justices and finally delivering some wins on things like the abortion front. Its the whole coastal elite versus middle America for most of them and they have been trained to believe all media is as biased and fox and friends but in favor of liberal politics...

The "thoughtful" republicans/conservatives and libertarians are a rare bread who just happen to think suffering DT is better than lefty politician proposing socialist policies.

Not much we can do about that other than to remember that the stupidity of the general population is just as likely to hurt us a cabal of powerful people.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 04, 2019, 04:40:29 AM
Mastering a language involves a lot of listening to other people and observing rules, rather than willfully ignoring both in favour of one's inner animal/monster/child.  No surprise there.

On a related note, there was this article:  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-right-worships-donald-trump-915381/.  Seems like as long as the right is able to hold its collective nose, band together, and form a united front, it will prevail.  Actual critical thinking has fragmented the opposition to the point that there is no possibility for a cohesive alternative platform.

The article is a bunch of lazy thinking designed to generate clicks by declaring an unpopular outcome is inevitable - despite any deep analysis or historical context.
Counterpoint 1: this "fragmentation among the Dems is to be expected during a primary.  Regardless of who wins the nomination the party will coalesce around that canidate.  Remember the GOP had 20-something candidates as well, and few liked Trump (and many intensely disliked him within the party) several months before Iowa/NH.
Counterpoint 2: DJT won the electoral college with the narrowist of margins, and lost the popular vote.  That's where he starts from.  He will need as much or more support this time around, and he's been underwater consistently (read: less popular) than he was when we was elected, which brings us to
Counterpoint 3: Turnout.  Like RangerOne said - what will ultimately matter is who votes.  DJT's fans are not enough.  Even the entirety of the GOP is not enough, given their share of the elctorate and ho they already vote in high numbers, so there isn't much more to be gained there.  What will matter is how many non-registered R's show up to vote.  In election after election we've seen sky-high turnout (for non-presidential races) on both sides, and GOP candidates in trouble in regions that should not even be competitive.

DJT won because HRC did not excite non-Republicans enough to vote.  DJT himself won roughly the same number of votes as Romney & McCain as a share of the total electorate.  Can I Dem have more support than HRC when running against DJT?  I tend to think it's very possible.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on December 04, 2019, 04:42:23 AM
Not much we can do about that other than to remember that the stupidity of the general population is -
You were doing reasonably well until then. So let's discuss stupidity.

Remember that the difference between ignorant and stupid is that the ignorant do not know, while the stupid are unable to learn. One proof of ignorance is making a mistake, one proof of stupidity is repeating the same mistake.

If a voter is undecided, one of the two candidates or their supporters calling them stupid is a fairly good way to persuade them to vote for the other who didn't insult them. This is a particularly important factor in a country with voluntary voting on a workday - make people angry and they're more likely to get out and vote.

Now take your assignment back and rewrite it without insulting the people whose vote you'd like to secure. Don't repeat Clinton's mistake.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 04, 2019, 07:05:32 AM
If Trump had lost--and, let's face it, if he'd lost we'd be talking about how African Americans saved the country for the Democrats--would we be pointing to his "Your schools are failing, your communities are crime-ridden, what have you got to lose [by voting for me]" speech to black churches the way you're pointing to Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" comment?

I think you can pick and choose insulting comments like this after the fact without there really being proof that the comments caused anything other than making Republican voters feel like they did the right thing years earlier when they chose to be Republican voters.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Cool Friend on December 04, 2019, 07:07:51 AM
Not much we can do about that other than to remember that the stupidity of the general population is -
You were doing reasonably well until then. So let's discuss stupidity.

Remember that the difference between ignorant and stupid is that the ignorant do not know, while the stupid are unable to learn. One proof of ignorance is making a mistake, one proof of stupidity is repeating the same mistake.

If a voter is undecided, one of the two candidates or their supporters calling them stupid is a fairly good way to persuade them to vote for the other who didn't insult them. This is a particularly important factor in a country with voluntary voting on a workday - make people angry and they're more likely to get out and vote.

Now take your assignment back and rewrite it without insulting the people whose vote you'd like to secure. Don't repeat Clinton's mistake.

You know, I used to think this was silly, but now I'm thinking the voters you're talking about are just stupid enough to be predictably manipulated by being called stupid to their faces.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 04, 2019, 07:55:47 AM
you don't have to manipulate all of them, just some of them.

Both parties start with a base, and they need to secure a few more votes above that to win.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 04, 2019, 08:20:55 AM
Poor little Trump got his fee-fees hurt.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/trump-abruptly-cancels-nato-news-conference-after-tense-exchanges-with-world-leaders-075220?fbclid=IwAR21qbhip5_5uL_m1OBplflA2giSNSK4YRpEYNcM8SVJ_FhUj_RELGMgCGU
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 04, 2019, 09:26:46 AM
Poor little Trump got his fee-fees hurt.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/trump-abruptly-cancels-nato-news-conference-after-tense-exchanges-with-world-leaders-075220?fbclid=IwAR21qbhip5_5uL_m1OBplflA2giSNSK4YRpEYNcM8SVJ_FhUj_RELGMgCGU

Wait. Boris mocked Trump? They're two peas in a pod.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 04, 2019, 09:45:32 AM
To be fair, I don't condone leaders of any country mocking another elected leader.  I'm against it when Trump does it, and I'm against it when others do it about Trump.

The difference here seems to be this was a 'hot mike' episode and not intended to be made public, whereas Trump routinely mocks and belittles other leaders on Twitter and in televised remarks.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 04, 2019, 10:11:30 AM
Where exactly was the mocking?  I could only find the video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN07vQT-MLs

Johnson - Is that why you were late?
Trudeau - He was late because he takes a 40 minute press conference off the top
something unintelligible
Trudeau - Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.  You just watched his team's jaws drop to the floor.

What mocking are we supposed to get outraged about?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 04, 2019, 10:37:34 AM
Poor little Trump got his fee-fees hurt.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/trump-abruptly-cancels-nato-news-conference-after-tense-exchanges-with-world-leaders-075220?fbclid=IwAR21qbhip5_5uL_m1OBplflA2giSNSK4YRpEYNcM8SVJ_FhUj_RELGMgCGU

He’s such a spoiled child.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 04, 2019, 10:50:20 AM
Poor little Trump got his fee-fees hurt.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/trump-abruptly-cancels-nato-news-conference-after-tense-exchanges-with-world-leaders-075220?fbclid=IwAR21qbhip5_5uL_m1OBplflA2giSNSK4YRpEYNcM8SVJ_FhUj_RELGMgCGU

He’s such a spoiled child.

Not to mention a coward. Notice he feels free to say insulting things about other leaders whenever the mood hits him... but he never has the guts to do it to their faces.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 04, 2019, 10:53:35 AM
Poor little Trump got his fee-fees hurt.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/trump-abruptly-cancels-nato-news-conference-after-tense-exchanges-with-world-leaders-075220?fbclid=IwAR21qbhip5_5uL_m1OBplflA2giSNSK4YRpEYNcM8SVJ_FhUj_RELGMgCGU

He’s such a spoiled child.

Not to mention a coward. Notice he feels free to say insulting things about other leaders whenever the mood hits him... but he never has the guts to do it to their faces.

Yeah, I rarely come across adults with such thin skins and high levels of cowardice. It’s disturbing.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on December 04, 2019, 08:07:02 PM
The latest Trump outrage of the hour is cutting 700,000 people from the federal food-stamp program by strictly enforcing federal work requirements.
In the meantime multiple billions of dollars are going to farmers, but mostly really to corporations that are growing commodity crops, to purportedly assist with harm from the trade tariffs. According the Senator Debbie Stabenow, most of this farm aid is not even helping farmers in the Midwest who were hurt the most by the tariffs.

Hundreds of Thousands Are Losing Access to Food Stamps https://nyti.ms/2DJmKyq
"The department has also proposed a rule that would close what it calls a loophole that allows people with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level — about $50,000 for a family of four — to receive food stamps. The rule would also prevent households with more than $2,250 in assets, or $3,500 for a household with a disabled adult, from receiving food stamps. Those changes would strip nearly three million people of their benefits, the department said, and nearly one million children would lose automatic eligibility for free or reduced-price school meals."

"Without a waiver, able-bodied adults without children must work or participate in a work program for 20 hours or more a week to qualify for food stamps. That requirement can be difficult for people who are already homeless or have transportation issues, some poverty experts said, especially for low-wage workers who often are not offered 20 hours a week of steady work.
The rule also prevents states from defining what constitutes an “area” of economic distress. Instead, states must rely on waivers for labor market areas defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Anti-poverty experts say this will most likely make it difficult for cities surrounded by affluent counties, such as Detroit, to receive the waiver."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 05, 2019, 04:58:00 AM
The latest Trump outrage of the hour is cutting 700,000 people from the federal food-stamp program by strictly enforcing federal work requirements.
In the meantime multiple billions of dollars are going to farmers, but mostly really to corporations that are growing commodity crops, to purportedly assist with harm from the trade tariffs.

These are actually both strong GOP positions.  R's have long wanted to cut the social safety net (being poor is a moral failing goes the logic and you must prove your worth to society before getting handouts). Farmers are a core part of their rural base

My guess is he's doing this now to bolster Republican support:
"Hey, even though he says and does things we can't condone, he passed a tax cut, nominated conservative judges and is cutting the social safety net..."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 05, 2019, 07:14:46 AM
Yeah, this is one of those places where I'm conflicted: they interviewed a man on NPR this morning who basically admitted that the Food Stamps mean a lot of the jobs he could get just aren't worth it. I feel for children in these SNAP families, though.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Sanitary Engineer on December 05, 2019, 07:41:02 AM
Where exactly was the mocking?  I could only find the video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN07vQT-MLs

Johnson - Is that why you were late?
Trudeau - He was late because he takes a 40 minute press conference off the top
something unintelligible
Trudeau - Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.  You just watched his team's jaws drop to the floor.

What mocking are we supposed to get outraged about?
Right, I wonder where the "mocking" part happened?  To me it seems like an incredulous telling of a true story.  Maybe Trudeau is responding to one them who asked if Trump really said one of the things he said.  Maybe repeating what Trump says is actually mocking him?  I could believe that.

The footage of Trump calling Trueau two faced is incredible.  He says "two-faced" and you can almost see how happy it makes him to insult someone.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 05, 2019, 09:10:34 AM
Yeah, this is one of those places where I'm conflicted: they interviewed a man on NPR this morning who basically admitted that the Food Stamps mean a lot of the jobs he could get just aren't worth it. I feel for children in these SNAP families, though.

This is the problem that I have with work requirements, as well as our very low minimum wage standards.  There is a large(ish) segment of our population that genuinely needs assistance, but these work requirements either disqualify them or give them a poisoned-choice (work an unstable low-paying job and lose benefits, or don't work but be beholden to welfare).  Raising the federal minimum wage would address these problems, but create others and is a non-starter in many political regions.

NOT providing assistance to people in need seems like both a moral and governmental failing to me.  One of the core things a civilized society should do is help others within its society.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: scottish on December 05, 2019, 03:33:56 PM
Where exactly was the mocking?  I could only find the video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN07vQT-MLs

Johnson - Is that why you were late?
Trudeau - He was late because he takes a 40 minute press conference off the top
something unintelligible
Trudeau - Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.  You just watched his team's jaws drop to the floor.

What mocking are we supposed to get outraged about?
Right, I wonder where the "mocking" part happened?  To me it seems like an incredulous telling of a true story.  Maybe Trudeau is responding to one them who asked if Trump really said one of the things he said.  Maybe repeating what Trump says is actually mocking him?  I could believe that.

The footage of Trump calling Trueau two faced is incredible.  He says "two-faced" and you can almost see how happy it makes him to insult someone.

Joe Biden thinks it was mocking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rogC3M4nZA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rogC3M4nZA)

He thinks the world is laughing at the US.   
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 05, 2019, 03:57:41 PM
The world is laughing at the US.  But not for the alleged 'mocking'.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 05, 2019, 03:58:06 PM
Where exactly was the mocking?  I could only find the video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN07vQT-MLs

Johnson - Is that why you were late?
Trudeau - He was late because he takes a 40 minute press conference off the top
something unintelligible
Trudeau - Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.  You just watched his team's jaws drop to the floor.

What mocking are we supposed to get outraged about?
Right, I wonder where the "mocking" part happened?  To me it seems like an incredulous telling of a true story.  Maybe Trudeau is responding to one them who asked if Trump really said one of the things he said.  Maybe repeating what Trump says is actually mocking him?  I could believe that.

The footage of Trump calling Trueau two faced is incredible.  He says "two-faced" and you can almost see how happy it makes him to insult someone.

Joe Biden thinks it was mocking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rogC3M4nZA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rogC3M4nZA)

He thinks the world is laughing at the US.

I can't say I blame them. The GOP has turned our government into a joke.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 05, 2019, 04:47:26 PM
Yeah, this is one of those places where I'm conflicted: they interviewed a man on NPR this morning who basically admitted that the Food Stamps mean a lot of the jobs he could get just aren't worth it. I feel for children in these SNAP families, though.

This is the problem that I have with work requirements, as well as our very low minimum wage standards.  There is a large(ish) segment of our population that genuinely needs assistance, but these work requirements either disqualify them or give them a poisoned-choice (work an unstable low-paying job and lose benefits, or don't work but be beholden to welfare).  Raising the federal minimum wage would address these problems, but create others and is a non-starter in many political regions.

Yep. I had Section 8 tenants who had to keep their part-time jobs on the down low in order to avoid losing their benefits. It's not like they were rolling in money and buying Cadillacs but an extra $120/week goes a long way when you're a single mother on assistance.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 06, 2019, 07:23:05 AM
The world is laughing at the US.  But not for the alleged 'mocking'.

(Reminder: I am a registered Republican, but the committed #nevertrumper who started this thread)

The mocking really bothers me. Trudeau wants to mock Trump? His whole country has an economy about the size of Texas? Johnson mocking Trump? Have you seen what a hash he's made of things by basically expelling a dozen MP's from his own party for not voting for Brexit? Macron seems good and thoughtful, but--here's the rub--he'd never held an elected office in France before he was elected to be their PM.

The United States is the indispensable party in NATO. Perhaps it was unwise for us to elect Trump, but the other members should attempt to engage with our country in good faith.

Many people here may have been hoping that these world leaders would tell Trump he's an idiot to his face because it doesn't seem to be happening enough here within our domestic politics, but this is no victory for truth-seeking, constitution-abiding Americans.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 06, 2019, 07:53:19 AM
The world is laughing at the US.  But not for the alleged 'mocking'.

(Reminder: I am a registered Republican, but the committed #nevertrumper who started this thread)

The mocking really bothers me. Trudeau wants to mock Trump? His whole country has an economy about the size of Texas? Johnson mocking Trump? Have you seen what a hash he's made of things by basically expelling a dozen MP's from his own party for not voting for Brexit? Macron seems good and thoughtful, but--here's the rub--he'd never held an elected office in France before he was elected to be their PM.

I know we've been told that they were mocking Trump . . . but I actually posted the comments in question above.  Can you highlight the mocking that you thought was most unacceptable, and exactly why it was so unacceptable?


The United States is the indispensable party in NATO. Perhaps it was unwise for us to elect Trump, but the other members should attempt to engage with our country in good faith.

Donald Trump has not engaged with other countries in good faith pretty much since he entered office.  Despite multiple world leaders (including Trudeau and Macron) going out of their way to reach out directly to the president.  Your contention here appears to be that because the US is an indispensable party in NATO, Trump should be allowed to act in any manner towards other countries and world leaders without consequences . . . is that correct?


Many people here may have been hoping that these world leaders would tell Trump he's an idiot to his face because it doesn't seem to be happening enough here within our domestic politics, but this is no victory for truth-seeking, constitution-abiding Americans.

Trump is an idiot. I don't care if world leaders tell Trump the truth or not.  My hope is simply that he stops acting like an idiot on the world stage.  (This would incidentally help to return the US to non-laughingstock status.)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on December 06, 2019, 07:55:57 AM
The world is laughing at the US.  But not for the alleged 'mocking'.

The United States is the indispensable party in NATO. Perhaps it was unwise for us to elect Trump, but the other members should attempt to engage with our country in good faith.

As far as I can tell they have been trying this for the last 3 years and it has produced absolutely nothing.  Trump's international "policy" has been even more erratic and destructive than his home policies.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 06, 2019, 08:06:48 AM
The world is laughing at the US.  But not for the alleged 'mocking'.

(Reminder: I am a registered Republican, but the committed #nevertrumper who started this thread)

The mocking really bothers me. Trudeau wants to mock Trump? His whole country has an economy about the size of Texas? Johnson mocking Trump? Have you seen what a hash he's made of things by basically expelling a dozen MP's from his own party for not voting for Brexit? Macron seems good and thoughtful, but--here's the rub--he'd never held an elected office in France before he was elected to be their PM.

The United States is the indispensable party in NATO. Perhaps it was unwise for us to elect Trump, but the other members should attempt to engage with our country in good faith.

Many people here may have been hoping that these world leaders would tell Trump he's an idiot to his face because it doesn't seem to be happening enough here within our domestic politics, but this is no victory for truth-seeking, constitution-abiding Americans.

None of any of this is a victory. But given that most of us endured far worse mocking and bullying in elementary school, I can’t help but hope that his demonstrably paper-thin skin and complete lack of bravery and personal strength will resonate with people who voted for him because they perceived him as a tough-talking bully who would dominate the world stage. It’s a faint hope, but still there.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 06, 2019, 09:15:12 AM
It's surreal to me to see my conservative friends (who support Trump) saying that he's the only President who's ever had to encounter this type of disrespect and pushback.

As far as him personally being thin-skinned, that doesn't seem to resonate with people who have determined they will support him. It's like the tough guy image he cultivated on NBC for years is immutable or something.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 06, 2019, 09:16:09 AM
The world is laughing at the US.  But not for the alleged 'mocking'.

(Reminder: I am a registered Republican, but the committed #nevertrumper who started this thread)

The mocking really bothers me. Trudeau wants to mock Trump? His whole country has an economy about the size of Texas? Johnson mocking Trump? Have you seen what a hash he's made of things by basically expelling a dozen MP's from his own party for not voting for Brexit? Macron seems good and thoughtful, but--here's the rub--he'd never held an elected office in France before he was elected to be their PM.

I know we've been told that they were mocking Trump . . . but I actually posted the comments in question above.  Can you highlight the mocking that you thought was most unacceptable, and exactly why it was so unacceptable?


The United States is the indispensable party in NATO. Perhaps it was unwise for us to elect Trump, but the other members should attempt to engage with our country in good faith.

Donald Trump has not engaged with other countries in good faith pretty much since he entered office.  Despite multiple world leaders (including Trudeau and Macron) going out of their way to reach out directly to the president.  Your contention here appears to be that because the US is an indispensable party in NATO, Trump should be allowed to act in any manner towards other countries and world leaders without consequences . . . is that correct?


Many people here may have been hoping that these world leaders would tell Trump he's an idiot to his face because it doesn't seem to be happening enough here within our domestic politics, but this is no victory for truth-seeking, constitution-abiding Americans.

Trump is an idiot. I don't care if world leaders tell Trump the truth or not.  My hope is simply that he stops acting like an idiot on the world stage.  (This would incidentally help to return the US to non-laughingstock status.)

Indeed this is legitimate pushback. I'm having trouble locating a compelling video.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 06, 2019, 09:24:52 AM
I'm having trouble locating a compelling video.

Me too!  We get all these news reports about 'mocking' . . . but on the video it's basically a couple guys bitching that they were delayed by Trump's press conference.  Fake news!
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 06, 2019, 09:32:20 AM
It's surreal to me to see my conservative friends (who support Trump) saying that he's the only President who's ever had to encounter this type of disrespect and pushback.

As far as him personally being thin-skinned, that doesn't seem to resonate with people who have determined they will support him. It's like the tough guy image he cultivated on NBC for years is immutable or something.

Right?! I mean, Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated in office. Obama was hanged and burned in effigy. Nixon resigned in disgrace when faced with impeachment. Hoover was excoriated by the press and public because of the Depression and lost his follow-up election to FDR by a wide margin. Clinton’s filthy laundry was dragged out on the world stage multiple times during his presidency, including during a formal impeachment hearing.

Yet again, Trump thinks he alone should be exempt. Spoiled child.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 06, 2019, 10:00:03 AM
It's surreal to me to see my conservative friends (who support Trump) saying that he's the only President who's ever had to encounter this type of disrespect and pushback.

As far as him personally being thin-skinned, that doesn't seem to resonate with people who have determined they will support him. It's like the tough guy image he cultivated on NBC for years is immutable or something.

Right?! I mean, Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated in office. Obama was hanged and burned in effigy. Nixon resigned in disgrace when faced with impeachment. Hoover was excoriated by the press and public because of the Depression and lost his follow-up election to FDR by a wide margin. Clinton’s filthy laundry was dragged out on the world stage multiple times during his presidency, including during a formal impeachment hearing.

Yet again, Trump thinks he alone should be exempt. Spoiled child.

Granted, hyperbole is Trump's bread and butter, but it blows my mind that someone who was born into wealth, who inherited over $400 million dollars, who's upper-class status got him out of Vietnam and through multiple upper-echelon schools, who married first an actress and then a (younger) model, and who became POTUS in his first ever foray into public office largely due to having the stars align with the electoral college, his opponent and the shifting global economy - has the audacity to repeat how everything is 'so unfair' to him.

One could make a compelling case that Trump is among the luckiest Americans ever.  Yet to hear him tell it, he's fought adversity and a system rigged against him his entire life.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 06, 2019, 11:28:18 AM
It's surreal to me to see my conservative friends (who support Trump) saying that he's the only President who's ever had to encounter this type of disrespect and pushback.

As far as him personally being thin-skinned, that doesn't seem to resonate with people who have determined they will support him. It's like the tough guy image he cultivated on NBC for years is immutable or something.

Right?! I mean, Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated in office. Obama was hanged and burned in effigy. Nixon resigned in disgrace when faced with impeachment. Hoover was excoriated by the press and public because of the Depression and lost his follow-up election to FDR by a wide margin. Clinton’s filthy laundry was dragged out on the world stage multiple times during his presidency, including during a formal impeachment hearing.

Yet again, Trump thinks he alone should be exempt. Spoiled child.

I do think society has a deeper problem wherein we no longer accept a President of the opposing political party as legitimate. Trump didn't create this problem.

The GOP in 1992 claimed Clinton was illegitimate because Perot's presence in the race split the support for Bush. Democrats in 2000 claimed that their candidate had actually won, but for the Supreme Court. The GOP in 2008 claimed that Obama was born in Kenya.

If you think Republicans in 2016 would have accepted Hillary Clinton as a rightfully elected President, then--respectfully--where the hell have you been living during the last quarter century?

Again, Trump didn't create this problem. I doubt he will be the last President to have to contend with it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 06, 2019, 11:37:49 AM
I think Trump is a legitimate President based on our own laws and constitution, I just think he has been a bad President and his conduct multiple times has been grounds for impeachment and removal.  The fact that Russia interfered to intentionally bolster his candidacy and undermine HRC's is unfair to be sure, but ultimately he won the electoral votes needed to be POTUS.

The 'Obama-is-from-Keyna' thing aways seemed bizarre.  Bush/Gore was statistically a coin flip, and was decided one way a democracy goverened by laws can decide such things (for better or worse).  Clinton winning because of Perot?  Again - that's sometimes how things go with the laws we have; he still won a plurality of votes.  See Canada/UK for examples of the PM being from a party which does not hold the majority.  We might be able to 'solve' 3rd-party spoilers if we went to ranked-choice voting.  While on teh subject, a strong case can be made that Johnson 'spoiled' the election for HRC, taking just enough votes away in several key states.  Doesn't make his presence in the race or the outcome illegitimate.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on December 06, 2019, 11:46:06 AM
It's surreal to me to see my conservative friends (who support Trump) saying that he's the only President who's ever had to encounter this type of disrespect and pushback.

As far as him personally being thin-skinned, that doesn't seem to resonate with people who have determined they will support him. It's like the tough guy image he cultivated on NBC for years is immutable or something.

Right?! I mean, Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated in office. Obama was hanged and burned in effigy. Nixon resigned in disgrace when faced with impeachment. Hoover was excoriated by the press and public because of the Depression and lost his follow-up election to FDR by a wide margin. Clinton’s filthy laundry was dragged out on the world stage multiple times during his presidency, including during a formal impeachment hearing.

Yet again, Trump thinks he alone should be exempt. Spoiled child.

I do think society has a deeper problem wherein we no longer accept a President of the opposing political party as legitimate. Trump didn't create this problem.

The GOP in 1992 claimed Clinton was illegitimate because Perot's presence in the race split the support for Bush. Democrats in 2000 claimed that their candidate had actually won, but for the Supreme Court. The GOP in 2008 claimed that Obama was born in Kenya.

If you think Republicans in 2016 would have accepted Hillary Clinton as a rightfully elected President, then--respectfully--where the hell have you been living during the last quarter century?

Again, Trump didn't create this problem. I doubt he will be the last President to have to contend with it.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I agree that it's a problem when citizens don't accept a democratically elected president as legitimate, but that's not what's being discussed. I think OtherJen's point was that every president has to deal with haters and no, that's not going to change, but it doesn't need to. As president he needs to suck it up and do his job anyway. When he doesn't that makes the country look bad.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 06, 2019, 11:49:56 AM
It's surreal to me to see my conservative friends (who support Trump) saying that he's the only President who's ever had to encounter this type of disrespect and pushback.

As far as him personally being thin-skinned, that doesn't seem to resonate with people who have determined they will support him. It's like the tough guy image he cultivated on NBC for years is immutable or something.

Right?! I mean, Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated in office. Obama was hanged and burned in effigy. Nixon resigned in disgrace when faced with impeachment. Hoover was excoriated by the press and public because of the Depression and lost his follow-up election to FDR by a wide margin. Clinton’s filthy laundry was dragged out on the world stage multiple times during his presidency, including during a formal impeachment hearing.

Yet again, Trump thinks he alone should be exempt. Spoiled child.

I do think society has a deeper problem wherein we no longer accept a President of the opposing political party as legitimate. Trump didn't create this problem.

The GOP in 1992 claimed Clinton was illegitimate because Perot's presence in the race split the support for Bush. Democrats in 2000 claimed that their candidate had actually won, but for the Supreme Court. The GOP in 2008 claimed that Obama was born in Kenya.

If you think Republicans in 2016 would have accepted Hillary Clinton as a rightfully elected President, then--respectfully--where the hell have you been living during the last quarter century?

Again, Trump didn't create this problem. I doubt he will be the last President to have to contend with it.

I dunno, I think this is comparing a lot of apples, oranges and grapes.

And I don't think Trump is illegitimate, exactly. The intelligence community's consensus is that Russia meddled in our elections to get Trump elected, and we'll never know how much influence that had. And yeah, he did not win the popular vote. But he won the electoral college. But to say he is illegitimate for those reasons? I wouldn't go that far.

Honestly, I don't remember Republicans saying Clinton was actually illegitimate because of Perot. Bush v. Gore seemed... messed up, for sure. I think it was a shame what the courts did, because that shadow of uncertainty remained. But illegitimate? Again, I wouldn't go that far, because we don't actually know what the recount would have said. He did get re-elected legitimately in 2004, though.

Obama being from Kenya... That is the tinfoil hat brigade talking. That was not "we" not accepting a president as being legitimate.

Unfortunately, that tinfoil hat brigade has been strengthened and expanded by Alex Jones and his ilk. Those are the same people that would not have believed HRC won the election if she had. And that's because Trump himself started that wave. (And of course, he was instrumental in the Obama/Kenya thing as well.) You say Trump didn't create this problem. But he was pretty smack dab in the center of it.

I take definite issue with "we the people" being tarred with such a broad, messy brush. I think it very much misrepresents the reality.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 06, 2019, 12:09:28 PM
It's surreal to me to see my conservative friends (who support Trump) saying that he's the only President who's ever had to encounter this type of disrespect and pushback.

As far as him personally being thin-skinned, that doesn't seem to resonate with people who have determined they will support him. It's like the tough guy image he cultivated on NBC for years is immutable or something.

Right?! I mean, Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated in office. Obama was hanged and burned in effigy. Nixon resigned in disgrace when faced with impeachment. Hoover was excoriated by the press and public because of the Depression and lost his follow-up election to FDR by a wide margin. Clinton’s filthy laundry was dragged out on the world stage multiple times during his presidency, including during a formal impeachment hearing.

Yet again, Trump thinks he alone should be exempt. Spoiled child.

I do think society has a deeper problem wherein we no longer accept a President of the opposing political party as legitimate. Trump didn't create this problem.

The GOP in 1992 claimed Clinton was illegitimate because Perot's presence in the race split the support for Bush. Democrats in 2000 claimed that their candidate had actually won, but for the Supreme Court. The GOP in 2008 claimed that Obama was born in Kenya.

If you think Republicans in 2016 would have accepted Hillary Clinton as a rightfully elected President, then--respectfully--where the hell have you been living during the last quarter century?

Again, Trump didn't create this problem. I doubt he will be the last President to have to contend with it.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I agree that it's a problem when citizens don't accept a democratically elected president as legitimate, but that's not what's being discussed. I think OtherJen's point was that every president has to deal with haters and no, that's not going to change, but it doesn't need to. As president he needs to suck it up and do his job anyway. When he doesn't that makes the country look bad.

Thank you. That was exactly my point. Trump wanted the job and has been on the planet for 30 years longer than me. He's had ample time to observe that all presidents face extremely challenging situations and largely created one such situation for his predecessor. I'm sick of the whining and tantrums and cowardice and absolute lack of appropriate governance.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on December 06, 2019, 03:27:53 PM
Paul Krugman believes Trump's use of tariffs is an opportunity for Trump to enrich himself.

"So that’s why Trump is a Tariff Man: Tariffs let him exercise unconstrained power, rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Anyone imagining that he’s going to change his ways and start behaving responsibly is living in a fantasy world."

Why Is Trump a Tariff Man? https://nyti.ms/38e5a3F
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on December 06, 2019, 03:45:11 PM
Whatever his intent, the economic effects are broadly positive.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/strong-u-s-job-growth-showcases-economys-resilience-idUSKBN1YA1IL
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 06, 2019, 05:51:31 PM
Whatever his intent, the economic effects are broadly positive.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/strong-u-s-job-growth-showcases-economys-resilience-idUSKBN1YA1IL

Very few economists would agree with you, and a correlation is not evidence, particularly on something as short lived as this.  If you want to go back in history you can find numerous examples of how tariffs coincided with a reduction in global GDP - and have been blamed for that drop.


"So that’s why Trump is a Tariff Man: Tariffs let him exercise unconstrained power, rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Anyone imagining that he’s going to change his ways and start behaving responsibly is living in a fantasy world."

Technically Congress has the power to levy tariffs, not the President (exempt in the interests of national security) - Article I, Sect. VIII. The GOP has so far allowed him to usurp their constitutional power (something that it likely to bite them in the ass in a few years).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: RetiredAt63 on December 06, 2019, 06:02:12 PM
Whatever his intent, the economic effects are broadly positive.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/strong-u-s-job-growth-showcases-economys-resilience-idUSKBN1YA1IL

Very few economists would agree with you, and a correlation is not evidence, particularly on something as short lived as this.  If you want to go back in history you can find numerous examples of how tariffs coincided with a reduction in global GDP - and have been blamed for that drop.


"So that’s why Trump is a Tariff Man: Tariffs let him exercise unconstrained power, rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Anyone imagining that he’s going to change his ways and start behaving responsibly is living in a fantasy world."

Technically Congress has the power to levy tariffs, not the President (exempt in the interests of national security) - Article I, Sect. VIII. The GOP has so far allowed him to usurp their constitutional power (something that it likely to bite them in the ass in a few years).

Yeah, like those tariffs he put on Canada because we were a "national security risk".  He has obviously never read Dale Carnegie.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: js82 on December 07, 2019, 03:31:45 PM
Whatever his intent, the economic effects are broadly positive.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/strong-u-s-job-growth-showcases-economys-resilience-idUSKBN1YA1IL

The economy is doing well.  As for whether tariffs have anything to do with this, that's debatable.

The tax cut, on the other hand, did provide some degree of stimulus - in the short term.  That said, it doesn't take a genius to throw money at an economy and produce a degree of stimulus.  Doing so in a manner that is both efficient and sustainable is another matter entirely - and the Trump/GOP tax cuts objectively fail on the latter.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 09, 2019, 07:28:36 AM
Whatever his intent, the economic effects are broadly positive.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/strong-u-s-job-growth-showcases-economys-resilience-idUSKBN1YA1IL

The Labor market on the whole is performing well. But if you look at manufacturing jobs--and, really, that's what Trump says he's trying to save--the sector was shown to be treading water in the last several jobs reports.

And purchasing managers say that they're too cautious to invest right now. Based on their outlook, it'd be fair to say the recession already has come to manufacturing.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 09, 2019, 08:11:07 AM
Listened to an interview with Robert O’Brien this morning(new National-Security Advisor... since it’s very hard to keep track these days).  The subject was about the release a (singular) hostage from Iran.

About half-way through he started spouting WH propaganda, seemingly for no reason.  It was like listening to an infomertial where everyone was reminded to be ‘on message’ and to hit certain ‘key points’. 
Among the things he said, largely unprompted
“No president has released more US hostages than DJT”
“Trump has assembled an all-star team within the state department ... Pompeo, Haskil, ... really the best people”
“We did not give up anything to free this hostage.  We did not send pallets of cash to Iran.  Trump made a fantastic deal”
“Iran wants to make a deal with us”
“The Obama administration caused all of these problems”

It was galling how transparent it was.  It sounded like he was given a list of phrases he had to say about how great Trump was and how it’s his supreme skil as a deal-maker.  I believe he even said At one point how this was “the greatest administration ever’.  Meanwhile thee was a lot of throwing previous career public servants under the bus.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 09, 2019, 10:02:51 AM
Listened to an interview with Robert O’Brien this morning(new National-Security Advisor... since it’s very hard to keep track these days).  The subject was about the release a (singular) hostage from Iran.

About half-way through he started spouting WH propaganda, seemingly for no reason.  It was like listening to an infomertial where everyone was reminded to be ‘on message’ and to hit certain ‘key points’. 
Among the things he said, largely unprompted
“No president has released more US hostages than DJT”
“Trump has assembled an all-star team within the state department ... Pompeo, Haskil, ... really the best people”
“We did not give up anything to free this hostage.  We did not send pallets of cash to Iran.  Trump made a fantastic deal”
“Iran wants to make a deal with us”
“The Obama administration caused all of these problems”

It was galling how transparent it was.  It sounded like he was given a list of phrases he had to say about how great Trump was and how it’s his supreme skil as a deal-maker.  I believe he even said At one point how this was “the greatest administration ever’.  Meanwhile thee was a lot of throwing previous career public servants under the bus.
Did he really put the director of the CIA into the state dept?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 09, 2019, 10:18:41 AM
Listened to an interview with Robert O’Brien this morning(new National-Security Advisor... since it’s very hard to keep track these days).  The subject was about the release a (singular) hostage from Iran.

About half-way through he started spouting WH propaganda, seemingly for no reason.  It was like listening to an infomertial where everyone was reminded to be ‘on message’ and to hit certain ‘key points’. 
Among the things he said, largely unprompted
“No president has released more US hostages than DJT”
“Trump has assembled an all-star team within the state department ... Pompeo, Haskil, ... really the best people”
“We did not give up anything to free this hostage.  We did not send pallets of cash to Iran.  Trump made a fantastic deal”
“Iran wants to make a deal with us”
“The Obama administration caused all of these problems”

It was galling how transparent it was.  It sounded like he was given a list of phrases he had to say about how great Trump was and how it’s his supreme skil as a deal-maker.  I believe he even said At one point how this was “the greatest administration ever’.  Meanwhile thee was a lot of throwing previous career public servants under the bus.
Did he really put the director of the CIA into the state dept?

Here's the audio - you can listen to yourself.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/09/786204977/national-security-adviser-aids-in-u-s-iran-prisoner-swap (https://www.npr.org/2019/12/09/786204977/national-security-adviser-aids-in-u-s-iran-prisoner-swap)

No, he didn't lump the CIA with the State Dept, rather he credited Trump for "assembling an all-star cabinet" (around 4:10). Which is frankly a weird thing to say when so many of your direct appointees have resigned or been fired within the first couple of years, inlcuding two of the previous National Security Advisors.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BECABECA on December 09, 2019, 10:42:00 AM
Latest outrage: Trump brings the war criminals that he pardoned (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-pardons.html) up on stage at his fundraiser, rebranding them as heroes to his base while simultaneously rebranding our military as war criminals to the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 09, 2019, 10:45:51 AM
wasn't part of the mystique of Trump that he could 'self-fund' his campaigns and wouldn't need to rely on or be beholden to donors and their causes?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 09, 2019, 10:47:34 AM
Latest outrage: Trump brings the war criminals that he pardoned (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-pardons.html) up on stage at his fundraiser, rebranding them as heroes to his base while simultaneously rebranding our military as war criminals to the rest of the world.

This is honestly disgusting.

His "support our troops" base should be outraged.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 09, 2019, 12:01:20 PM
wasn't part of the mystique of Trump that he could 'self-fund' his campaigns and wouldn't need to rely on or be beholden to donors and their causes?

Perhaps you were misspelling "BLOOMBERG"?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 09, 2019, 12:08:42 PM
wasn't part of the mystique of Trump that he could 'self-fund' his campaigns and wouldn't need to rely on or be beholden to donors and their causes?

Perhaps you were misspelling "BLOOMBERG"?
I mean, choose your billionaire... starting with Ross Perot. But, the Trump reference here is pretty specific.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 09, 2019, 12:26:01 PM
wasn't part of the mystique of Trump that he could 'self-fund' his campaigns and wouldn't need to rely on or be beholden to donors and their causes?

Perhaps you were misspelling "BLOOMBERG"?

I'm skeptical of any wealthy candidate running for federal office that claims s/he will be "above" campaign donations.  Many make this claim, yet can't think of a single one who's actually been above money in poltics.  Meg Whitman spent a ton of her own money (something like $148 million) in California gov' race - but even there she took over $175MM in other contributions.

What baffles me is how many of Trump's supporters i) believed he really would self-fund his campaign and ii) don't seem to care that he's broken records for the amount of fundraising he's done in the first two years of his presidency.  Trump didn't even wait until the traditional ~3+ years in to blast that promise to death. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 09, 2019, 12:31:48 PM
Latest outrage: Trump brings the war criminals that he pardoned (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-pardons.html) up on stage at his fundraiser, rebranding them as heroes to his base while simultaneously rebranding our military as war criminals to the rest of the world.

This is honestly disgusting.

His "support our troops" base should be outraged.

All three cases were about the killing of non-combatant Muslims (one of whom was a POW).

Given the base dislike for brown people, and especially Muslims, it's not surprising that Trump pardoned them.

It also feeds into his "deep state" conspiracy theory. It's not the boots-on-the-ground that are a problem; it's the brass.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 09, 2019, 12:45:55 PM
wasn't part of the mystique of Trump that he could 'self-fund' his campaigns and wouldn't need to rely on or be beholden to donors and their causes?

Perhaps you were misspelling "BLOOMBERG"?

I'm skeptical of any wealthy candidate running for federal office that claims s/he will be "above" campaign donations.  Many make this claim, yet can't think of a single one who's actually been above money in poltics.  Meg Whitman spent a ton of her own money (something like $148 million) in California gov' race - but even there she took over $175MM in other contributions.

What baffles me is how many of Trump's supporters i) believed he really would self-fund his campaign and ii) don't seem to care that he's broken records for the amount of fundraising he's done in the first two years of his presidency.  Trump didn't even wait until the traditional ~3+ years in to blast that promise to death.
I mean, he also said he'd be working too much to play golf. So.... probably the best president ever.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BECABECA on December 09, 2019, 12:52:44 PM
Latest outrage: Trump brings the war criminals that he pardoned (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-pardons.html) up on stage at his fundraiser, rebranding them as heroes to his base while simultaneously rebranding our military as war criminals to the rest of the world.

This is honestly disgusting.

His "support our troops" base should be outraged.

All three cases were about the killing of non-combatant Muslims (one of whom was a POW).

Given the base dislike for brown people, and especially Muslims, it's not surprising that Trump pardoned them.

It also feeds into his "deep state" conspiracy theory. It's not the boots-on-the-ground that are a problem; it's the brass.

It should still be surprising that the POTUS pardoned troops of war crimes, no matter who the crimes were against. And these criminals were turned in by their own soldiers. Maybe this pumps up the armchair patriots who have never been in the military, but this has to be demoralizing to the vast majority of the enlisted soldiers who see that guys like them testified against these officers and it was all for nothing.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 09, 2019, 01:03:12 PM
Latest outrage: Trump brings the war criminals that he pardoned (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-pardons.html) up on stage at his fundraiser, rebranding them as heroes to his base while simultaneously rebranding our military as war criminals to the rest of the world.

This is honestly disgusting.

His "support our troops" base should be outraged.

All three cases were about the killing of non-combatant Muslims (one of whom was a POW).

Given the base dislike for brown people, and especially Muslims, it's not surprising that Trump pardoned them.

It also feeds into his "deep state" conspiracy theory. It's not the boots-on-the-ground that are a problem; it's the brass.

It should still be surprising that the POTUS pardoned troops of war crimes, no matter who the crimes were against. And these criminals were turned in by their own soldiers. Maybe this pumps up the armchair patriots who have never been in the military, but this has to be demoralizing to the vast majority of the enlisted soldiers who see that guys like them testified against these officers and it was all for nothing.

Dick Cheney under George W authorized US troops to commit war crimes (at the very least torture . . . but also the creation of facilities full of kidnapped and untried people were subjected to rape, sexual degradation, humiliation, and in several cases it would seem murder).  Zero repercussions to date for any of the people at the top.  Given this history, it's not really surprising at that America is failing to punish their soldiers convicted of war crimes.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BECABECA on December 09, 2019, 01:10:10 PM
Latest outrage: Trump brings the war criminals that he pardoned (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-pardons.html) up on stage at his fundraiser, rebranding them as heroes to his base while simultaneously rebranding our military as war criminals to the rest of the world.

This is honestly disgusting.

His "support our troops" base should be outraged.

All three cases were about the killing of non-combatant Muslims (one of whom was a POW).

Given the base dislike for brown people, and especially Muslims, it's not surprising that Trump pardoned them.

It also feeds into his "deep state" conspiracy theory. It's not the boots-on-the-ground that are a problem; it's the brass.

It should still be surprising that the POTUS pardoned troops of war crimes, no matter who the crimes were against. And these criminals were turned in by their own soldiers. Maybe this pumps up the armchair patriots who have never been in the military, but this has to be demoralizing to the vast majority of the enlisted soldiers who see that guys like them testified against these officers and it was all for nothing.

Dick Cheney under George W authorized US troops to commit war crimes (at the very least torture . . . but also the creation of facilities full of kidnapped and untried people were subjected to rape, sexual degradation, humiliation, and in several cases it would seem murder).  Zero repercussions to date for any of the people at the top.  Given this history, it's not really surprising at that America is failing to punish their soldiers convicted of war crimes.

While that was also disgusting and should have never happened or at the very least should have been prosecuted and publicly disavowed, overturning war crime convictions is a new disgusting low that we as a country had not yet embraced. Until Trump.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 09, 2019, 01:15:40 PM
I don't see a distinction between overturning a conviction for a low level war criminal, and never bothering to prosecute a high level one.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BECABECA on December 09, 2019, 01:22:01 PM
I don't see a distinction between overturning a conviction for a low level war criminal, and never bothering to prosecute a high level one.

The distinction is that the Bush administration at least put on the pretense of the mental gymnastics to justify that waterboarding was not torture and so not a war crime. And W didn’t then bring the waterboarders up on the stage with him at fundraising events and tout them as heroes. There was at least some recognition that war crimes in general aren’t good and doing something close to it isn’t something you want to hang your fundraising on.

Trump has essentially said war is different now and we shouldn’t be beholden to any of the old definitions of war crimes. And not just that, but we should be proud of being war criminals now.

So while both are bad, I believe that equivocating what W did with what Trump is doing is a disservice to humanity.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 09, 2019, 01:31:58 PM
When Bush authorized Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib, he essentially said that war is different now, and the US isn't beholden to any of the old definitions of war crimes.

I guess I can see the argument that Trump is taking is one step further . . . but it's a road that America seems only too comfortable to walk down.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: BECABECA on December 09, 2019, 02:33:08 PM
...
I guess I can see the argument that Trump is taking is one step further . . . but it's a road that America seems only too comfortable to walk down.

*Some* of America is comfortable to walk down this road, most of these because they’ve been manipulated into thinking that it isn’t morally reprehensible by the few who stand to personally gain from it.

But I continue to believe that most Americans are not comfortable with what is happening. Unfortunately, while we are actively trying to turn the ship around, inertia causes any course corrections to be very slow, especially major ones.

I assume you don’t want Americans to feel hopeless about their country, I assume you want the same thing that I do: for us to actually do something to fix it. I have a lot of respect for your arguments across this forum, which is why I was surprised that the two times I’ve posted a new low on this thread have been met with a “you’ve been this way all along” response from you. This doesn’t inspire action, I think it inspires the opposite: it makes us more likely to label this latest outrage we've noticed as business as usual and nothing to be alarmed about because there’s nothing we can do to change it.

So thanks for grudgingly admitting that you can see the argument that this latest outrage is one step further ;)

It’s tremendously helpful to have the perspective of a non American knowledgeable on all these bits of American history and foreign policy, as it helps us see where our biases may be coming in. Help us be better.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: scottish on December 09, 2019, 06:20:53 PM
It's f...ing nuts.   Next thing Trump will have his own praetorian guard to look after his succession.   Just watch...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on December 10, 2019, 06:21:12 AM
Latest outrage: Trump brings the war criminals that he pardoned (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-pardons.html) up on stage at his fundraiser, rebranding them as heroes to his base while simultaneously rebranding our military as war criminals to the rest of the world.

This is honestly disgusting.

His "support our troops" base should be outraged.

That's what they think he just did.  Meanwhile those same folks are all over the internet vilifying that "fat colonel" who is one of the star witnesses in the impeachment investigation.  I'm sure if that officer had something to say about Pelosi they'd be recommending him for a medal.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 10, 2019, 08:01:27 AM
...
I guess I can see the argument that Trump is taking is one step further . . . but it's a road that America seems only too comfortable to walk down.

*Some* of America is comfortable to walk down this road, most of these because they’ve been manipulated into thinking that it isn’t morally reprehensible by the few who stand to personally gain from it.

But I continue to believe that most Americans are not comfortable with what is happening. Unfortunately, while we are actively trying to turn the ship around, inertia causes any course corrections to be very slow, especially major ones.

I assume you don’t want Americans to feel hopeless about their country, I assume you want the same thing that I do: for us to actually do something to fix it. I have a lot of respect for your arguments across this forum, which is why I was surprised that the two times I’ve posted a new low on this thread have been met with a “you’ve been this way all along” response from you. This doesn’t inspire action, I think it inspires the opposite: it makes us more likely to label this latest outrage we've noticed as business as usual and nothing to be alarmed about because there’s nothing we can do to change it.

So thanks for grudgingly admitting that you can see the argument that this latest outrage is one step further ;)

It’s tremendously helpful to have the perspective of a non American knowledgeable on all these bits of American history and foreign policy, as it helps us see where our biases may be coming in. Help us be better.

Fair enough.  It's sometimes frustrating to see so few fucks given for a fundamental violation of human rights and the law . . . especially when it often appears to be accompanied with boisterous "We're the greatest" style self-aggrandizement and jingoistic patriotism.  :P
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on December 10, 2019, 05:25:55 PM
Given the base dislike for brown people, and especially Muslims, it's not surprising that Trump pardoned them.
To be fair, Calley was pardoned for killing Asian civilians.

Meanwhile in Australia, war crimes allegations against the SAS, supported by testimony from SAS troopers, have been "investigated" for several years now, by different agencies etc. However, one of the chief suspects is the winner of a Victoria Cross.

And of course, the Germans are famous for having released most of their war criminals very early.

Historically, most countries don't like trying their own military members for war crimes, and if pressured into doing so, pardon them or release them early. This applies whatever the colour of their victims' skin, and the US is far from unique in this.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 10, 2019, 05:43:06 PM
And of course, the Germans are famous for having released most of their war criminals very early.


Umm...

I don’t think that’s what they’re famous for.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on December 11, 2019, 07:31:03 AM
This ... is just ... 🤬

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/trump-order-judaism-nationality/index.html
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 11, 2019, 07:41:18 AM
Perhaps I'm connected with an unusual group of practicing Jews, but they all basically tell me some variant of, "We know his tweets are dumb, but his daughter is Jewish, and it's clear he has Israel's back, so we're all in."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 11, 2019, 07:45:57 AM
This ... is just ... 🤬

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/trump-order-judaism-nationality/index.html


Interesting.


Stuff that immediately comes to mind reading that:

1.  Trump said some sort of anti-Semitic stuff (again) and was called out on it (again).  To make up for it, he seems to have grabbed the first thing that has to do with Jewish people that came across his plate and decided that he was going to be as pro-jew as possible on it.  So, I guess his thought is that as long as you can point at something that seems non-bigoted, then you have a shield against anything bigoted you ever say.   :P

2.  Educational institutes receiving funding in the US are allowed to discriminate based on the religion of the people applying???  WTF?  Why is the president singling out a single religious group for special treatment, rather than fixing the law that allows this discrimination for all?

3.  Was anti-Jewish enrollment a problem in the universities in the US?

4.  If being a practicing Jew is now legally considered a nationality, will the US issue all Jews special passports?  How is Jewish nationality different from Israeli nationality?  Will Israel recognize this new status somehow?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 11, 2019, 07:53:06 AM
Wait, it's a fucking nationality???
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 11, 2019, 08:03:47 AM
Wait, it's a fucking nationality???

To clear up any confusion, Trump could issue nationality identification cards to all practicing Jews in the US.  Can't see anyone having a problem with that.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 11, 2019, 08:11:43 AM
I probably come across as unreasonably anti-Trump in my comments on these discussion boards, but I just got done spending Thanksgiving with my mom, and telling her that she was wayyyy separated from reality for believing Trump would turn out to basically be Hitler. This news item will not help my case.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 11, 2019, 08:13:55 AM
Okay, I did more reading, and I need to calm down. It's being classified as an "ethnicity or nationality" for the purposes of certain hate crime laws being enforced. This may well be a case of the media just trying to make Trump look bad.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 11, 2019, 08:41:15 AM
@talltexan (and others following along) - regarding Trump's actions toward Jewish Americans you might want to check out Jennifer Rubin's latest piece which looks at various facets. 

FWIW Rubin is a conservative, a Jewish American and a 'Never-Trumper' (though unlike her colleague and fellow conservative-jewish-political-columnist Max Boot she remains a registered Republican).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/09/trumps-anti-semitic-attacks-american-jews-keep-coming/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/09/trumps-anti-semitic-attacks-american-jews-keep-coming/)

Sorry about the paywall...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: ixtap on December 11, 2019, 08:45:55 AM
Being pro Israel is no defense against anti Semitism. One reason we currently have a country called Israel is because the Nazis helped Jews illegally immigrate to Palestine before they decided it was easier to just dispose of them altogether.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 11, 2019, 09:01:26 AM
Thank you for sharing.

A while ago I stopped reading Rubin because it felt like she was reflexively anti-Trump, so her output wasn't likely to challenge me (as I am also that way, but actively seek out things that might convince me I'm wrong about him). Her columns are still well-written.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Samuel on December 11, 2019, 10:33:19 AM
2.  Educational institutes receiving funding in the US are allowed to discriminate based on the religion of the people applying???  WTF?  Why is the president singling out a single religious group for special treatment, rather than fixing the law that allows this discrimination for all?

3.  Was anti-Jewish enrollment a problem in the universities in the US?

It's not about enrollment discrimination, it's about the climate on some college campuses being so pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel that Jewish students are being (or at least feeling) harassed and intimidated. Religion is not a protected class under current Civil Rights law but nationality/ethnicity is, so this change allows the government to withhold federal dollars from colleges they feel are not adequately addressing this problem.

Whether the intent is actually to protect harassed minorities or to inhibit growing BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanction) movements against Israel is up for debate. I suppose it could be both.

Israel friendly Democrats have introduced similar legislation multiple times in recent years, so it's not strictly a conservative/liberal issue, which is oddly refreshing.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Daley on December 11, 2019, 10:41:25 AM
I'd deliberately stayed out of commenting in this thread for quite some time, but...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/trump-order-judaism-nationality/index.html

Interesting.

[snip]

If being a practicing Jew is now legally considered a nationality, will the US issue all Jews special passports?  How is Jewish nationality different from Israeli nationality?  Will Israel recognize this new status somehow?

I find this last part especially troubling, on multiple levels. Not just from the obvious problems on the surface, but this is downright troubling from a position within my own practiced faith. What's going to happen with Messianic Judaism, the Hebrew Roots Movement, and the Sabbath keeping Christians under this EO? I won't deny for a second that there's some deeply ironic anti-semitic people within the movement who subscribe to the Two House or Supersessionist positions (neither of which I'm comfortable with), but what happens to the rest of us under this mandate? Will this suddenly make Sabbath keeping without converting to a stripe of Judaism that demands a denial of Messiah a hate crime? Are followers of Messiah going to be forced to congregate on Sundays only despite scripture's position on the subject being a mark of a changed time and season that elevates man-made traditions above His word and Torah, only to have their own legal rights trampled and called racist for honoring a weekly feast day of their Creator?

And let us not forget unintended consequences for Jews themselves. The people who hate Jews hate them irrationally and with an eye of jealousy. This is going to feed those fires further by being given special protections.

This is breaking down the separation of church and state even further. There should have been religious protections extended through the Civil Rights Act to combat the dangers of the BDS movement for students, not a declaration of nationality based on religion.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on December 11, 2019, 11:04:17 AM
Okay, I did more reading, and I need to calm down. It's being classified as an "ethnicity or nationality" for the purposes of certain hate crime laws being enforced. This may well be a case of the media just trying to make Trump look bad.

But Judaism is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality. So it’s simply wrong.

And Trump doesn’t need any help looking bad. He IS bad.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 11, 2019, 11:29:36 AM
How easily we forget...

The founders made separation of church and state a cornerstone of this new country NOT because they were worried that religious ideas would influence government, but because they wanted government to stay out of their religion (as the Church of England had in Great Brittan). 

Secularites correctly worry about religion in politics. But very few religious people seem to understand the dangers of getting into bed with politics.  Example A: the evangelicals, who are now following a thrice-married agnostic adulterer because they want him to appoint more judges that reflect their values. Sadly I think many miss the irony inherent in that choice.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 11, 2019, 12:34:26 PM
The bill for Evangelicals hasn't come due yet. They cared mostly about judges, and they are reaping those benefits.

I think it will be twenty years before anyone realizes that people born after 1990 didn't join the church when they started having kids because of Evangelicals' support of Trump during 2016-2030 discrediting them. That is when the bill will come due, but it's so far in the future that it may well be a good exchange for them anyway.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 11, 2019, 12:43:19 PM
2030?  Don't tell me you are joining Kyle in that non-sense...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 11, 2019, 02:07:10 PM
Perhaps you're referring to Kyle's prediction that one of Trump's children will succeed him in the White House? I personally think one of the sycophantic administration members, like Pence, Mulvaney, Haley, or Pompeo would do better running in elections once Trump signals he's done, and they clearly have political skill that Ivanka and co. lack. But just as George HW Bush was ex post considered the third Reagan term, I think this will apply to any one of these others who might win the WH.

Serious question, though: why is the two-term prohibition so much stronger than the Emoluments prohibition? Many Republicans seem content to support any candidate who is not a Democrat, provided that candidate can win an election. Why would they suddenly become principled and say, "We liked Trump while he was in his first two terms, but he needs to stop now."? They will claim that some or another crisis demands a strong leader, and--as it turns out--there is one who continues to be willing to serve without taking a salary.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: RangerOne on December 11, 2019, 02:46:16 PM
I probably come across as unreasonably anti-Trump in my comments on these discussion boards, but I just got done spending Thanksgiving with my mom, and telling her that she was wayyyy separated from reality for believing Trump would turn out to basically be Hitler. This news item will not help my case.

While Trump is certainly the worst president we have ever had (with regards to basic competence, foreign policy and leadership) , the reality of his current presidential term and possibly another 4 years, will likely not result in any calamity that will drastically harm the majority of Americans. And even a major recession/depression is very hard to pin on a single president since it takes so many factors to build up to downturn.

The down side of Trump with regard to race is that he is all too eager to parrot white supremacist troupes in order to please his base and buy into policies born of the fears they exacerbate. This has clearly made life for some in the US, immigrants and asylum seekers form the south, extremely bad.

I also realize that it seems the vast majority of Republics are willing to overlook Trumps obvious and glaring flaws as a leader due to the fact that he is delivering so many policy wins for them and sticking it to the liberals both domestic and foreign. I can't really empathize with this position because there simply hasn't been a democratic candidate in my life time that was as deeply flawed as Trump. (Which I assume makes the hardcore Clinton hatters role their collective eyes. But as power hungry and shady as the Clintons may be, they are not as deranged as Trump.)

I do feel like Trump is a different kind of person than a Hitler. Both favor totalitarian regimes clearly based on Trumps favoring of similar types of leaders. But Trump I think lacks the kind of sick single minded delusion that lead Hitler to push the final solution. I am not a historian but I have the impression that Hitler was an ideologue and had a grand vision for how everything should be, and probably more than believed the vision he was pushing.

I don't think Trump believes in anything. He simply has made a career of using media manipulation to stay relevant, famous and make money. He is the kind of leader that would indulge the politics of a twisted ideologue if he thought it would help his media campaign. Not because he actually is deeply dedicate to some sick twisted vision. I do think that makes him far less dangerous in the short term because he isn't steering us hard in anyone particular fucked up direction.

I think it is more apt to say he is kind of swerving all over the road just trying to deliver enough media victories to his base to keep getting praised at rallies. I think it is really hard to say if any of the norms he is breaking will have lasting impacts on future norms. Because I think Trump is so unique in his ability to get away with doing stupid shit. And I think few potential presidents on either side are brazen enough to follow his example to achieve similar levels of norm breaking.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: scottish on December 11, 2019, 03:39:51 PM
Okay, I did more reading, and I need to calm down. It's being classified as an "ethnicity or nationality" for the purposes of certain hate crime laws being enforced. This may well be a case of the media just trying to make Trump look bad.

But Judaism is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality. So it’s simply wrong.

And Trump doesn’t need any help looking bad. He IS bad.

I don't think that's completely true.    There are Ashkanazi and Sephardic Jews and they each have their own ethnic identity.

There are similar groups of people scattered where the Brits arbitrarily created countries.   Think of the Kurds for example.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on December 11, 2019, 05:04:05 PM


Serious question, though: why is the two-term prohibition so much stronger than the Emoluments prohibition?

I do not think that the  Present/Emoluments Clause presents an issue of  constitutional  violation  for the reason that virtually all of Congress knows that while president, Trump continues to benefit financially from his far-flung enterprises. I think Congress' knowledge of these financial benefits and lack of any consistent, congressional   opposition to Trump receiving them is tantamount to "Consent of the Congress."

Months ago I posed the following hypothetical.

Suppose a televised conference between Trump and Putin.

The conference is in Moscow.

As the conference ends  Trump and Putin shake hands after which Putin puts a hand in his pocket to get a valuable gold watch that he hands to Trump. As he hands the watch to Trump Putin says: "I am pleased that you attended the conference. Here is a present for you."

Most of  Congress sees Trump's acceptance of the watch  or reads about it in newspapers or online news sources.

Congress neither says nor does anything  about Trump's acceptance of the watch.

Below is the Title of Nobility Clause that includes the Present/Emoluments Clause.



No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


Is Congress' cognizance of Trump's acceptance of the present from Putin and inaction  about it tantamount to Congress  consenting  to Trump's acceptance of the present from Putin?

In the information age of the 21st century I'm curious as to what constitutes Congress' "Consent" to a president's acceptance of "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 11, 2019, 05:41:42 PM
No, I was referring to his repeated predictions that he will be elected to a third and sometimes forth term.
Serious question, though: why is the two-term prohibition so much stronger than the Emoluments prohibition? Many Republicans seem content to support any candidate who is not a Democrat, provided that candidate can win an election.

I think a key difference between the emoluments and the 22nd amendment is that the latter requires active participation, and isn't open to interpretation (no matter how dubious and flawed the logic may be).  The GOP - like the Dems - have to select a nominee.  One really can't say "but this wouldn't be a third term".  The emoluments clause has all sorts of logical loopholes for people.  He'd be making these deals if he wasn't president. Trump Hotel is really a normal place for the Saudi's to stay when in Washington.  and perhaps the biggest logical fallacy of all: you can't prove he's change his mind based on any of these so-called emoluments violations.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on December 11, 2019, 06:27:51 PM
Okay, I did more reading, and I need to calm down. It's being classified as an "ethnicity or nationality" for the purposes of certain hate crime laws being enforced. This may well be a case of the media just trying to make Trump look bad.

But Judaism is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality. So it’s simply wrong.

And Trump doesn’t need any help looking bad. He IS bad.

I don't think that's completely true.    There are Ashkanazi and Sephardic Jews and they each have their own ethnic identity.

There are similar groups of people scattered where the Brits arbitrarily created countries.   Think of the Kurds for example.

The Jewishness and the ethnicity are two different things.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on December 12, 2019, 06:17:49 AM


Serious question, though: why is the two-term prohibition so much stronger than the Emoluments prohibition?

I do not think that the  Present/Emoluments Clause presents an issue of  constitutional  violation  for the reason that virtually all of Congress knows that while president, Trump continues to benefit financially from his far-flung enterprises. I think Congress' knowledge of these financial benefits and lack of any consistent, congressional   opposition to Trump receiving them is tantamount to "Consent of the Congress."

Months ago I posed the following hypothetical.

Suppose a televised conference between Trump and Putin.

The conference is in Moscow.

As the conference ends  Trump and Putin shake hands after which Putin puts a hand in his pocket to get a valuable gold watch that he hands to Trump. As he hands the watch to Trump Putin says: "I am pleased that you attended the conference. Here is a present for you."

Most of  Congress sees Trump's acceptance of the watch  or reads about it in newspapers or online news sources.

Congress neither says nor does anything  about Trump's acceptance of the watch.

Below is the Title of Nobility Clause that includes the Present/Emoluments Clause.



No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


Is Congress' cognizance of Trump's acceptance of the present from Putin and inaction  about it tantamount to Congress  consenting  to Trump's acceptance of the present from Putin?

In the information age of the 21st century I'm curious as to what constitutes Congress' "Consent" to a president's acceptance of "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

The watch thing would only be a problem if Trump kept the watch. Presidents in past have been given and accepted all sorts of gifts (of varying value, heck the statue of Liberty was a gift) from foreign dignitaries. The thing is, they stay with the office of the President and they are displayed in the White house or stored somewhere. We already know that Trump has received gifts of value from foreign powers, which are personal and benefit him only (vs given symbolically to the office of the presidency (primarily information, emails of his political opponent, also disinformation campaign, cash donations for his inaguration). The Republicans know this. However they are saying this is normal, and that other presidents have done this, without actually being able to provide examples. Legal scholars have already weighed in saying what Trump has done is certainly more serious and a bigger violation of the office of President than what Nixon did, and he was previously our gold standard of violating the oath of the office of President.

Anyways the gold watch is not a problem, as long as he doesn't keep it. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 12, 2019, 07:18:32 AM
No, I was referring to his repeated predictions that he will be elected to a third and sometimes forth term.
Serious question, though: why is the two-term prohibition so much stronger than the Emoluments prohibition? Many Republicans seem content to support any candidate who is not a Democrat, provided that candidate can win an election.

I think a key difference between the emoluments and the 22nd amendment is that the latter requires active participation, and isn't open to interpretation (no matter how dubious and flawed the logic may be).  The GOP - like the Dems - have to select a nominee.  One really can't say "but this wouldn't be a third term".  The emoluments clause has all sorts of logical loopholes for people.  He'd be making these deals if he wasn't president. Trump Hotel is really a normal place for the Saudi's to stay when in Washington.  and perhaps the biggest logical fallacy of all: you can't prove he's change his mind based on any of these so-called emoluments violations.

I will own those predictions, and I began making them the day after he was elected in 2016. Indeed I have long thought that people underestimate the chances of Trump running for and winning a third term. I do not think this is a 50-50 thing.

We see FDR as a hero because he oversaw a successful WWII effort, and because the Great Depression ended on his watch. I see a lot of FDR in Trump. Not the good parts, but the bad parts. I cannot imagine anyone thought in early 1933 that the man who was President then would still be president ten years later. The more I study FDR--and this is hard because I was raised to revere him--the more I learn about his flouting of the rule of law, confiscation of everyone's gold, the outrage of the internment camps for Japanese citizens, and incoherence of his economic programs.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on December 12, 2019, 08:00:31 AM
Sure, but FDR was before the 22nd Amendment. It may not be up to Trump.

1. The House could nullify his electoral votes based on his ineligibility.
2. The Supreme Court could be forced into removing him from office.
3. Trump ain't makin it that long. He wont be blessed with Carter's longevity.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on December 12, 2019, 08:06:34 AM
No, I was referring to his repeated predictions that he will be elected to a third and sometimes forth term.
Serious question, though: why is the two-term prohibition so much stronger than the Emoluments prohibition? Many Republicans seem content to support any candidate who is not a Democrat, provided that candidate can win an election.

I think a key difference between the emoluments and the 22nd amendment is that the latter requires active participation, and isn't open to interpretation (no matter how dubious and flawed the logic may be).  The GOP - like the Dems - have to select a nominee.  One really can't say "but this wouldn't be a third term".  The emoluments clause has all sorts of logical loopholes for people.  He'd be making these deals if he wasn't president. Trump Hotel is really a normal place for the Saudi's to stay when in Washington.  and perhaps the biggest logical fallacy of all: you can't prove he's change his mind based on any of these so-called emoluments violations.

I will own those predictions, and I began making them the day after he was elected in 2016. Indeed I have long thought that people underestimate the chances of Trump running for and winning a third term. I do not think this is a 50-50 thing.

We see FDR as a hero because he oversaw a successful WWII effort, and because the Great Depression ended on his watch. I see a lot of FDR in Trump. Not the good parts, but the bad parts. I cannot imagine anyone thought in early 1933 that the man who was President then would still be president ten years later. The more I study FDR--and this is hard because I was raised to revere him--the more I learn about his flouting of the rule of law, confiscation of everyone's gold, the outrage of the internment camps for Japanese citizens, and incoherence of his economic programs.

We can't deny you your prediction as anything is possible, but do you dispute nereo's reasoning? He gave a logical response to your question but you didn't acknowledge it.

I've spoken to Trump supporters who genuinely believe he's done nothing wrong in relation to his businesses. He tells them that he put everything in a blind trust and that takes care of any conflict of interest and they believe him. He can't use the same sort of hand waving justification to run for a third term. Will he tell them 8 years is actually 4? Will he tell them the 22nd amendment doesn't exist?

Beyond that, how would this even be logistically possible? Do you have a process in mind where he could plausibly end up on the ballot?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 12, 2019, 08:44:17 AM
Well probably peanuts in comparison to much of what's gone on this past few years, but Trump Jr. was retroactively given a permit to kill an endangered sheep in Mongolia.  So we've got the president's son benefiting from political favors for  morally dubious actions. At a time when many of his supporters are going on about Hunter Biden using his father's political clout to get a cushy board position in Ukraine.

Hubris in the extreme.  Hey, your father is president and they are moving in on impeachment based on him allegedly using his position to enrich himself.  How about you don't do anything idiotic like use your father's influence just for your own jollies?

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-donald-trump-jr-went-to-mongolia-got-special-treatment-from-the-government-and-killed-an-endangered-sheep (https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-donald-trump-jr-went-to-mongolia-got-special-treatment-from-the-government-and-killed-an-endangered-sheep)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Samuel on December 12, 2019, 08:59:35 AM
The "appearance of impropriety" standard is for suckers.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on December 12, 2019, 09:06:12 AM
Perhaps I'm connected with an unusual group of practicing Jews, but they all basically tell me some variant of, "We know his tweets are dumb, but his daughter is Jewish, and it's clear he has Israel's back, so we're all in."

Remind me again why Jews are so hated again? I've met a few over the years - pretty ordinary people. Just not many self-identifying Jews around my part of flyover country.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 12, 2019, 09:23:54 AM
Perhaps I'm connected with an unusual group of practicing Jews, but they all basically tell me some variant of, "We know his tweets are dumb, but his daughter is Jewish, and it's clear he has Israel's back, so we're all in."

Remind me again why Jews are so hated again? I've met a few over the years - pretty ordinary people. Just not many self-identifying Jews around my part of flyover country.

In the middle ages there was a common interpretation of the bible that lending money was usury . . . and thus Christians were forbidden from performing this practice.  Jewish people weren't, so many became money lenders to fill the economic gap.  Which eventually led to lots of stereotypes about Jewish people being corrupt money grubbing people  . . .  kinda a combination of resentment towards people who lend money and Christians hating folks who aren't Christianity (Jews got blamed for killing Christ, for consorting with Satan, etc.).  Then, building from this they were a convenient minority scapegoat for all sorts of things.

It's crazy that a stereotype from the middle ages would still be kicking around . . . but the current president of the US regularly repeats tropes built from it so I guess it is still a thing.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on December 12, 2019, 09:29:24 AM
Thank you for the summary.

Good gosh - I don't share the beliefs of my parents and grandparents' generations - I'm sure as hell not worrying about Bible stories and ancient grudges.

The world is a weird place.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Sanitary Engineer on December 12, 2019, 09:37:30 AM
I don't know if I feel outrage from this article (I am only convinced it is real because what Trump is quoted saying is so ridiculous, therefore, likely true), but I am definitely ashamed that these words were said by the President of the United States.  It never occurred to me that I might want to verify that a leader supported conserving drinking water and electricity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/us/politics/trump-toilet-flushing.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR3umK8v0zGRA5rTawRk455BWu1x0IKgRAUR-0te0Bhoqn3_syz5w8qGrlM

I do appreciate that he clarified that he meant rain when he referenced water coming down, so we know he meant coming down out of the sky, so definitely worth mentioning and clarifying.

 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Psychstache on December 12, 2019, 09:48:19 AM
Perhaps I'm connected with an unusual group of practicing Jews, but they all basically tell me some variant of, "We know his tweets are dumb, but his daughter is Jewish, and it's clear he has Israel's back, so we're all in."

As a member of one of the largest congregations in the US and a 'knower-of-many-Jews", if that is common then I think you do know an unusual group. Most I know are vehemently opposed to Trump. Those who are in favor primarily seem to be those who solely focus on the economic side of politics and ignore social issues, with a smattering of fringe deep state conspiracy theory toting fox news zombies.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on December 12, 2019, 10:16:04 AM
I don't know if I feel outrage from this article (I am only convinced it is real because what Trump is quoted saying is so ridiculous, therefore, likely true), but I am definitely ashamed that these words were said by the President of the United States.  It never occurred to me that I might want to verify that a leader supported conserving drinking water and electricity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/us/politics/trump-toilet-flushing.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR3umK8v0zGRA5rTawRk455BWu1x0IKgRAUR-0te0Bhoqn3_syz5w8qGrlM

I do appreciate that he clarified that he meant rain when he referenced water coming down, so we know he meant coming down out of the sky, so definitely worth mentioning and clarifying.

I expect Trump will be seeking to rollback all residential efficiencies soon. High flow toilets, a return to incandescent bulbs, coal powered steam heat, and ice boxes. Milk delivery every morning... Leaded gasoline at the corner gas station. -eyes rolling-
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 12, 2019, 11:24:50 AM
Beyond that, how would this even be logistically possible? Do you have a process in mind where he could plausibly end up on the ballot?

He'll just ignore all of that Constitutional BS. Blah-blah extenuating circumstances.

1) The GOP controlled states in the South and West will put him on the ballot. Numerous lawsuits follow, which he'll lose, but they'll be stayed until after the election.
2) He'll declare himself the winner with the highest electoral votes ever. Even if he loses, he'll declare himself a winner. The troll-bots will push the story.

The House will condemn it but the Senate will accept it. More importantly, the SC will accept his "win" with Kavanaugh writing the decision.

----
His support can't even win the Louisiana and Kentucky Governor's mansion and Virginia switched parties. I'm skeptical that it could happen though he might float the idea in 2023 if he wins in 2020.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 12, 2019, 11:39:44 AM
It assumes an awful lot. 
Including (but not limited to) Trump winning in 2020 (entirely possible), him living long enough to run again in 2023 (possible but quesitonable given his age/health), that he would actually want to run vs. calling himself the most sucessful president ever and retiring (debatable), that the senate will be controlled by the GOP in 2023 (debatable), that no other GOP contender will emerge and that the GOP will decide they want to stay on this merry-go-round (i find that doubtful), that five judges will contradict the constitution (i have to believe even conserviatives Thomas and Alito won't rubber stamp this).  There's another wonkish argument against (argued upthread, many pages back) that to get on the ballot requires the approval of the state governor.  Currently 24/50 states are controlled by Dems, including several battleground states and 'red' states.  In short there's currently no path (zero) to winning without these governors agreeing to put Trump on the ballot.  Short of winning the election the only option left seems to be a military coup - and Trump's done his damnest to piss off the military brass and the pentagon, so I doubt they'd follow him down that path.

In my reading so many improbable things would need to happen that the likelihood of every one of those occurring seems to be exceedingly small.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 12, 2019, 11:56:53 AM
It assumes an awful lot. 
Including (but not limited to) Trump winning in 2020 (entirely possible), him living long enough to run again in 2023 (possible but quesitonable given his age/health), that he would actually want to run vs. calling himself the most sucessful president ever and retiring (debatable), that the senate will be controlled by the GOP in 2023 (debatable), that no other GOP contender will emerge and that the GOP will decide they want to stay on this merry-go-round (i find that doubtful), that five judges will contradict the constitution (i have to believe even conserviatives Thomas and Alito won't rubber stamp this).  There's another wonkish argument against (argued upthread, many pages back) that to get on the ballot requires the approval of the state governor.  Currently 24/50 states are controlled by Dems, including several battleground states and 'red' states.  In short there's currently no path (zero) to winning without these governors agreeing to put Trump on the ballot.  Short of winning the election the only option left seems to be a military coup - and Trump's done his damnest to piss off the military brass and the pentagon, so I doubt they'd follow him down that path.

In my reading so many improbable things would need to happen that the likelihood of every one of those occurring seems to be exceedingly small.

Given Trump's need to win, getting a 3rd term would be ultra-winning. No one else has done that since FDR!
Given the GOP's die-hard support of Trump, I have no doubt that they would support him for a 3rd term. Look at Jordan and Graham. Total boot lickers.
Given the ignoring of the Emoluments Clause, as talltexan mentioned, why do we presume that other parts of the Constitution can't be ignored as well? Especially if the SC and Senate bless what he does (and I expect that the SC will side with him on taxes and Congressional subpoenas).

It could be a coup. A coup led by a buffoon but, still, one that could work.

But, yeah, very unlikely. We saw this same concern with Obama and Bush Cheney.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 12, 2019, 12:24:14 PM
No, I was referring to his repeated predictions that he will be elected to a third and sometimes forth term.
Serious question, though: why is the two-term prohibition so much stronger than the Emoluments prohibition? Many Republicans seem content to support any candidate who is not a Democrat, provided that candidate can win an election.

I think a key difference between the emoluments and the 22nd amendment is that the latter requires active participation, and isn't open to interpretation (no matter how dubious and flawed the logic may be).  The GOP - like the Dems - have to select a nominee.  One really can't say "but this wouldn't be a third term".  The emoluments clause has all sorts of logical loopholes for people.  He'd be making these deals if he wasn't president. Trump Hotel is really a normal place for the Saudi's to stay when in Washington.  and perhaps the biggest logical fallacy of all: you can't prove he's change his mind based on any of these so-called emoluments violations.

I will own those predictions, and I began making them the day after he was elected in 2016. Indeed I have long thought that people underestimate the chances of Trump running for and winning a third term. I do not think this is a 50-50 thing.

We see FDR as a hero because he oversaw a successful WWII effort, and because the Great Depression ended on his watch. I see a lot of FDR in Trump. Not the good parts, but the bad parts. I cannot imagine anyone thought in early 1933 that the man who was President then would still be president ten years later. The more I study FDR--and this is hard because I was raised to revere him--the more I learn about his flouting of the rule of law, confiscation of everyone's gold, the outrage of the internment camps for Japanese citizens, and incoherence of his economic programs.

We can't deny you your prediction as anything is possible, but do you dispute nereo's reasoning? He gave a logical response to your question but you didn't acknowledge it.

I've spoken to Trump supporters who genuinely believe he's done nothing wrong in relation to his businesses. He tells them that he put everything in a blind trust and that takes care of any conflict of interest and they believe him. He can't use the same sort of hand waving justification to run for a third term. Will he tell them 8 years is actually 4? Will he tell them the 22nd amendment doesn't exist?

Beyond that, how would this even be logistically possible? Do you have a process in mind where he could plausibly end up on the ballot?

I think nereo's reasoning rests on the idea that Trump supporters will be able to be pinned down and admit that something logical is violated to allow Trump to seek that third term. Tell me how much luck you've had pinning them down on anything so far.

I spend most of my time working with economic data, and--when I show GDP growth numbers from 2014 that are higher than those in 2018--Trump supporters rationalize it as being in a different part of the economic cycle.

Should he win a second term, Trump will sell the GOP on letting him run for a third because--I promise you--it's still better in their view than having a President who's a Democrat.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on December 12, 2019, 12:37:40 PM
It assumes an awful lot. 
Including (but not limited to) Trump winning in 2020 (entirely possible), him living long enough to run again in 2023 (possible but quesitonable given his age/health), that he would actually want to run vs. calling himself the most sucessful president ever and retiring (debatable), that the senate will be controlled by the GOP in 2023 (debatable), that no other GOP contender will emerge and that the GOP will decide they want to stay on this merry-go-round (i find that doubtful), that five judges will contradict the constitution (i have to believe even conserviatives Thomas and Alito won't rubber stamp this).  There's another wonkish argument against (argued upthread, many pages back) that to get on the ballot requires the approval of the state governor.  Currently 24/50 states are controlled by Dems, including several battleground states and 'red' states.  In short there's currently no path (zero) to winning without these governors agreeing to put Trump on the ballot.  Short of winning the election the only option left seems to be a military coup - and Trump's done his damnest to piss off the military brass and the pentagon, so I doubt they'd follow him down that path.

In my reading so many improbable things would need to happen that the likelihood of every one of those occurring seems to be exceedingly small.

Given Trump's need to win, getting a 3rd term would be ultra-winning. No one else has done that since FDR!
Given the GOP's die-hard support of Trump, I have no doubt that they would support him for a 3rd term. Look at Jordan and Graham. Total boot lickers.
Given the ignoring of the Emoluments Clause, as talltexan mentioned, why do we presume that other parts of the Constitution can't be ignored as well? Especially if the SC and Senate bless what he does (and I expect that the SC will side with him on taxes and Congressional subpoenas).

It could be a coup. A coup led by a buffoon but, still, one that could work.

But, yeah, very unlikely. We saw this same concern with Obama and Bush Cheney.

Uhh no. There was no concern with Obama running for a 3rd term.

Is this the part of the story where Stormy comes back out and says that Trump was actually the best lover she ever had. And Eric magically becomes smart. And Kushner's dad then has all of his convictions vacated. Then the Senate decides to give the president it's first ever Triumph dedicated to Trump. Cause this all reads like a 8th grader writing presidential fan fiction. Cause this far more fantastical than even House of Cards ever went.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: ixtap on December 12, 2019, 12:52:51 PM
It assumes an awful lot. 
Including (but not limited to) Trump winning in 2020 (entirely possible), him living long enough to run again in 2023 (possible but quesitonable given his age/health), that he would actually want to run vs. calling himself the most sucessful president ever and retiring (debatable), that the senate will be controlled by the GOP in 2023 (debatable), that no other GOP contender will emerge and that the GOP will decide they want to stay on this merry-go-round (i find that doubtful), that five judges will contradict the constitution (i have to believe even conserviatives Thomas and Alito won't rubber stamp this).  There's another wonkish argument against (argued upthread, many pages back) that to get on the ballot requires the approval of the state governor.  Currently 24/50 states are controlled by Dems, including several battleground states and 'red' states.  In short there's currently no path (zero) to winning without these governors agreeing to put Trump on the ballot.  Short of winning the election the only option left seems to be a military coup - and Trump's done his damnest to piss off the military brass and the pentagon, so I doubt they'd follow him down that path.

In my reading so many improbable things would need to happen that the likelihood of every one of those occurring seems to be exceedingly small.

Given Trump's need to win, getting a 3rd term would be ultra-winning. No one else has done that since FDR!
Given the GOP's die-hard support of Trump, I have no doubt that they would support him for a 3rd term. Look at Jordan and Graham. Total boot lickers.
Given the ignoring of the Emoluments Clause, as talltexan mentioned, why do we presume that other parts of the Constitution can't be ignored as well? Especially if the SC and Senate bless what he does (and I expect that the SC will side with him on taxes and Congressional subpoenas).

It could be a coup. A coup led by a buffoon but, still, one that could work.

But, yeah, very unlikely. We saw this same concern with Obama and Bush Cheney.

Uhh no. There was no concern with Obama running for a 3rd term.


Fox and OANN types were very concerned with it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 12, 2019, 01:18:16 PM
Uhh no. There was no concern with Obama running for a 3rd term.

You need to hang around more 8chan users. ;-)

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/the-latest-conspiracy-theory-obama-will-seek
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/right-wing-conspiracy-theory-barack-obama-third-term/
Alex Jones
FreeRepublic.com
Rush Limbaugh

Quote from: motherjones
Our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim president has apparently cooked up a sneaky plot to subvert the 22nd Amendment.

Now, it was pearl clutching by conservatives that it would/could happen and it was promoted by alt-right sites (and a satirical story that was believed) but there was concern.

Quote
Is this the part of the story where Stormy comes back out and says that Trump was actually the best lover she ever had. And Eric magically becomes smart. And Kushner's dad then has all of his convictions vacated. Then the Senate decides to give the president it's first ever Triumph dedicated to Trump. Cause this all reads like a 8th grader writing presidential fan fiction. Cause this far more fantastical than even House of Cards ever went.

We have a President that is putting pressure on foreign governments to investigate political rivals. The Republicans in the House are dancing around the issue, with a changing defense, and there's a Republican controlled Senate that doesn't care and wants to subpoena Joe and Hunter instead.

Meanwhile, the President is BFFs with Putin and is working to weaken NATO and is mocked (or "mocked"?) by the other heads of state.

The President, self-identified as a master negotiator, has announced a trade deal with China at least 3 times but nothing has happened. His deal with Kim Jong-un failed to last more than a week. He put tariffs on Canada because it was a "national emergency" and his tariffs on soybeans has paid out more compensatory money to farmers in the midwest than the entire TARP bail out (net cost).

Finally, Trump took time off of negotiating deals and asking for email servers and suggested that toilets needed to be flushed "10 times, 15 times" and ordered a review of low-flow regulations.

You're right. It is far more fantastical than even House of Cards.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on December 12, 2019, 01:24:38 PM
...snip

I think nereo's reasoning rests on the idea that Trump supporters will be able to be pinned down and admit that something logical is violated to allow Trump to seek that third term. Tell me how much luck you've had pinning them down on anything so far.

I spend most of my time working with economic data, and--when I show GDP growth numbers from 2014 that are higher than those in 2018--Trump supporters rationalize it as being in a different part of the economic cycle.

Should he win a second term, Trump will sell the GOP on letting him run for a third because--I promise you--it's still better in their view than having a President who's a Democrat.
[/quote]

What does or does not qualify as emoluments and the reasons behind why the GDP is what it is are both far less concrete than 3 > 2. Note that they didn't argue 2% GDP is greater than 3%, they moved the goalposts.

Again, I'll acknowledge the possibility that it could happen but I don't think you can compare running for a third term with overlooking emoluments. Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.

Now they may be able to convince themselves that the constitution should be ignored due to extreme circumstances, but then you can no longer compare that scenario to their justification for why he is not guilty of accepting emoluments.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 12, 2019, 01:34:12 PM
Again, I'll acknowledge the possibility that it could happen but I don't think you can compare running for a third term with overlooking emoluments. Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvdelong/2015/08/03/thinking-about-a-third-term/

(Note that the article is about Obama running for a 3rd term.)

Quote
These barriers are surprisingly flimsy, primarily because of the odd wording of Amendment XXII, which says “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice . . . .”

As discussed in RCP, this leaves open the possibility that a former President could resume the Presidency by a non-elected route. He might be elected Vice President, for example, or become a cabinet member and then ascend via the Presidential Succession Act. This is not an outlandish possibility; it was raised seriously in 1959 at the end of Eisenhower’s term.

Further,

Quote
The alternative route, a direct challenge to the two-term limit in which a major party simply nominated a President for a third term would present difficult legal issues. Some of the intricacies are addressed in RCP, but the big problem is that Amendment XXII contains no enforcement mechanism, and by the time the issue got to the courts it is likely that both the people and the Congress would have accepted the third term. The Supreme Court might be very reluctant to get involved, and leave the issue to the political processes.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 12, 2019, 01:51:31 PM
Suppose Pence were to run, declaring Trump as his running mate on day 1 of his campaign. Everyone would know that this would imply Pence were to be a figure head, without anyone saying it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 12, 2019, 01:55:45 PM
Suppose Pence were to run, declaring Trump as his running mate on day 1 of his campaign. Everyone would know that this would imply Pence were to be a figure head, without anyone saying it.
Isn't this what Putin and Medvedev did a decade or so back?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on December 12, 2019, 02:33:50 PM
Suppose Pence were to run, declaring Trump as his running mate on day 1 of his campaign. Everyone would know that this would imply Pence were to be a figure head, without anyone saying it.

That would make Trump the oldest VP to ever serve by 8 years just starting out. Though it would be a great way to try and protect himself from the NY attorney general until he dies.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on December 12, 2019, 02:41:46 PM

The more I study FDR--and this is hard because I was raised to revere him--the more I learn about his flouting of the rule of law, confiscation of everyone's gold, the outrage of the internment camps for Japanese citizens, and incoherence of his economic programs.

President  Franklin Delano Roosevelt  was a damnable, would-be autocrat.

The dispersion of power inherent in America's tripartite, checks-and-balances form of government saved the country from FDR's executive-power overreach.

In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "court-packing scheme."

The report's scathing, condemnatory  language is testamentary of the Senate Judiciary Committee's cognizance of FDR's threatening, unconstitutional, autocratic  tendency.

Judicial Reorganization Plan


Senate Judiciary Committee Adverse Report  June 7, 1937

[The Judicial Reorganization Plan] would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights.

It contains the germ of a system of centralized administration of law that would enable an executive so minded to send his judges into every judicial district in the land to sit in judgment on controversies between the government and the citizen.

It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution and established the method whereby the people may be deprived of their right to pass upon all amendments of the fundamental law.

It stands now before the country, acknowledged by its proponents as a plan to force judicial interpretation of the Constitution, a proposal that violates every sacred tradition of American democracy.

Under the form of the Constitution it seeks to do that which is unconstitutional.

Its ultimate operation would be to make this government one of men rather than one of law, and its practical operation would be to make the Constitution what the executive or legislative branches of the government choose to say it is -- an interpretation to be changed with each change of administration.

It is a measure, which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 12, 2019, 04:03:29 PM
Suppose Pence were to run, declaring Trump as his running mate on day 1 of his campaign. Everyone would know that this would imply Pence were to be a figure head, without anyone saying it.

Same problems, and then some. The 12th amendment states that no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States Ad Trump would be ineligible to be president he would consequentially be ineligible to be VP.

So he can’t run for VP, nor can Obama or WJ Clinton or GW Bush.

Add to this that Pence would need to run and win.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on December 12, 2019, 04:11:34 PM
Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.
Unless the constitution were changed.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 12, 2019, 04:19:49 PM
Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.
Unless the constitution were changed.
Right. Which is perhaps the least likely scenario of all, as discussed earlier. Votes from 67 senators and 287 members of the house. Or 38 states. All threshold far beyond what either party has been able to obtain. Meaning it would need to be overwhelmingly bipartisan
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Daley on December 12, 2019, 08:24:34 PM
Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.
Unless the constitution were changed.
Right. Which is perhaps the least likely scenario of all, as discussed earlier. Votes from 67 senators and 287 members of the house. Or 38 states. All threshold far beyond what either party has been able to obtain. Meaning it would need to be overwhelmingly bipartisan

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Article_V_Convention#Balanced_Budget) and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on December 12, 2019, 09:21:23 PM
Perhaps I'm connected with an unusual group of practicing Jews, but they all basically tell me some variant of, "We know his tweets are dumb, but his daughter is Jewish, and it's clear he has Israel's back, so we're all in."

As a member of one of the largest congregations in the US and a 'knower-of-many-Jews", if that is common then I think you do know an unusual group. Most I know are vehemently opposed to Trump. Those who are in favor primarily seem to be those who solely focus on the economic side of politics and ignore social issues, with a smattering of fringe deep state conspiracy theory toting fox news zombies.

Most Jewish people like myself are liberal and vote for the Democrats*, even if financially we become worse off because of increased taxation.

Here's Paul Krugman's take on why that is from his column, "Donald Trump Is Bad for the Jews" https://nyti.ms/2sdp6mI

"Most of us, I think, know that whenever bigotry runs free, we’re likely to be among its victims.
The Trump administration is, beyond any reasonable doubt, an anti-democratic, white nationalist regime. And while it is not (yet) explicitly anti-Semitic, many of its allies are: “Jews will not replace us” chanted the “very fine people” carrying torches in Charlottesville, Va. You have to be willfully ignorant of the past not to know where all this leads. Indeed, it’s happening already: anti-Semitic incidents have soared (and my hate mail has gotten … interesting).
Jews aren’t the only people who have figured this out. Many Asian-American voters used to support Republicans, but the group is now overwhelmingly Democratic. Indian-Americans, in particular, are like American Jews: a high-income, high-education group that votes Democratic by large margins, presumably because many of its members also realize where white nationalism will take us.
In all of this, Republicans — not just Trump, but his whole party — are reaping what they sowed. Their strategy for decades has been to win votes from working-class whites, despite an anti-worker agenda, by appealing to racial resentment. Trump has just made that racial appeal cruder and louder. And one has to admit that this strategy has been quite successful."

*  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/07/how-religious-groups-voted-in-the-midterm-elections/
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on December 12, 2019, 09:31:05 PM
And the latest outrage of the Trump administration and the Republican party is the climate denialism even as a federal report that was released on Tuesday is showing the Arctic Ice is disappearing amidst the most dramatic warming ever.
Worse still is the thawing out of the Permafrost that is going to unleash a wave of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which will cause a positive feedback loop of yet more permafrost loss.

"Temperatures in the Arctic region remained near record highs this year, according to a report issued on Tuesday … The results are from the annual Arctic report card, a peer-reviewed assessment produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that takes a broad look at the effects of climate change in the region and compares current findings with the historical record. The Arctic is of interest to researchers because it is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, causing changes both in the ocean and on land."
Climate Change Is Ravaging the Arctic, Report Finds https://nyti.ms/2P9MwTl


Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 13, 2019, 04:57:27 AM
Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.
Unless the constitution were changed.
Right. Which is perhaps the least likely scenario of all, as discussed earlier. Votes from 67 senators and 287 members of the house. Or 38 states. All threshold far beyond what either party has been able to obtain. Meaning it would need to be overwhelmingly bipartisan

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Article_V_Convention#Balanced_Budget) and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?

I don't see any real connection.  A Convention can be called, sure, but that's a far cry from getting an amendment passed (which would require 38 states). Certainly a Convention could be called ostensibly on a balanced-budget platform and then changed during the convention to repeal the 22nd, but then it would lose support during the final vote.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 13, 2019, 07:03:28 AM
I actually wonder if a Constitutional Ammendment to end birthright citizenship wouldn't be the most likely thing to emerge.

I accept the skepticism of my third term plan. If Trump's second term is winding down, and some Democrat has managed to win the 2024 election, do you think he'd resign during the transition period so that a President Pence could pardon him?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 13, 2019, 07:25:06 AM
I actually wonder if a Constitutional Ammendment to end birthright citizenship wouldn't be the most likely thing to emerge.

I'd support it as long as it's retroactive.  Get all those seventh generation anchor-baby white illegal immigrants out of the damned country.  They're clearly fucking it up.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 13, 2019, 08:02:20 AM
Most countries gave up birthright citizenship decades ago - if they had it at all.  It fascinates me that so many in the US see it as an unmutable law.  Likewise, I cannot fathom how people can label individuals who were brought here at a very young age and who have lived here their entire lives as somehow ‘not American’.   Why is physical presence the standard at birth but not from ages 1-18?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 13, 2019, 08:04:20 AM
@GuitarStv is on fire this morning.

So I took my lumps with the whole "Third Term" thing. I think you guys pretty much dismantled me.

But then I happened to see Mike Huckabee tweeting that he would appear on "Hannity" to explain how Trump would be eligible for a third term...I don't believe that either Hannity or Huckabee have much credibility, but the President does listen to them...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2019, 08:14:59 AM
@GuitarStv is on fire this morning.

So I took my lumps with the whole "Third Term" thing. I think you guys pretty much dismantled me.

But then I happened to see Mike Huckabee tweeting that he would appear on "Hannity" to explain how Trump would be eligible for a third term...I don't believe that either Hannity or Huckabee have much credibility, but the President does listen to them...

Trump has been "joking" about getting a third term for quite a while now. I think he'll float it, quite honestly, provided he gets reelected. The guy is never, ever going to leave willingly.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 13, 2019, 08:22:37 AM
.

But then I happened to see Mike Huckabee tweeting that he would appear on "Hannity" to explain how Trump would be eligible for a third term...I don't believe that either Hannity or Huckabee have much credibility, but the President does listen to them...
It’s click-bait. Die-hard supporters love to float delusional ideas as “a real possibility”
As the father of Sarah Sanders, Mike has lost all credibility to me. Hannity never had any, though he seems to fluctuate between “I am just an entertainer” and “I’m a real journalist with serious news” to allow him to say whatever debunked conspiracy BS while having no accountability
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 13, 2019, 09:56:01 AM
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on December 13, 2019, 10:09:01 AM

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Article_V_Convention#Balanced_Budget) and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?

I thought the tally of state legislatures  in support of an Article V Convention of States  was MUCH lower than just 3 states away from the required 34.

A few weeks ago  I heard a shouter on a radio show (Levin?) discuss CoS and  he put the tally of supportive state legislatures at 13 (I think).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on December 13, 2019, 10:09:54 AM
The “anti-anti-Semitism” EO explained:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-real-purpose-of-trumps-executive-order-on-anti-semitism

TL:DR: it’s all about punishing institutions (like colleges) that support the rights of Palestinians vs. illegal Israeli actions.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Daley on December 13, 2019, 10:23:22 AM

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Article_V_Convention#Balanced_Budget) and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?

I thought the tally of state legislatures  in support of an Article V Convention of States  was MUCH lower than just 3 states away from the required 34.

A few weeks ago  I heard a shouter on a radio show (Levin?) discuss this and  he put the tally of supporting state legislatures at 13 (I think).

It's only 13 for the Convention of States Resolution, but it's now officially at 31 after this past year for the Balanced Budget, from what I've seen... and that's the one that the Koch bros. have been pouring money into the past decade through ALEC and running mock convention simulations with and amending well beyond the scope of just budget. It could have already triggered this year if not for the rescinded applications.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on December 13, 2019, 10:38:51 AM
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.

The impeachment show in Washington  is rife  with  expedient duplicity from both sides.

NY Times 11/18/19

No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News

Paying attention to the impeachment inquiry and other developments means having to figure out what is true, false or spin. Many Americans are throwing up their hands and tuning it all out.

But just when information is needed most, to many Americans it feels most elusive. The rise of social media; the proliferation of information online, including news designed to deceive; and a flood of partisan news are leading to a general exhaustion with news itself.
 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on December 13, 2019, 10:49:13 AM

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Article_V_Convention#Balanced_Budget) and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?

I thought the tally of state legislatures  in support of an Article V Convention of States  was MUCH lower than just 3 states away from the required 34.

A few weeks ago  I heard a shouter on a radio show (Levin?) discuss this and  he put the tally of supporting state legislatures at 13 (I think).

It's only 13 for the Convention of States Resolution, but it's now officially at 31 after this past year for the Balanced Budget, from what I've seen... and that's the one that the Koch bros. have been pouring money into the past decade through ALEC and running mock convention simulations with and amending well beyond the scope of just budget. It could have already triggered this year if not for the rescinded applications.

Noted.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 13, 2019, 11:01:49 AM
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.
Fair enough.  I was using the term “credibility” in a more narrow construct of: what they claim to be true or likely to happen is generally upheld over time.  In that sense Hannity fails time and time again.

THat doesn’t mean they people don’t hold influence over some people - they absolutely do.  But just because they say it and their viewers believe it doesn’t make it true. And amending the constitution is such an intentionally high bar that it cannot be done without overwhelming support from a majority of states. Period. But Hannity knows he can get viewers by making such claims, and his viewers love the idea of ‘owning the libs’ seemingly forever. Actual knowledge of the constitution or any in-depth analysis is unnecessary.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on December 13, 2019, 11:27:46 AM
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.

The impeachment show in Washington  is rife  with  expedient duplicity from both sides.

NY Times 11/18/19

No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News

Paying attention to the impeachment inquiry and other developments means having to figure out what is true, false or spin. Many Americans are throwing up their hands and tuning it all out.

But just when information is needed most, to many Americans it feels most elusive. The rise of social media; the proliferation of information online, including news designed to deceive; and a flood of partisan news are leading to a general exhaustion with news itself.
BiB Same thing for the British and Brexit.  There will be some nasty shocks coming to them because of it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: six-car-habit on December 14, 2019, 06:57:39 PM
 In impeachement news, mitch mcconnel has stated [ Dec 13th ] he'll be working on "total co-operation" with white house lawyers in planning the senate phase of the impeachement trial....
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 14, 2019, 08:02:22 PM
In impeachement news, mitch mcconnel has stated [ Dec 13th ] he'll be working on "total co-operation" with white house lawyers in planning the senate phase of the impeachement trial....

They don’t even bother to try to hide it anymore.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GreenEggs on December 14, 2019, 09:54:29 PM
In impeachement news, mitch mcconnel has stated [ Dec 13th ] he'll be working on "total co-operation" with white house lawyers in planning the senate phase of the impeachement trial....

They don’t even bother to try to hide it anymore.


I can't remember when they did. 


They're in my daily prayers.  ;) 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on December 14, 2019, 11:07:14 PM
In impeachement news, mitch mcconnel has stated [ Dec 13th ] he'll be working on "total co-operation" with white house lawyers in planning the senate phase of the impeachement trial....

They don’t even bother to try to hide it anymore.

He considers it a feather in his cap that he shut down the Senate for Obama's last two years.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on December 16, 2019, 09:47:25 AM
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.

The impeachment show in Washington  is rife  with  expedient duplicity from both sides.

NY Times 11/18/19

No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News

Paying attention to the impeachment inquiry and other developments means having to figure out what is true, false or spin. Many Americans are throwing up their hands and tuning it all out.

But just when information is needed most, to many Americans it feels most elusive. The rise of social media; the proliferation of information online, including news designed to deceive; and a flood of partisan news are leading to a general exhaustion with news itself.
BiB Same thing for the British and Brexit.  There will be some nasty shocks coming to them because of it.


A statement or series of them  can be unassailably true while the omission of a single, simple fact can lead someone to believe  the exact opposite of what they would have believed had the fact not been omitted.

I'm leery of Washingtonians' guileful ways.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 16, 2019, 10:00:11 AM
Not Trump, but Lindsay Graham as it pertains to Trump.

He is on record now saying that he simply won’t read the transcript of the call at the heart of the investigation, he will not listen to any witness testimony and he has already made up his mind on how he will vote.  Mind you, he’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

He’s now said outright that he will not be impartial or list to the facts.  A big change from when was a senator during WJC’s impeachment trial, when he insisted on listening to all the testimony and weighing all the facts presented before rendering judgement.  Which he did:  Guilty of obstruction.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on December 16, 2019, 10:53:06 AM
Not Trump, but Lindsay Graham as it pertains to Trump.

He is on record now saying that he simply won’t read the transcript of the call at the heart of the investigation, he will not listen to any witness testimony and he has already made up his mind on how he will vote.  Mind you, he’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

He’s now said outright that he will not be impartial or list to the facts.  A big change from when was a senator during WJC’s impeachment trial, when he insisted on listening to all the testimony and weighing all the facts presented before rendering judgement.  Which he did:  Guilty of obstruction.




Impeachment by the House and trial   by the Senate is not supposed to be devoid of politics: Politics serves to check each House member's vote to support articles of impeachment or not as well as  each senator's vote to acquit or convict.

Nevertheless, the Senate's trial of a high official  is a grave, quasi-judicial proceeding at which each senator present  is both judge and juror.

Graham's prejudgment, his self-declared prejudice,  could not be more inappropriate given his position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The etymology of "prejudice" is instructive.


Middle English (in prejudice (sense 2 of the noun)): from Old French, from Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgement’.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 16, 2019, 10:57:48 AM
What effect does Roberts have on the proceedings? He's faced with history watching the SC more so than any of the Congresslings. If the GOP majority refuses to call in any D witnesses, and tries to make it about Clinton and Biden and Obama, could he alter the structure of the proceedings? I.e., give the Democrats more power to call witnesses?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 16, 2019, 11:16:29 AM
Not Trump, but Lindsay Graham as it pertains to Trump.

He is on record now saying that he simply won’t read the transcript of the call at the heart of the investigation, he will not listen to any witness testimony and he has already made up his mind on how he will vote.  Mind you, he’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

He’s now said outright that he will not be impartial or list to the facts.  A big change from when was a senator during WJC’s impeachment trial, when he insisted on listening to all the testimony and weighing all the facts presented before rendering judgement.  Which he did:  Guilty of obstruction.




Impeachment by the House and trial   by the Senate is not supposed to be devoid of politics: Politics serves to check each House member's vote to support articles of impeachment or not as well as  each senator's vote to acquit or convict.

Nevertheless, the Senate's trial of a high official  is a grave, quasi-judicial proceeding at which each senator present  is both judge and juror.

Graham's prejudgment, his self-declared prejudice,  could not be more inappropriate given his position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The etymology of "prejudice" is instructive.


Middle English (in prejudice (sense 2 of the noun)): from Old French, from Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgement’.
There is an argument to be made that the Senate GOP under McConnell is more broken (in a functional government sense) than the presidency.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on December 16, 2019, 11:36:21 AM
What effect does Roberts have on the proceedings? He's faced with history watching the SC more so than any of the Congresslings.

It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts is quite concerned about the Supreme Court's institutional reputation so I think  he will  exert his authority to its maximum in the interest of conducting  a trial  that  is  scrupulously fair congressional politics notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on December 16, 2019, 11:40:12 AM
A few points of clarification:

Lindsey Graham was a Representative during Clinton's impeachment, and one of several managers during the Senate trial. You could make the case that his role during that impeachment was to forcibly argue for the articles approved by the House, but it is still one of the heights of hypocrisy in this whole ordeal that he's taken the stance he currently has. I've recently learned that his career started as a military JAG, and then went into private practice; this makes his actions, in my eye, not only hypocritical, but also unprofessional and of interest to any bar for which he remains a member.

Technically the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS presides over the trial as judge, but the Senate, unlike a traditional jury, does have to set out beforehand the rules for how the trial will be conducted. Nevertheless, it is nearly unfathomable to me that Graham and McConnell would take the public stances that they have, seeing as they will have to serve as jurors at some point in this process if it plays out fully. Why make their declarations so public? Maybe to dissuade impeachment from moving beyond the House?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 16, 2019, 11:54:09 AM
I think the Democrats in the House have the eyes completely open about what kind of environment the Senate will give them.

They may pile up articles (beyond these first two) while getting Republicans on the record repeatedly denying reality. If Senate will fail to remove, there are still maneuvers to repeatedly put Senators on record about where they stand relative to Trump's actions as President.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 16, 2019, 01:58:02 PM
The final wording of the articles of impeachment include the text, "President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States." (emphasis added). Assuming the articles pass in the House, acquital in the Senate, and re-election in 2020: how does this play out in the 2021 joint session of congress to certify the electoral college results. Can the House vote to certify if he is disqualified. This hasn't been an issue in prior second term presidencies.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on December 16, 2019, 02:53:17 PM
The final wording of the articles of impeachment include the text, "President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States." (emphasis added). Assuming the articles pass in the House, acquital in the Senate, and re-election in 2020: how does this play out in the 2021 joint session of congress to certify the electoral college results. Can the House vote to certify if he is disqualified. This hasn't been an issue in prior second term presidencies.

A high official's impeachment alone does not disqualify them from holding and enjoying "any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States." 

To be disqualified the high official  must be convicted by the Senate.

Conviction by the Senate is final and not appealable.


THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Here is the last clause of ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3.


Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
 

 
 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on December 16, 2019, 02:55:13 PM
I think that disqualification appears to be directly linked to a judgement by the Senate with regards to impeachment, and therefore if the Senate does not make such a judgement, then the House would not be able to refuse certification based on those grounds. I've understood that the disqualification part is optional, at least with regards to past impeachments, so the Senate could come to a judgement of removal but not one of disqualification, but I'm not sure it could do the opposite.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on December 16, 2019, 05:19:31 PM
Nevertheless, it is nearly unfathomable to me that Graham and McConnell would take the public stances that they have, seeing as they will have to serve as jurors at some point in this process if it plays out fully. Why make their declarations so public? Maybe to dissuade impeachment from moving beyond the House?

Their seats are pretty much election-proof.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 16, 2019, 06:14:28 PM
Nevertheless, it is nearly unfathomable to me that Graham and McConnell would take the public stances that they have, seeing as they will have to serve as jurors at some point in this process if it plays out fully. Why make their declarations so public? Maybe to dissuade impeachment from moving beyond the House?

Their seats are pretty much election-proof.

Not in Graham’s case, surprisingly.

https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-tied-democrat-south-carolina-senate-challenger-jaime-harrison-poll-1477336
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 17, 2019, 08:03:46 AM
I think Graham is more worried about losing in a primary than losing to a Democrat.

I think McConnel is worried about losing...not at all. He has pretty much been following this brazen, ruthless track for about ten years, and every roll keeps coming up 7 for him.

And when he does finally lose, he can enjoy his wife's inherited wealth in retirement.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 17, 2019, 08:47:26 AM
I think Graham is more worried about losing in a primary than losing to a Democrat.

I think McConnel is worried about losing...not at all. He has pretty much been following this brazen, ruthless track for about ten years, and every roll keeps coming up 7 for him.

And when he does finally lose, he can enjoy his wife's inherited wealth in retirement.

I suspect the current GOP is selling out the party's future in exchange for holding onto power for a few more cycles and stacking the courts with conservative justices (which will persist for probably 20 years).

It's hard for me to see how they ever win back non-white voters, and shifting demographics won't be kind to any party that can draw only single-digit support from brown people.  It also seems like younger, college-educated folks are fed up with the climate-change denial and do-nothing approach and put the blame (rightly IMO) squarely on the GOP. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 17, 2019, 09:43:40 AM
1. There are so many small states that they can hold Senators, governors, and legislatures through this storm.

2. Even after the shitstorm of Watergate, they were back in the WH in just one election cycle.

People keep claiming Trump will kill the Republican party. How do you kill something that is nearly half of all people who vote? Those voters and donors will still be there.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on December 17, 2019, 10:05:38 AM
1. There are so many small states that they can hold Senators, governors, and legislatures through this storm.

2. Even after the shitstorm of Watergate, they were back in the WH in just one election cycle.

People keep claiming Trump will kill the Republican party. How do you kill something that is nearly half of all people who vote? Those voters and donors will still be there.
He won't -- he's doing what the party wants...as evidenced by their religious and fanatical support.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 17, 2019, 10:12:45 AM
1. There are so many small states that they can hold Senators, governors, and legislatures through this storm.

Yep. Small/low population state Senators are the Republican firewall.

Quote
2. Even after the shitstorm of Watergate, they were back in the WH in just one election cycle.

People keep claiming Trump will kill the Republican party. How do you kill something that is nearly half of all people who vote? Those voters and donors will still be there.

Evangelicals are dying. Millennials aren't returning to Christianity.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/millennials-are-leaving-religion-and-not-coming-back/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-evangelicals-sacrificing-the-future-in-search-of-the-past/

Quote from: 538
Nearly one-third of white Americans raised in evangelical Christian households leave their childhood faith.2 About 60 percent of those who leave end up joining another faith tradition, while 40 percent give up on religion altogether.

When a party depends on the super religious for 1/2 of its support, it's got a real problem in a time of increased secularism.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 17, 2019, 10:51:42 AM
People keep claiming Trump will kill the Republican party. How do you kill something that is nearly half of all people who vote? Those voters and donors will still be there.

That's basically my point regarding shifting demographics.  The GOP currently represents roughly half of all people who vote.  Their problem is that this percentage will decrease every election cycle as the number of white voters and evangelicals decreases unless they can somehow reclaim the growing share of latinos, asians and other minorities.

1. There are so many small states that they can hold Senators, governors, and legislatures through this storm.
One could argue these small states are currently allowing them to retain an outsized amount of power now (e.g. compare total votes cast vs representation.  I'm questioning how long such a bulwark can hold unless the party starts appealing to a broader tent.

Quote
2. Even after the shitstorm of Watergate, they were back in the WH in just one election cycle.
No arguments there.  History is filled with examples of political parties over-reaching once they gain the upperhand.  It's almost a law of politics.  Arguably the ACA was the last example, and this deregulation mania might be the next. Should Dems find themselves in control of all branches of g'vt in 2020 or 2024 I cynically expect them to ramrod something like a 2x corporate tax hike which might cause them to lose all $upport for the next several cycles.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 17, 2019, 11:03:49 AM
People keep claiming Trump will kill the Republican party. How do you kill something that is nearly half of all people who vote? Those voters and donors will still be there.

That's basically my point regarding shifting demographics.  The GOP currently represents roughly half of all people who vote.  Their problem is that this percentage will decrease every election cycle as the number of white voters and evangelicals decreases unless they can somehow reclaim the growing share of latinos, asians and other minorities.

That's why Republicans have been disenfranchising minority voters for years now.  Voter ID laws, gerrymandering, stacking the supreme court . . . these are ways that the party can hang on to more power than they should from a democratic perspective.  It'll catch up to them eventually, but the goal is to maximize damage to the country before it does.  And they're winning.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on December 17, 2019, 11:17:02 AM
Nevertheless, it is nearly unfathomable to me that Graham and McConnell would take the public stances that they have, seeing as they will have to serve as jurors at some point in this process if it plays out fully. Why make their declarations so public? Maybe to dissuade impeachment from moving beyond the House?

Their seats are pretty much election-proof.

Yeah but why telegraph your corruption so loudly for all to see? Leaked video of a speech where McConnell confesses he'll coordinate the Senate trial with Trumps legal team would be one thing, but he went on national TV and said this essentially unprompted. And Giuliani is so brazenly corrupt. Twitter experts on totalitarian regimes insist that this is one of the ways these regimes gain power, by asking supporters to keep supporting incrementally more outlandish lies, norms-breaking, and law-breaking until your supporters are essentially complicit in your actions. This explains people like Trump, Giuliani, and Barr; but complicit Senators and Reps are supposed to help provide the veneer of popular support and the needed (but ultimately fictional) link between the past and the present, and these actions just seem to get in the way. Why shout the quiet parts out so loud right now? I'd almost call it a cry for help in any other context.

Anyone else totally not surprised that Susan Collins is digging herself into another hypocritical hole? She's so baffled that Senator Schumer would make extremely public his appeal to McConnell for a full legitimate trial with arguments and witnesses. “I was surprised that he didn’t first sit down with the Senate majority leader and discuss his proposals rather than doing a letter that he released to the press...The more constructive way would have been for him to sit down with Senator McConnell.” Yet when asked about McConnell pledging total coordination with Trump's legal team, all she had to say was “Every senator has to decide on his or her own how to approach it, that would not be the approach that I’ve taken”. Anyone who can convince themself that supporting Kavanaugh for SCOTUS was not a vote to dismantle a woman's right to choose is clearly someone who can rationalize just about any position, regardless of reality.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 17, 2019, 11:34:34 AM
Collins is a goner. After Kavanaugh, there were millions of campaign dollars set aside for her opponent even before the candidate was announced.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 17, 2019, 11:51:48 AM
Collins is a goner. After Kavanaugh, there were millions of campaign dollars set aside for her opponent even before the candidate was announced.

This is our neck of the woods. Collins will have a tight race, which is something given how she's coasted to vistory her previous two elections.  As you mentioned plenty of people are pissed over Kavanaugh - particularly in/around teh populated Portland area.  but don't discredit how conservative and white the more rural parts o the state are.  Many feel like Jared Golden 'stole' the election with ranked-choice voting and are pretty bent out of shape over it.  Many more are pissed the the new Dem governor Mills is pushing through the controversal utility corridor bringing powerlines down from Quebec.  In short the Dems are spending a lot of capital, which could be enough for Collins to squeek by with a win.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 17, 2019, 12:24:52 PM
@nereo can you send me a private message with slightly more narrative about the Quebec power lines initiative in Maine? I work for a public utility in NC, so that's kind of my jam, and I'm really curious.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 17, 2019, 03:35:17 PM
Sooo....  Trump sent a 6 page letter to Pelosi explaining what he really thinks about this whole impeachment thing. It is, for all intents and purposes, a long form twitter rant. He said that this will go in the history books so that future generations can understand this in context. I'm sure it will be read, but maybe not in the way that he intends. A few snippets:

"More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials."
"You view democracy as your enemy!"
"You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain."

Here's where you can read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter.html
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: scottish on December 17, 2019, 03:42:43 PM
That's really very humorous!     The man can certainly spout bullshit...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on December 17, 2019, 03:54:02 PM
Sounds like the self-righteous ranting of someone right before committing a mass shooting.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on December 17, 2019, 04:02:37 PM
"Whatever decision is made should be based on the evidence" says Lindsay Graham regarding the Clinton impeachment.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1206719567915081729?s=09
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on December 17, 2019, 04:15:01 PM
Nevertheless, it is nearly unfathomable to me that Graham and McConnell would take the public stances that they have, seeing as they will have to serve as jurors at some point in this process if it plays out fully. Why make their declarations so public? Maybe to dissuade impeachment from moving beyond the House?

Their seats are pretty much election-proof.

Yeah but why telegraph your corruption so loudly for all to see?

Because there are no consequences. It's not like somebody is going to try to impeach him. Or even give him a challenge in his next election.  He doesn't see himself as responsible for a branch of government, but rather as a shield against the Democratic Party. And the Republican base loves him for it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 17, 2019, 05:03:45 PM
Sooo....  Trump sent a 6 page letter to Pelosi explaining what he really thinks about this whole impeachment thing.
...
Here's where you can read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter.html

Wow.  Just... wow.

Mostly I'm curious whether anyone else read, edited or helped write this letter.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 17, 2019, 05:11:59 PM
Sooo....  Trump sent a 6 page letter to Pelosi explaining what he really thinks about this whole impeachment thing.
...
Here's where you can read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter.html

Wow.  Just... wow.

Mostly I'm curious whether anyone else read, edited or helped write this letter.

There is no way he wrote that letter. It’s way too articulate. Plus, he doesn’t even read documents that long, much less write them.

Someone else on his team wrote it, and then he added the occasional interjection.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 17, 2019, 05:45:22 PM
Sooo....  Trump sent a 6 page letter to Pelosi explaining what he really thinks about this whole impeachment thing.
...
Here's where you can read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter.html

Wow.  Just... wow.

Mostly I'm curious whether anyone else read, edited or helped write this letter.

There is no way he wrote that letter. It’s way too articulate. Plus, he doesn’t even read documents that long, much less write them.

Someone else on his team wrote it, and then he added the occasional interjection.

I keep thinking that, over the next few decades we're going to get a steady trickle of insider accounts and stories about all that transpired during the "Trump Years'.  Sure - several accounts have been published already, but I'm guessing once Trump dies and after we've had a few years between administrations we'll get a more complete story of what the f*< has been going on behind the scenes.

It may become the longest-running realty TV show in history. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 17, 2019, 06:06:10 PM
Sooo....  Trump sent a 6 page letter to Pelosi explaining what he really thinks about this whole impeachment thing.
...
Here's where you can read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter.html

Wow.  Just... wow.

Mostly I'm curious whether anyone else read, edited or helped write this letter.

There is no way he wrote that letter. It’s way too articulate. Plus, he doesn’t even read documents that long, much less write them.

Someone else on his team wrote it, and then he added the occasional interjection.

My money is on Giuliani.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 17, 2019, 06:11:40 PM
Sooo....  Trump sent a 6 page letter to Pelosi explaining what he really thinks about this whole impeachment thing.
...
Here's where you can read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter.html

Wow.  Just... wow.

Mostly I'm curious whether anyone else read, edited or helped write this letter.

There is no way he wrote that letter. It’s way too articulate. Plus, he doesn’t even read documents that long, much less write them.

Someone else on his team wrote it, and then he added the occasional interjection.

My money is on Giuliani.
Not Hannity? :/
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 17, 2019, 06:20:12 PM
Sooo....  Trump sent a 6 page letter to Pelosi explaining what he really thinks about this whole impeachment thing.
...
Here's where you can read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter.html

Wow.  Just... wow.

Mostly I'm curious whether anyone else read, edited or helped write this letter.

There is no way he wrote that letter. It’s way too articulate. Plus, he doesn’t even read documents that long, much less write them.

Someone else on his team wrote it, and then he added the occasional interjection.

My money is on Giuliani.
Not Hannity? :/

Miller?

Ok, nm. There's nothing in it about minorities.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 17, 2019, 06:38:38 PM
Sooo....  Trump sent a 6 page letter to Pelosi explaining what he really thinks about this whole impeachment thing.
...
Here's where you can read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter.html

Wow.  Just... wow.

Mostly I'm curious whether anyone else read, edited or helped write this letter.

There is no way he wrote that letter. It’s way too articulate. Plus, he doesn’t even read documents that long, much less write them.

Someone else on his team wrote it, and then he added the occasional interjection.

My money is on Giuliani.
Not Hannity? :/

I don't think he's smart enough. Giuliani would know how to write the letter so that no viable legal action could be taken.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Sanitary Engineer on December 18, 2019, 07:44:41 AM
The letter ends "to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record".  I think the question is, will the Trump Presidential Library be editing this document in perpetuity or are Trump's lies so enduring that it doesn't matter what the record shows, the only record that matters is Trump's.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on December 18, 2019, 07:57:20 AM
Suppose Pence were to run, declaring Trump as his running mate on day 1 of his campaign. Everyone would know that this would imply Pence were to be a figure head, without anyone saying it.

Same problems, and then some. The 12th amendment states that no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States Ad Trump would be ineligible to be president he would consequentially be ineligible to be VP.

So he can’t run for VP, nor can Obama or WJ Clinton or GW Bush.

Add to this that Pence would need to run and win.

Who says Trump couldn't be the man behind the curtain? In an undefined position like his daughter and sound-in-law ("advisors"). Like Cheney was. Currently Trump just lobs random ideas sometimes seeded by FoxNews and other conservative media. His staff figures out how to implement them. He could continue to do that. Pence would be the face, Trump would be the crazy idea man. Certain people could continue to manipulate Trump if Pence would go along being the front man.

The problem is Trump's ego wouldn't allow him to stay behind the curtain. He'd come out and brag constantly and the GOP would let him do it. It would be a secret non-secret.

I've long felt that party politics was a version of this anyhow. Decisions and priorities are set in closed door strategy meetings, fed to the highest politician in their group - sometimes a president - and that's what we see happen in the media. Looks like the President's idea when actually it is the idea of a group of political strategists, donors, and lobbyists.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 18, 2019, 08:05:22 AM
hypotheticals aside, we are straying from the core question, which is "can Trump somehow be president for a third term?" - which basically boils down to "not without a constitutional amendment" which in itself is absurdly unlikely given the level of support it would need to pass.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 18, 2019, 09:21:44 AM
I was the main person who said that he could run for an win a third term. I admitted defeat.

Can we return to enjoying this remarkable letter from the President?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 18, 2019, 09:38:17 AM
I was the main person who said that he could run for an win a third term. I admitted defeat.

Can we return to enjoying this remarkable letter from the President?
The NYT did a fact check of the letter with predictable results. I was hoping that they would fact check his assertion about due process at the Salem Witch Trials as a subtle piece of snark. That said, if he would prefer the Senate trial to convert to using the Salem procedures, I am sure we can find some heavy rocks to extract a confession from him.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 18, 2019, 09:43:58 AM
Fact-checking a letter like that is just playing into Trump's hand. He works in a world in which other values--including the raw emotion and privilege to power--are elevated.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Sanitary Engineer on December 18, 2019, 10:04:09 AM
Fact-checking a letter like that is just playing into Trump's hand. He works in a world in which other values--including the raw emotion and privilege to power--are elevated.

Any amplification or replication of the lies and boasts in that letter are to Trump's advantage.  I am going over to the "Should be impeached because" thread and promoting for "because he is a liar".
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on December 18, 2019, 10:16:52 AM
Fact-checking a letter like that is just playing into Trump's hand. He works in a world in which other values--including the raw emotion and privilege to power--are elevated.

This is a difficult thing to handle. On the one hand I get rather frustrated when I see Democrats and reporters continually make the same claims of what the president did or did not do without addressing the arguments coming from the other side. The claims are easily refutable and as a person who is very interested in reaching logical conclusions, fact checking is very appealing to me. On the other hand, I think you may be right with regard to most of the population. There are many people who will never read into such fact checking reports any deeper than a headline so all they actually see is "[President Lies Again]" while constantly being exposed to his ludicrous rants.

I think I'm of the opinion that fact-checking should be done for historical purposes but it's frustratingly useless in the current environment.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 18, 2019, 10:21:48 AM
I have noticed a shift in most news outlets over the past 2+ years.  Whereas before they would respond to some BS thing Trump said with somethiong like "claims made by teh president which could not be substantiated" they will now say "The president repeated his claim, which has been widely debunked". 
Most news outlets are still loathe to use the word "lie" but they are far more likely to state that what the president says has been proven to be untrue, rather than more squishy language like "unsubstantiated" or "unverified".
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on December 18, 2019, 10:28:34 AM
So, this is interesting. Trump tried to block the (mostly symbolic) vote that recognizes the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-sides-with-turkey-blocks-congress-recognizing-armenian-genocide-2019-12

My father's cousin and his wife are generally pretty smart people but also very devout (religious) orthodox. They have become increasingly conservative and judging by what they post on Facebook I'm SURE they voted for Trump and plan to do so again.

My family's church stands with, and identifies with the (Christian) Armenians who were killed, because Greek Christians were also oppressed, displaced and killed by the Turks. In fact one of the wife's most recent post was about a monument consecrated in Greece memorializing the Armenian genocide.

I wonder if Trump's remarks and actions will give them pause. Probably not, but I can only hope.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 18, 2019, 10:38:58 AM
Currently listening to the GOP opposition of the articles of impeachment. Apparently they really do think the American public is that stupid and uninformed.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 18, 2019, 11:02:31 AM
Currently listening to the GOP opposition of the articles of impeachment. Apparently they really do think the American public is that stupid and uninformed.

They know for a fact that no conservatives are watching any of this, nor have they read the "transcript" that wasn't actually a transcript.

Which leaves them free to stage their political theater, the entire point of which is to: 1) pander like cowards to their audience of one; and 2) provide sound bytes for the right-wing media who will reinforce the low information conservative base's unquestioning belief that Trump is innocent and this is all a witch hunt.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 18, 2019, 11:13:44 AM
Currently listening to the GOP opposition of the articles of impeachment. Apparently they really do think the American public is that stupid and uninformed.

They know for a fact that no conservatives are watching any of this, nor have they read the "transcript" that wasn't actually a transcript.

Which leaves them free to stage their political theater, the entire point of which is to: 1) pander like cowards to their audience of one; and 2) provide sound bytes for the right-wing media who will reinforce the low information conservative base's unquestioning belief that Trump is innocent and this is all a witch hunt.

It's amazing. I listened to at least a dozen speakers before I shut off NPR. One party spent their time talking about upholding Constitutional law. The other party spent their time blaming the first party, suggesting that they don't actually have a valid reason for opposition.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 18, 2019, 11:30:34 AM
"when you don't have a good argument to make you complain about the process, and when you can't complain about the process you bang the table".

I'm seeing a lot of table-banging going on by the GOP.  Many of the speaker's arguments amount to "but the Dems just hate DJT!" 
Whether you are liked or disliked shouldn't matter when it comes to whether you broke the laws/rules.  Sadly, it seems to here.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 18, 2019, 12:04:42 PM
"when you don't have a good argument to make you complain about the process, and when you can't complain about the process you bang the table".

I'm seeing a lot of table-banging going on by the GOP.  Many of the speaker's arguments amount to "but the Dems just hate DJT!" 
Whether you are liked or disliked shouldn't matter when it comes to whether you broke the laws/rules.  Sadly, it seems to here.

Yeah, they're performing for their master. Nothing more. And they know it.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/885086/white-house-said-trump-working-all-day-instead-hes-been-angrily-tweeting-about-impeachment
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 18, 2019, 06:56:50 PM
Looks like pretty close to a party line vote approving both articles of impeachment.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment-vote.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Interestingly, Tulsi Gabbard declined to vote and just registered as present; hard to read this as anything but a calculated move not to anger conservatives. Regardless, twitter feeds should be pretty hot tomorrow.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on December 19, 2019, 05:08:21 AM
Widow responds after Trump suggests John Dingell may be in hell (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-slams-late-representative-john-dingell-at-michigan-rally-widow-debbie-dingell-responds-2019-12-19/)

No, Trump. Just no. Rep. Debbie Dingell and her husband are and were tireless advocates for our hometown, state, and country. I'm not surprised by his disrespect, but yet again disgusted.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 19, 2019, 07:22:05 AM
Classy.

Perhaps it's just who I'm connected to online, but I'm seeing a lot of people celebrating the impeachment vote, some jubilant and some simply crass.

Were I in Congress, I would vote to impeach. I am not happy at all. It feels like a treating a symptom--perhaps only symbolically--at a time when the disease is pretty horrible.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 19, 2019, 07:30:44 AM
I will be surprised if any Republican in congress votes to impeach.  It would be political doom.

That said, the Republicans haven't provided any counter evidence, or witnesses of their own to defend Trump.  So it will be interesting to see how they defend the president without addressing any of the facts.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 19, 2019, 07:31:46 AM
Classy.

Perhaps it's just who I'm connected to online, but I'm seeing a lot of people celebrating the impeachment vote, some jubilant and some simply crass.

Were I in Congress, I would vote to impeach. I am not happy at all. It feels like a treating a symptom--perhaps only symbolically--at a time when the disease is pretty horrible.

I feel the same as you. I feel it needed to be done. But I’m not cheering about it. It’s awful that we’re here.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 19, 2019, 07:41:48 AM
I feel like we are here largely because Congress has for years shirked its duties towards the executive branch whenever it suited their short-term political priorities.  It didn't start with 2016 either. Neither party has been willing to cross its own standard-bearer for decades.

That said - I think we could have avoided this whole mess had the GOP put some guardrails around Trump early on.  Perhaps this could have been as simple as forceful public condemnation whenever he called other political adversaries htings like 'Unamerican', 'human-scum', 'shifty' etc. Standing up in unison to say "only Congress has the power to appropriate funds and no you cannot reallocate them as you wish" might have prevented this entirely.  maybe.

At the same time I know some in GOP circles have helped steer us here, and are silently cheering that Trump will be impeached and certaintly aquited, assuming it will help his reelection campaign as it did WJC.  I know I'm getting all sorts of "donate now to fight the impeachment!" emails and mailings, and it has sucked so much attention away from the Democratic primaries.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 19, 2019, 07:58:46 AM
Tell me more about how impeachment helped Clinton.

All I remember is a Republican President (barely) winning in the election following that impeachment.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 19, 2019, 09:21:53 AM
Tell me more about how impeachment helped Clinton.

All I remember is a Republican President (barely) winning in the election following that impeachment.

I'm not saying that it did - I'm saying that's a frequent narrative, and one used by DJT himself.  The basis of it seems to be that Clinton's poll numbers steadily climbed throughout the impeachment, and he had roughly 70% approval when he was acquitted.

As you said, the 2000 election saw a republican President (barely) but lost the popular vote.  OTOH Dems gained seats in both the Senate and the House.  So it's hard to say if a particular party "won" because of the impeachment of WJC, and if so which side.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on December 19, 2019, 09:22:43 AM
Saw this on Facebook
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on December 19, 2019, 09:35:32 AM
I will be surprised if any Republican in congress votes to impeach.  It would be political doom.

That said, the Republicans haven't provided any counter evidence, or witnesses of their own to defend Trump.  So it will be interesting to see how they defend the president without addressing any of the facts.

Does it matter what they say if they all just vote to absolve him anyway?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 19, 2019, 09:40:32 AM
I will be surprised if any Republican in congress votes to impeach.  It would be political doom.

That said, the Republicans haven't provided any counter evidence, or witnesses of their own to defend Trump.  So it will be interesting to see how they defend the president without addressing any of the facts.

Does it matter what they say if they all just vote to absolve him anyway?

The vote to absolve Trump is a given.  But how they do it will give us an indication of their respect for the intelligence of the voters who support them.  If they don't even put on a pretense of a trial, you know that they they believe Republican voters are lemmings happy to follow them off any cliff.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on December 19, 2019, 09:48:00 AM
I will be surprised if any Republican in congress votes to impeach.  It would be political doom.

That said, the Republicans haven't provided any counter evidence, or witnesses of their own to defend Trump.  So it will be interesting to see how they defend the president without addressing any of the facts.

Does it matter what they say if they all just vote to absolve him anyway?

The vote to absolve Trump is a given.  But how they do it will give us an indication of their respect for the intelligence of the voters who support them.  If they don't even put on a pretense of a trial, you know that they they believe Republican voters are lemmings happy to follow them off any cliff.
I think the term is "Sheeple"
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on December 19, 2019, 09:50:26 AM
I will be surprised if any Republican in congress votes to impeach.  It would be political doom.

That said, the Republicans haven't provided any counter evidence, or witnesses of their own to defend Trump.  So it will be interesting to see how they defend the president without addressing any of the facts.

Does it matter what they say if they all just vote to absolve him anyway?

The vote to absolve Trump is a given.  But how they do it will give us an indication of their respect for the intelligence of the voters who support them.  If they don't even put on a pretense of a trial, you know that they they believe Republican voters are lemmings happy to follow them off any cliff.

All indicators I have seen so far by people who continue to support Trump today point to the lemming factor as being the most likely. After seeing a Trump supporter (one degree of separation from me in my social circle) say that Putin is a better American than any Democratic candidate, I've completely lost faith in anyone still supporting Trump.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nessness on December 19, 2019, 10:01:17 AM
62% of Trump supporters say there is nothing he could do to lose their support. Nothing. So, yeah, lemmings sounds about right.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.axios.com/monmouth-poll-trump-approval-a05b8144-1d1b-4296-a0d4-6ca0390b05ee.html

(I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this has already been discussed.)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 19, 2019, 10:02:33 AM
Several times I've heard Trump supporters point to Putin's statements as 'evidence' that the Ukraine article is bogus.  The logical leap one must take to get there is breathtaking:  Russia is at war with Ukraine, and is adversarial to the United States. Yet somehow we should listen to Putin on Ukraine?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 19, 2019, 10:17:40 AM
Several times I've heard Trump supporters point to Putin's statements as 'evidence' that the Ukraine article is bogus.  The logical leap one must take to get there is breathtaking:  Russia is at war with Ukraine, and is adversarial to the United States. Yet somehow we should listen to Putin on Ukraine?

You're looking at it logically, which is where you're failing.  You have to look at it with feelies.

Imagine you feel that Donald Trump is great.  He's a successful businessman who built an empire all on his own from nothing.  You've even seen him on a TV program!  He pisses off those libtards, gays, and minorities that you hate.  Therefore you like and trust Donald Trump.

Donald Trump clearly likes and trusts Putin.  And the news has been telling you that Putin helped get Donald Trump into office.  Therefore, you should like and trust Putin too.

We've always been at war with EastAsia.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 19, 2019, 10:20:11 AM
but Putin's forgotten the biggest rule of all, which is never start a land war in Asia
:-P (yes, good points on emotiona vs rational justification)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on December 19, 2019, 11:30:04 AM
Why do Republicans and media say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes FOR impeachment are from Democrats = partisan impeachment

But then forget to say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes AGAINST impeachment are from Republicans = partisan refusal to impeach
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on December 19, 2019, 11:44:01 AM
Why do Republicans and media say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes FOR impeachment are from Democrats = partisan impeachment

But then forget to say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes AGAINST impeachment are from Republicans = partisan refusal to impeach

It convinces headline readers.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 19, 2019, 11:47:40 AM
Why do Republicans and media say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes FOR impeachment are from Democrats = partisan impeachment

But then forget to say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes AGAINST impeachment are from Republicans = partisan refusal to impeach

I've also wondered why one of the biggest arguments for not impeaching DJT seems to be that the GOP controlled senate will acquit, so it's all a bunch of wasted time and money.  Yet the legislative certainty that it will get struck down did not stop the GOP from proposing more than 70 times to end the ACA - while Obama was still int eh WH and held veto power.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on December 19, 2019, 11:56:15 AM
And "very serious people" are claiming that impeachment will now forever be a partisan tool, guaranteeing that all future presidents will be impeached whenever the opposing party controls the House.

But "very serious people" forgot to clutch their pearls when Republicans actually declared and put into practice a new maxim that Presidents shall get no judges appointed and no substantive legislation passed as long as the opposing party controls the Senate.

One of these things has been explicitly embraced and put into practice by a party, and one of these things has been specifically disavowed by a different party. Yet we're held to believe that those who are explicit about their corruption don't really mean it, and those who claim a higher good purpose for their actions are secretly lying and really the corrupt ones.

Well, we'll be here all day/week/month pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans and many conservatives in the last few years/decades.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on December 19, 2019, 11:57:19 AM
And "very serious people" are claiming that impeach will now forever be a partisan tool, guaranteeing that all future presidents will be impeached whenever the opposing party controls the House.

But "very serious people" forgot to clutch their pearls when a Republicans actually declared and put into practice a new maxim that Presidents shall get no judges appointed and no substantive legislation passed as long as the opposing party controls the Senate.

One of these things has been explicitly embraced and put into practice by a party, and one of these things has been specifically disavowed by a different party. Yet we're held to believe that those who are explicit about their corruption don't really mean it, and those who claim a higher good purpose for their actions are secretly lying and really the corrupt ones.

Well, we'll be hear all day/week/month pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans and many conservatives in the last few years/decades.

But but but the deep state!
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 19, 2019, 12:02:29 PM
Why do Republicans and media say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes FOR impeachment are from Democrats = partisan impeachment

But then forget to say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes AGAINST impeachment are from Republicans = partisan refusal to impeach

I've also wondered why one of the biggest arguments for not impeaching DJT seems to be that the GOP controlled senate will acquit, so it's all a bunch of wasted time and money.  Yet the legislative certainty that it will get struck down did not stop the GOP from proposing more than 70 times to end the ACA - while Obama was still int eh WH and held veto power.

“I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors” - Jeff Sessions (impeachment of Bill Clinton)

“There is a limit that the president can set.  He is a leader of a co-equal branch of government. I do not believe his failure to respond with his top officials and other requirements Congress has placed on him, amounts to an impeachable offense.” - Jeff Sessions (impeachment of Donald Trump)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 20, 2019, 01:13:10 PM
A woman in Iowa intentionally ran over a 14-year-old girl because she thought the girl was Mexican.

I wonder who she voted for? /s

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-iowa-woman-ran-girl-racist-attack-67855624

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 20, 2019, 02:01:05 PM
So I'm starting to see a lot of social media posts about the impeachment, most of them from friends in Texas--generally conservative backgrounds--who are ready for Pence.

Frankly, I think Trump's too stubborn, and I think McConnell is only now fully understanding that time works against his caucus: Pelosi doesn't have to send the articles to him until she's ready, and her majority is safer than his in 2020.

Meanwhile, the House can continue with additional investigations...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 20, 2019, 02:08:28 PM
I’ve long wondered why more conservatives didn’t decide a trade for Pence would be better - more bona fide conservativism, less blasphemy, swearing, and outright corruption.

Mind you I’m not a big fan of Pence - but the GOP could get the same tax cuts and deregulation without the drama that is this reality tv show
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 20, 2019, 02:11:44 PM
I’ve long wondered why more conservatives didn’t decide a trade for Pence would be better - more bona fide conservativism, less blasphemy, swearing, and outright corruption.

Mind you I’m not a big fan of Pence - but the GOP could get the same tax cuts and deregulation without the drama that is this reality tv show

Agreed.  Pence is also way more religious than Trump ever would be . . . I don't understand why people on the right wouldn't be clamoring for him.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 20, 2019, 02:30:43 PM
Why do Republicans and media say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes FOR impeachment are from Democrats = partisan impeachment

But then forget to say this:
(Nearly) all of the votes AGAINST impeachment are from Republicans = partisan refusal to impeach

"We're not participating in a partisan process, and as long as we don't participate it's a partisan process."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on December 20, 2019, 05:41:03 PM
I think the Trump base enjoy the racist remarks, cruelty, and gladiatorial style politics, that is until it bites them in the end.
Maybe a few corn and soybean farmers are starting to wake up.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on December 20, 2019, 06:34:54 PM
Ironically it’s a bunch of left wing Democrats that are begging for Pence to be installed as the president. Think about that for a moment ...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on December 20, 2019, 07:01:36 PM
I’ve long wondered why more conservatives didn’t decide a trade for Pence would be better - more bona fide conservativism, less blasphemy, swearing, and outright corruption.

Mind you I’m not a big fan of Pence - but the GOP could get the same tax cuts and deregulation without the drama that is this reality tv show

Agreed.  Pence is also way more religious than Trump ever would be . . . I don't understand why people on the right wouldn't be clamoring for him.

That requires admitting they might have been wrong and admitting defeat. A lot of people in the world are far too stubborn to get past that.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kyle Schuant on December 20, 2019, 07:55:48 PM
That requires admitting they might have been wrong and admitting defeat. A lot of people in the world are far too stubborn to get past that.
Someone wrote a whole book on that theme.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1501175564
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 23, 2019, 07:55:46 AM
I’ve long wondered why more conservatives didn’t decide a trade for Pence would be better - more bona fide conservativism, less blasphemy, swearing, and outright corruption.

Mind you I’m not a big fan of Pence - but the GOP could get the same tax cuts and deregulation without the drama that is this reality tv show

Agreed.  Pence is also way more religious than Trump ever would be . . . I don't understand why people on the right wouldn't be clamoring for him.

I spent much of 2017 reading Breitbart. What I concluded was that Pence was viewed as too much of an establishment figure a la Paul Ryan. The truly energized base who swept Trump into power thought he was part of what they were trying to burn down.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: jinga nation on December 23, 2019, 09:50:34 AM
Trump rails against windmills: 'I never understood wind'

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/475701-trump-rails-against-windmills-i-never-understood-wind

I hate that 45 is going to shut down The Onion with such speeches.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 23, 2019, 10:23:24 AM
First Christianity Today.

Now, The National Review is calling for Trump to be removed from office.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/right-wing-publication-calls-for-trump-s-removal-from-office-KrPep9arJEqboKUPu7WieA?fbclid=IwAR3IP3ejT-Ag0o5vbBo4QBqq4xqmTUym6lNNeDgcDcjcrQ3hTspbo54L-GY
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 23, 2019, 11:10:02 AM
I worry that the NR news says more about NR than it does about Trump. The space for thoughtful conservative reflections on the issues of the day seems to be narrowing (Weekly standard closed earlier this year)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on December 23, 2019, 11:11:28 AM
I worry that the NR news says more about NR than it does about Trump. The space for thoughtful conservative reflections on the issues of the day seems to be narrowing (Weekly standard closed earlier this year)

I'd say that says a lot more about the conservative audience than it does about the NR.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: jinga nation on December 23, 2019, 11:45:46 AM
I worry that the NR news says more about NR than it does about Trump. The space for thoughtful conservative reflections on the issues of the day seems to be narrowing (Weekly standard closed earlier this year)

I'd say that says a lot more about the conservative audience than it does about the NR.

I think CT and NR are now making the case that it's OK for conservatives to openly disavow Trump and "take back the GOP".
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 23, 2019, 12:32:48 PM
As Gov. Weld (first), then Joe Walsh and Mark Sanford declared primary challengers to Trump, I donated to each of their campaigns. The reward for that was the receive all these e-mails from crazy Republicans who are entering primary campaigns for state and local offices.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 30, 2019, 08:40:18 AM
Like many of you, I tuned out everything while family was visiting last week.

Apparently, I missed the President--in a tweet--naming the whistle blower. Pretty sure that's a violation of Federal law.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 30, 2019, 08:59:55 AM
Like many of you, I tuned out everything while family was visiting last week.

Apparently, I missed the President--in a tweet--naming the whistle blower. Pretty sure that's a violation of Federal law.

Federal law doesn't apply to the president though, as he's not allowed to be arrested while in office.  The only recourse for the people to reprimand the president is impeachment.  Which already happened.  Impeachment gets it's teeth from the senate.
 Republicans controlling the senate have indicated that they won't support any form of reprimand of the president related to impeachment - no matter what happens or what evidence is brought forward.

The law therefore no longer applies to Trump.  All hail the God king.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 30, 2019, 09:40:12 AM
I worry that the NR news says more about NR than it does about Trump. The space for thoughtful conservative reflections on the issues of the day seems to be narrowing (Weekly standard closed earlier this year)

I'd say that says a lot more about the conservative audience than it does about the NR.

I had a lot of time to think about this over the break. Both the conservative and progressive movements have periods when they're in power and out of power. Seeing how they respond in each is instructive. Conservatives use times when they are in power to cut taxes. Always. Progressives had that brief window in 2009 to move the ball on health care. But now that they're out of power, they're still responsible for policing themselves for corruption and articulating unified policies.

Unfortunately, it's always wrong to conflate a movement with people in the movement, and I see many making this error.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on December 30, 2019, 09:46:30 AM
I worry that the NR news says more about NR than it does about Trump. The space for thoughtful conservative reflections on the issues of the day seems to be narrowing (Weekly standard closed earlier this year)

I'd say that says a lot more about the conservative audience than it does about the NR.

I had a lot of time to think about this over the break. Both the conservative and progressive movements have periods when they're in power and out of power. Seeing how they respond in each is instructive. Conservatives use times when they are in power to cut taxes. Always. Progressives had that brief window in 2009 to move the ball on health care. But now that they're out of power, they're still responsible for policing themselves for corruption and articulating unified policies.

Conservatives have a long history of both cutting taxes and increasing/maintaining spending while in office.  It's politically much easier to follow fiscally irresponsible policies like this . . . too few will argue that their taxes should go up for the services that they depend on.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on December 30, 2019, 11:52:02 AM
I had a co-worker tell me he was switching to the Roth IRA today. The Roth is basically a bet that future taxes will increase, a bet that has been a loser for more than a quarter century.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: scottish on December 31, 2019, 11:28:50 AM
Eventually something will need to be done about sovereign debt.   It's not clear what's going to happen, but when investors refuse to buy government bonds something will have to give.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Roland of Gilead on January 01, 2020, 09:04:28 AM
"Hours after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signaled that his country is developing a “new strategic weapon” and could soon resume testing nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, President Donald Trump appeared to shrug off the potential threat — saying at a New Year’s Eve party that Kim “likes me” and is a “man of his word.”  "

Ok guys, toss up any other candidate and I will vote for them.  I would prefer Yang but I'll take anything at this point.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 01, 2020, 03:27:27 PM
Ok guys, toss up any other candidate and I will vote for them.  I would prefer Yang but I'll take anything at this point.
(https://image-cdn.neatoshop.com/styleimg/65937/none/navy/default/369017-20;1510608074t.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 02, 2020, 05:47:37 AM
It's easy to say "functioning adult".

But when that "functioning adult" is talking about a wealth tax of 6% annually, suddenly people start asking "how conservative did you want those judges?"
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 02, 2020, 08:05:06 AM
It's easy to say "functioning adult".

But when that "functioning adult" is talking about a wealth tax of 6% annually, suddenly people start asking "how conservative did you want those judges?"

Like 0.1% of the population would be hit be a wealth tax - if it even passes through the Senate (hint: it probably won't).

Citing a hypothetical, highly unlikely wealth tax as the reason to support the worst President in modern history is extremely dumb.  But yes, people are extremely dumb, I suppose.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Sanitary Engineer on January 02, 2020, 08:15:40 AM
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/12/31/790261705/farmers-got-billions-from-taxpayers-in-2019-and-hardly-anyone-objected

I read a little of "The Dictator's Handbook" and these payments to farmers look a lot like the method of paying your essential supporters actual cash for their continued support.  Which is the method described in the book for maintaining power.  The electoral college artificially reduces the pool of essentials that need to be paid off.  From this perspective it is easier to understand why Republicans have attached themselves to Trump - Trump is buying essential supportors with cash from the Treasury.  Cash from the Treasury. 
Has he been able to get his hands on enough of it though?  Trump has been campaigning since taking office and he has used every power of the executive branch to give his essential supporters money.

Compare these numbers to Bernie's 2019 campaign contributions of 34. something million and you can see how much more power Trump holds. 

Will Trump's handouts be morally repugnant to voters in farm country, who proclaim distaste for handouts while historically taking them whenever possible, or will the cash smooth over any shame from their new found place at the top of the welfare rolls? 
Combine payments to supporters and the power of white supremacy and why wouldn't the US have a second term for therealDJT.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 02, 2020, 10:37:00 AM
Conservatives LOVE handouts, just not when they go to poors, children, minorities, or come from the Democratic Party.  Then they're bad.  I don't see Trump's bought votes as doing anything but good for him.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on January 03, 2020, 08:29:23 AM
Fuuuuuck.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-attack.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 03, 2020, 08:36:11 AM
I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on January 03, 2020, 08:46:21 AM
It's easy to say "functioning adult".

But when that "functioning adult" is talking about a wealth tax of 6% annually, suddenly people start asking "how conservative did you want those judges?"

Like 0.1% of the population would be hit be a wealth tax - if it even passes through the Senate (hint: it probably won't).

Citing a hypothetical, highly unlikely wealth tax as the reason to support the worst President in modern history is extremely dumb.  But yes, people are extremely dumb, I suppose.

This.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 03, 2020, 08:46:52 AM
Quote
“General Suleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the Pentagon said in a statement.

While I'd like to have more information about this statement before forming opinions (is this for real, or just more pentagon bullshit fabrication like Iraq's 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that the Bush administration made up?).  Have to say though . . . remotely executing foreign nationals for things that they might do . . . well, it's not a precedent that immediately warms the cockles of my heart.  If the police find out that someone talked with you about killing a co-worker, I don't feel like they should be free to murder you to prevent your potential actions.

As far as policy goes . . . meh.  The US loves war in the middle east, and Trump is desperate to draw attention away from what he's doing at home.  Seems like good foreign policy for the Republicans and a great recruitment tool for terrorists against the US.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OurTown on January 03, 2020, 08:47:01 AM
Re the assassination of the Iranian general, I'm more than a little nervous about the consequences.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 03, 2020, 08:53:39 AM
Re the assassination of the Iranian general, I'm more than a little nervous about the consequences.

Trump has been champing at the bit to start a war with Iran.  Remember in 2018 when he unilaterally broke the Iran nuclear deal that Iran had been following to the letter?  And then started illegal sanctions against Iran?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on January 03, 2020, 08:58:14 AM
Re the assassination of the Iranian general, I'm more than a little nervous about the consequences.

Trump has been champing at the bit to start a war with Iran.  Remember in 2018 when he unilaterally broke the Iran nuclear deal that Iran had been following to the letter?  And then started illegal sanctions against Iran?

Did they refuse to let him build another Trump Tower there or something?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 03, 2020, 09:08:21 AM
Trump is a yuge fan of Israel.  Israel hates Iran.  Going to war with Iran before an election will keep people talking about something other than Trump's impeachment.  Win-win.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on January 03, 2020, 09:09:40 AM
I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: sherr on January 03, 2020, 09:10:58 AM
Re the assassination of the Iranian general, I'm more than a little nervous about the consequences.

Do we really wonder what the consequences will be?

1. Trump will continue escalating until we are at full-scale war with Iran, preferably right before the next election.

2. Republicans will praise the war, excuse all of Trump's behavior in every way, and claim that Democrats "aren't patriotic" and "don't support the troops".

3. It will probably work, and Trump will probably be re-elected, just like Bush was.

4. The US will be quagmired in yet another decades-long mid-east war that is entirely funded by deficit spending, which is already at an all-time high in a time of relative peace and prosperity thanks solely to Republican fiscal irresponsibility.

5. Republicans will use their power to further their agenda:
5.a. Making voting harder for non-Republicans.
5.b. Allowing billionaires and corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to smother inconvenient facts, muddy the waters on irrefutable science, and outright buy elections.
5.c. Using the 2020 census redistricting to extreme gerrymander harder in more places in order to steal more power with a smaller percentage of the vote, now that the Republican Supreme Court has announce it is perfectly fine to do so.
5.d. Continue to "deregulate" and cut taxes for the ultra-rich to allow their donor base of billionaires to pocket more money at the expense of public health and public lands and public programs. The Billionaires then spend a small share of the money they've received to buy elections for more Republicans, which sets off another round of deregulation and tax cuts, which buys them the next election, etc.

6. America will cease to be a functioning democracy, and instead will be ruled by an ever-deceasing minority that lives in a world of "alternative facts" and open corruption, and thinks they're the good guys for doing so because "the Democrats would do it too if they were able so really both sides are the same".

This is all going exactly according to the Republican plan. Does anyone really disagree at this point?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 03, 2020, 09:16:33 AM
1 and 2 are very likely, and guarantee 4.

I'm really hoping that 3 won't go through, as it's about the only way to stop 5..
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on January 03, 2020, 10:03:24 AM
I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 03, 2020, 10:09:14 AM
I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on January 03, 2020, 10:11:15 AM
I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 03, 2020, 10:25:48 AM
I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?

Based on the last 3 years, I think I can safely say that pesky things like facts and reality do not matter to a particular segment of the US population.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Roland of Gilead on January 03, 2020, 10:29:12 AM
They will just point out that Obama killed somewhere between 350 and 800 civilians in drone attacks and use that to justify civilian deaths under Trump
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on January 03, 2020, 10:30:01 AM
I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?

Based on the last 3 years, I think I can safely say that pesky things like facts and reality do not matter to a particular segment of the US population.

After three years of Trump and right-wing media strongly insinuating that Muslims are not human... I doubt that it makes one iota of difference whether Iraqi civilians are hurt or killed. In fact, I'm guessing most Trump supporters believe all Iraqis are militant terrorists.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on January 03, 2020, 10:31:12 AM
They will just point out that Obama killed somewhere between 350 and 800 civilians in drone attacks and use that to justify civilian deaths under Trump

Yes, and this, too. Unfortunately, it was predictable when Obama chose to use drones that the decision would be used to justify other monstrosities by the right going forward.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 03, 2020, 10:38:37 AM
I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?

Based on the last 3 years, I think I can safely say that pesky things like facts and reality do not matter to a particular segment of the US population.

After three years of Trump and right-wing media strongly insinuating that Muslims are not human... I doubt that it makes one iota of difference whether Iraqi civilians are hurt or killed. In fact, I'm guessing most Trump supporters believe all Iraqis are militant terrorists.

Trump was elected after saying that he wanted to murder the families of terrorists.



They will just point out that Obama killed somewhere between 350 and 800 civilians in drone attacks and use that to justify civilian deaths under Trump

Yes, and this, too. Unfortunately, it was predictable when Obama chose to use drones that the decision would be used to justify other monstrosities by the right going forward.

It was just as wrong when Obama did it.  An awful lot of civilians were killed by US drones in his presidency.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GreenEggs on January 03, 2020, 10:55:53 AM
Maybe this is Trump's sick way of making Kim Jung Un jealous. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Sanitary Engineer on January 03, 2020, 11:01:43 AM
I might think much more highly of Trump as a strategist if he just launches a full scale assault on Iran.  If the AUMF authorizes the killing of a Iranian military commander, then it authorizes the destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, the assassination of their leadership, the dismantling of their intelligence services, and the subjugation of their people.

Clearly not the best way to make the US more secure, but it does pay off the military industrial complex, which is another way for Trump to buy essential support.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Davnasty on January 03, 2020, 11:08:24 AM
I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?

Based on the last 3 years, I think I can safely say that pesky things like facts and reality do not matter to a particular segment of the US population.

After three years of Trump and right-wing media strongly insinuating that Muslims are not human... I doubt that it makes one iota of difference whether Iraqi civilians are hurt or killed. In fact, I'm guessing most Trump supporters believe all Iraqis are militant terrorists.

Unfortunately I think this goes well beyond Trump and his supporters. I've been hearing people make comments about "wiping them all out" or "blowing the whole place up" for as long as I can remember. A recent example came from someone who hates Trump. They probably don't really mean it or even understand how many people they're talking about, but it's clear they don't view them as human lives equal in value to American's or citizen's of other first world countries.

When you consider the way the Middle East is portrayed in movies and television it's not all that surprising.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on January 03, 2020, 11:22:01 AM
Be ready for the price of gas to increase as things choke off at the straight of Hormuz.
Be ready for the majority of congress to further abdicate military responsibility to the executive.
Be ready for nobody to really be a winner in the conflict, though the US has more to lose.

Also, read the NYT article on the recent emergence of hypersonic missiles for things to get really scary as conflict is likely to increase in the future.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/opinion/hypersonic-missiles.html

So much winning!
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on January 03, 2020, 11:23:10 AM
Also starting the watch on McConnell saying we can't impeach in the middle of a conflict...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on January 03, 2020, 01:24:27 PM
The one thing I was most afraid of but had been able to bring myself to hope wouldn't happen with a Trump presidency...it looks like he's going to start a war because he can.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GreenEggs on January 03, 2020, 02:11:23 PM
The one thing I was most afraid of but had been able to bring myself to hope wouldn't happen with a Trump presidency...it looks like he's going to start a war because he can.




I don't think it's "because he can".  I think it's "because he needs it". 


This is right on schedule.  Even without the impeachment, it was on the calendar. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on January 03, 2020, 04:12:13 PM
Tweets from Donald Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/03/what-trump-has-said-about-iran-what-it-means-now/?arc404=true


Jul 3, 2012
Just as I predicted, @BarackObama is preparing a possible attack on Iran right before November.
http://nyti.ms/N5CTdm

Nov 29, 2011
In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.

Aug 16, 2012
I always said @BarackObama will attack Iran, in some form, prior to the election.

Apr 4, 2012
Remember what I said about @BarackObama attacking Iran before the election--I hope the Iranians are not so (cont)
http://tl.gd/gqa96n

Oct 22, 2012
Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!

Aug 16, 2012
@Israel could very well be close to attacking Iran. Could be this election's big October surprise...

Oct 9, 2012
Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran.  He is desperate.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 03, 2020, 04:58:32 PM
Basically, his Twitter archive before 2017—everything he accused Obama of doing or predicted that Obama would do—seems to be the game plan for his presidency.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PKFFW on January 03, 2020, 05:30:05 PM
The one thing I was most afraid of but had been able to bring myself to hope wouldn't happen with a Trump presidency...it looks like he's going to start a war because he can.




I don't think it's "because he can".  I think it's "because he needs it". 


This is right on schedule.  Even without the impeachment, it was on the calendar.
It might not be completely true and accurate but from an outsiders point of view it seems the USA really only remembers and celebrates Presidents that went to war.

Trump wants to be remembered above all else.  He knows he will be forgotten with the rest of the peace time Presidents if he doesn't start a war at some stage.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on January 03, 2020, 05:52:50 PM
The one thing I was most afraid of but had been able to bring myself to hope wouldn't happen with a Trump presidency...it looks like he's going to start a war because he can.




I don't think it's "because he can".  I think it's "because he needs it". 


This is right on schedule.  Even without the impeachment, it was on the calendar.
It might not be completely true and accurate but from an outsiders point of view it seems the USA really only remembers and celebrates Presidents that went to war.

Trump wants to be remembered above all else.  He knows he will be forgotten with the rest of the peace time Presidents if he doesn't start a war at some stage.
Well, he will be remembered for being impeached (even if not removed from office).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 03, 2020, 07:23:30 PM
Basically, his Twitter archive before 2017—everything he accused Obama of doing or predicted that Obama would do—seems to be the game plan for his presidency.

Guys . . . I think Trump is a secret Kenyan.  Where's his birth certificate?  Has anyone seen his birth certificate????
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on January 03, 2020, 08:41:47 PM
I might think much more highly of Trump as a strategist if he just launches a full scale assault on Iran.  If the AUMF authorizes the killing of a Iranian military commander, then it authorizes the destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, the assassination of their leadership, the dismantling of their intelligence services, and the subjugation of their people.

Clearly not the best way to make the US more secure, but it does pay off the military industrial complex, which is another way for Trump to buy essential support.

I don't see this getting nearly that far.  Shortly after he took office everyone was predicting war with North Korea. He made a "deal" and now our issues with them are not talked about nearly as much.  He fulfilled a campaign promise to have a trade war with China that few were really that interested in. It sounds like we're close to a "deal" that really didn't move the needle one way or the other, but he'll call it a win.  I think he'll launch a few more airstrikes and end it in a way that counts in his win column.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: scottish on January 04, 2020, 03:06:21 PM
Right... except Trump didn't assassinate General No Kwang-choi and Marshal Ri Yong-gil.

I think the ICC should issue a warrant for Trump's arrest.    At least he won't be able to travel around the world anymore.    You Americans can keep your leader at home.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on January 05, 2020, 08:01:12 AM
Gee, I was hoping he could spend his retirement years elsewhere and in relative obscurity. North Korea ought to get the job done. He and Kim can play golf or something.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 06, 2020, 06:32:55 AM
It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 06, 2020, 07:58:05 AM
Maybe they're just happy about the coming war with Iran?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: eljefe-speaks on January 06, 2020, 08:47:29 AM
Should Iran retaliate by attacking Americans, Trump will destroy 52 sites in Iran including cultural targets. Outrage of the day. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on January 06, 2020, 09:05:29 AM
Should Iran retaliate by attacking Americans, Trump will destroy 52 sites in Iran including cultural targets. Outrage of the day.

At some point we can start a new thread and call it War crime of the day...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 06, 2020, 09:47:11 AM
I cannot help but feel like arguing that something is a War Crime is not the way to persuade people in Trump's America.

Recall Trump's proposal about taking oil from countries as a fee for nation-building.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on January 06, 2020, 09:50:09 AM
I cannot help but feel like arguing that something is a War Crime is not the way to persuade people in Trump's America.

Recall Trump's proposal about taking oil from countries as a fee for nation-building.

At this point I'm not sure there's any way to argue.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on January 06, 2020, 09:50:35 AM
Maybe they're just happy about the coming war with Iran?

Surely not part of the people who will be sent to fight and die in any coming war...
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: sherr on January 06, 2020, 10:01:10 AM
I cannot help but feel like arguing that something is a War Crime is not the way to persuade people in Trump's America.

Recall Trump's proposal about taking oil from countries as a fee for nation-building.

Please. Republicans haven't pretended to care about War Crimes since before "Torture Prisoners of War" Bush.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Samuel on January 06, 2020, 10:18:43 AM
It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 06, 2020, 10:24:50 AM
...and Bolton has announced he would obey a Senate subpoena to testify.

I guess we know whether there is an imminent Senate trial now, don't we?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on January 06, 2020, 10:26:51 AM
It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on January 06, 2020, 10:42:14 AM
I do not follow the middle east political process so I can't comment politically is this good or bad.

But I thought, assassination of high ranking members of other country's government, was off the plate? The rule is to have people like that tried for any war crimes that they have committed. In this case the person was killed for supposedly planning something, not even actions actually done.

It sets a terrible precedent. We are now the "bad guys". 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on January 06, 2020, 10:43:37 AM
...and Bolton has announced he would obey a Senate subpoena to testify.

I guess we know whether there is an imminent Senate trial now, don't we?

Mitch is now thinking, "No way in hell we're going to call witnesses."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on January 06, 2020, 10:46:40 AM
It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."

Yeah, preeetttttyyy much this.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on January 06, 2020, 11:18:17 AM
It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."

Yeah, preeetttttyyy much this.
But the formula is for Trump to always do the exact opposite of Obama, so ... sadly predictable.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 06, 2020, 11:32:37 AM
It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."

It actually goes more like this:

- Suggest that Obama will start a war with Iran cover up problems and win his second term in office
- Break the US/Iran nuclear deal that Iran was following to the letter
- Impose illegal sanctions on Iran
- Assassinate Iranian military leader
- Threaten war crimes by bombing Iranian cultural sites

Taken in their entirety, it doesn't seem to be a 60/40, 40/60 question at all.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on January 06, 2020, 12:06:52 PM
It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."

It actually goes more like this:

- Suggest that Obama will start a war with Iran cover up problems and win his second term in office
- Break the US/Iran nuclear deal that Iran was following to the letter
- Impose illegal sanctions on Iran
- Assassinate Iranian military leader
- Threaten war crimes by bombing Iranian cultural sites

Taken in their entirety, it doesn't seem to be a 60/40, 40/60 question at all.

Indeed.

If anything, it seems fairly shocking that there would be many people complacent/indifferent enough to this situation to not think it something worth having an opinion on.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 06, 2020, 12:12:29 PM
Often Trump supporters are aware of that list, but see Iran's sponsor of terrorism--including proxies in both Iraq and Yemen--as more than offsetting it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 06, 2020, 01:40:42 PM
Often Trump supporters are aware of that list, but see Iran's sponsor of terrorism--including proxies in both Iraq and Yemen--as more than offsetting it.

Killing an Iranian national via terrorist act, then threatening war crimes is the best way to prevent further terrorism by Iranians in their eyes?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 06, 2020, 02:29:09 PM
I’m frequently shocked at how many people believe that the strength of the US military will somehow deter all hostile acts against Americans and their allies.

We are targets because of our foreign policies. Not in spite of it
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: JLee on January 06, 2020, 02:44:31 PM
Often Trump supporters are aware of that list, but see Iran's sponsor of terrorism--including proxies in both Iraq and Yemen--as more than offsetting it.

Killing an Iranian national via terrorist act, then threatening war crimes is the best way to prevent further terrorism by Iranians in their eyes?

Do they want to prevent further terrorism or have an excuse to blow up more brown people?

An acquaintance posted on social media a 'weather forecast' for Tehran, Iran showing Sat: Warm / 27°, Sun: Breezy / 19°, Mon: Hot (with a mushroom cloud pic), 1400°.

I asked if he was seriously joking about nuking a city with a population of 8+ million...and of course, there was no response.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on January 06, 2020, 05:09:22 PM
Defense Secretary Esper contradicted Trump's tweets about bombing cultural sites.

I'm giving him 2 weeks.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 06, 2020, 05:48:21 PM
Defense Secretary Esper contradicted Trump's tweets about bombing cultural sites.

I'm giving him 2 weeks.

Esper as Defense Secretary, or Trump before he bombs cultural sites?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 06, 2020, 06:24:12 PM
Defense Secretary Esper contradicted Trump's tweets about bombing cultural sites.

I'm giving him 2 weeks.

Esper as Defense Secretary, or Trump before he bombs cultural sites?


I'm obviously not bacchi, but probably both. The Trump White House is basically a temp agency.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on January 06, 2020, 07:12:51 PM
Defense Secretary Esper contradicted Trump's tweets about bombing cultural sites.

I'm giving him 2 weeks.

Esper as Defense Secretary, or Trump before he bombs cultural sites?


I'm obviously not bacchi, but probably both. The Trump White House is basically a temp agency.

I meant Esper but, now that you mention it, it is both. Trump will go through the ranks until some flunkie agrees with him.

Friends? We don't need friends.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 07, 2020, 06:36:47 AM
Who among us has not sent a draft of a policy statement to a foreign goverment that was hosting our military?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjl2__UzfHmAhXEnOAKHYAAAhQQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnational-security%2Fonce-a-policy-afterthought-iraq-becomes-a-problem-for-trump-administration%2F2020%2F01%2F06%2Fc986c482-30bf-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html&usg=AOvVaw1RdCU-svRrEKn6Waqcihtt (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjl2__UzfHmAhXEnOAKHYAAAhQQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnational-security%2Fonce-a-policy-afterthought-iraq-becomes-a-problem-for-trump-administration%2F2020%2F01%2F06%2Fc986c482-30bf-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html&usg=AOvVaw1RdCU-svRrEKn6Waqcihtt)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 07, 2020, 06:53:06 AM
Who among us has not sent a draft of a policy statement to a foreign goverment that was hosting our military?


So embarrassing when that happens to me!

One trend I've noticed with this administration is how ludicrous the initial explanations frequently are. Often it takes less than one news cycle/day for the supposed rationale to be complete destroyed, and then they move on as if it were never suggested.  A sure sign that they are reacting to decisions made without a lot of coordination rather than having a cohesive, coordinated plan that looks towards the future.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 07, 2020, 07:13:23 AM
Having "ludicrous" initial expectations is basically the #1 negotiating tactic according to Art of the Deal
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 07, 2020, 07:40:02 AM
Having "ludicrous" initial expectations is basically the #1 negotiating tactic according to Art of the Deal

well there's having ludicrous expectations for a negotiation, and then there's giving ludicrous explanations for what happened.  Curremtly its "there was a severe and imminent threat.... but we are unble to say what that was and our intelligence agencies are out of the loop so don't ask them"
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: rantk81 on January 07, 2020, 08:23:48 AM
I've come around to the thought that "it just doesn't matter anymore."

His supporters have blind faith. It doesn't matter what the administration does.  Absolutely nothing will change their (supporters) minds.

How do you defeat that? I don't think it's even possible.

The "I could get away with shooting someone on 5th avenue" comment was pretty on-point.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on January 07, 2020, 08:44:52 AM
Remember when GOP thought that the killing of Gaddafi was a bad idea. Those were good times.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 07, 2020, 09:04:50 AM
I've come around to the thought that "it just doesn't matter anymore."

His supporters have blind faith. It doesn't matter what the administration does.  Absolutely nothing will change their (supporters) minds.

How do you defeat that? I don't think it's even possible.

The "I could get away with shooting someone on 5th avenue" comment was pretty on-point.
IMO the best method is to win governorships and the legislatures. 2018 was an historically bad year for the GOP, and only gerrymandering and a favorable cycle helped them hold the senate while getting schelaced in the House.

‘The Basement - whether you are referring to Trump or any Dem is not enough to sustain office. Fear and voter restrictions might... for another cycle or two. But the slow trend of demographics is currently working against this version of the GOP

Politics seems entrenched when “the other guy” occupies the WH or is speaker. But it has been less than three years, and already the house is with Pelosi. Maybe the current status quo will be sustained for another three or possibly even five years. But history and current trends argue against any longer than that, and possibly only for another year. Carter wasn’t re-elected in large part to (ha) Iran. Bush Sr saw the economy go south along with his poll numbers. Trump is currently worse off than either at this point in his Presidency. Clinton was enormously popular at the end of his second term but that wasn’t enough to push Gore over the finish line. And there seems to be an immutable law that whenever one party gains a majority somewhere they overstep and lose favor with many voters. Which brings us back to: the base is never enough.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 08, 2020, 11:43:04 AM
So much winning. From The NY Times: American Consumers, Not China, Are Paying for Trump’s Tariffs (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/business/economy/trade-war-tariffs.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage)

Quote
“U.S. tariffs continue to be almost entirely borne by U.S. firms and consumers,” Mary Amiti, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, wrote in a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. The other authors of the paper were David E. Weinstein of Columbia University and Stephen J. Redding of Princeton.

Examining the fallout of tariffs in data through October, the authors found that Americans had continued paying for the levies — which increased substantially over the course of the year. Their paper, which is an update on previous research, found that “approximately 100 percent” of import taxes fell on American buyers.

Quote
The United States and China have reached a trade truce and are expected to sign an initial deal this month, but tariffs on $360 billion worth of Chinese goods will remain in place.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 08, 2020, 12:05:52 PM
Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 08, 2020, 12:14:43 PM
Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).

You would have to be pretty stupid to not understand this.  The kind of stupid who would think that Mexico would pay for the US to build a border wall.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 08, 2020, 12:21:39 PM
Maybe we can reframe Warren's 'Wealth Tax' as a tariff on health-income individuals that Iran will pay for?

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 08, 2020, 12:30:56 PM
Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).

You would have to be pretty stupid to not understand this.  The kind of stupid who would think that Mexico would pay for the US to build a border wall.

^^^ This.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 08, 2020, 01:01:28 PM
Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).

You would have to be pretty stupid to not understand this.  The kind of stupid who would think that Mexico would pay for the US to build a border wall.

It's not that a lot of Republicans suddenly think trade barriers are good. It's that they believe the tariffs are a short-term way to make China feel pain and bring them to the negotiating table.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on January 08, 2020, 01:14:37 PM
Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).

You would have to be pretty stupid to not understand this.  The kind of stupid who would think that Mexico would pay for the US to build a border wall.

It's not that a lot of Republicans suddenly think trade barriers are good. It's that they believe the tariffs are a short-term way to make China feel pain and bring them to the negotiating table.

Sure but to negotiate what? The a trade negotiation that we basically already had? That would be very Trumpian, so I guess that's the goal. Call Obama deals dumb, throw whatever goodwill you have, burn it down until country is ready to finally talk, make basically same deal as Obama/worse.

If we wanted to sanction China for the treatment of the Uighurs, I could see that as reasonable.But if the US doesn't like China's trade, there's 3 dozen other countries in Asia (and the EU, South America, Australia) we can do that business with.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: DaMa on January 08, 2020, 04:51:05 PM
My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: MasterStache on January 08, 2020, 06:04:00 PM
So it looks like The Trump Administration briefed a bunch of Republican Senators on Iran, basically telling them not to support the Kaine proposal. The result is they managed to convince two Republican Senators, Mike Lee and Rand Paul to support the proposal. Apparently they didn't appreciate being treated like children. Who would have thunk it, Trump despises anything that curbs/checks his dictator powers.   
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: ysette9 on January 08, 2020, 09:06:51 PM
My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.
I work in consumer electronics and our products are impacted by tariffs. So, the supply chain is shifting to lower-cost Asian countries like Vietnam and Thailand. This was probably going to happen anyway as China gets richer, but this really pushed the timeline up.

For those who thought the tariffs were a good idea, how were the businesses supposed to react to them? Did anyone think the work would move to the US?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 08, 2020, 09:10:35 PM
My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.
I work in consumer electronics and our products are impacted by tariffs. So, the supply chain is shifting to lower-cost Asian countries like Vietnam and Thailand. This was probably going to happen anyway as China gets richer, but this really pushed the timeline up.

For those who thought the tariffs were a good idea, how were the businesses supposed to react to them? Did anyone think the work would move to the US?

From the Trump fans in my acquaintance, either they thought the tariffs would mean more US jobs, or that we were really sticking it to China. The reasoning is about as logical as the decision-making process that led to the tariffs.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: ysette9 on January 08, 2020, 10:13:01 PM
I know no one here is arguing otherwise, but I thought I should reiterate for the record that the jobs I saw in China are not ones that Americans are likely to choose to do. Heck, they can’t keep Chinese workers on the line for more than a year at a time.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2020, 06:21:29 AM
They aren’t jobs Americans want and, more importantly, these jobs can’t exist in the US as they do elsewhere.  Employee safety (ie OSHA), labor standards, pay, etc are more favorable to the worker in the US. Many here work a “nine to five”. In China there is the 9-9-6 (9am to 9pm, six days per week). That’s a 72 hour work week, without overtime. These jobs cannot legally be done in the US without fundamentally changing how they are done. Which will raise the labor costs considerably for all.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2020, 07:05:42 AM
I’m still trying to process these latest events with Iran

What everyone agrees on is that, on trumps orders, we used a drone strike assasinate an Iranian general. Trump then threatened to use military stiles should Iran retaliate

The next day Iran launches. Over a dozen missiles at two bases in Iraq. Early warning systems and likely Iran resulted in no casualties, yet some infrastructure destroyed. Trump then seemed satisfied despite his (hours earlier) threats

What just happened?  Did Iran manufacture a peaceful way out for all, despite trump? Did Trump come to realize with these strikes that Iran could in fact hit U.S. targets with procession and with little advanced planning? Why strike those bases - was this truly just a way of saving face or was there some greater strategic importance of those targets? Are we close or further away from more armed conflict with Iran now than we were a week ago? Does this administration actively want a war or do they want to avoid a war, even if it means surrendering bases and getting kicked out of countries?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 09, 2020, 07:09:24 AM
My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

This is not correct. The American Manufacturing sector produces a lot of stuff, and more stuff than it did during the 1990's. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS)

What the American Manufacturing sector is not doing is employing very many workers.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 09, 2020, 07:13:07 AM
I’m still trying to process these latest events with Iran

What everyone agrees on is that, on trumps orders, we used a drone strike assasinate an Iranian general. Trump then threatened to use military stiles should Iran retaliate

The next day Iran launches. Over a dozen missiles at two bases in Iraq. Early warning systems and likely Iran resulted in no casualties, yet some infrastructure destroyed. Trump then seemed satisfied despite his (hours earlier) threats

What just happened?  Did Iran manufacture a peaceful way out for all, despite trump? Did Trump come to realize with these strikes that Iran could in fact hit U.S. targets with procession and with little advanced planning? Why strike those bases - was this truly just a way of saving face or was there some greater strategic importance of those targets? Are we close or further away from more armed conflict with Iran now than we were a week ago? Does this administration actively want a war or do they want to avoid a war, even if it means surrendering bases and getting kicked out of countries?

A full accounting of this episode can only be done once we know what will be the posture of US forces within Iraq. Will there be more than before or fewer?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 09, 2020, 08:36:52 AM
I’m still trying to process these latest events with Iran

What everyone agrees on is that, on trumps orders, we used a drone strike assasinate an Iranian general. Trump then threatened to use military stiles should Iran retaliate

The next day Iran launches. Over a dozen missiles at two bases in Iraq. Early warning systems and likely Iran resulted in no casualties, yet some infrastructure destroyed. Trump then seemed satisfied despite his (hours earlier) threats

What just happened?  Did Iran manufacture a peaceful way out for all, despite trump? Did Trump come to realize with these strikes that Iran could in fact hit U.S. targets with procession and with little advanced planning? Why strike those bases - was this truly just a way of saving face or was there some greater strategic importance of those targets? Are we close or further away from more armed conflict with Iran now than we were a week ago? Does this administration actively want a war or do they want to avoid a war, even if it means surrendering bases and getting kicked out of countries?

Trump put Iran in a difficult spot.  They couldn't do nothing . . . because if they did it was tacit acknowledgement that they're OK with assassinations of their countrymen by the President at whim.  But they couldn't directly attack US personnel, because that would certainly result in a war that they don't want and would lose.  I think they did the only thing they could . . . which is token destruction of US stuff but not people.  This way they have loudly registered their disapproval of Trump's action, but given the president a chance to back down from the escalation he created.

Iran was pretty politically fractured before.  There was a large contingent of people who were arguing for peace with the US and an end to hostilities.  They were the group who were pushing for the nuclear arms deal that Obama signed.  Trump's actions have silenced them for now and into the foreseeable future, and united Iran in hatred of America.  He has ensured that the anti-US voices are loudest in the country, which makes it certain that Iran will actively work against US interests at every future opportunity.  Unless Trump attacks Iran (again), I suspect that you will probably hear little of the country until the 2020 elections . . . which is all this administration cares about.

Iran was helping them fight and control ISIS . . . who were brought to power by the US deposing Saddam and then leaving the area.  Sulmani was leading this effort.  If the US pulls out of the area again, I suspect that we'll see ISIS rise up.  Nobody seems particularly interested in stepping up to fix this US made problem, given the way the US has systematically alienated all it's allies.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 09, 2020, 08:39:43 AM
Oh, I think we will continue to hear plenty about Iran.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Just Joe on January 09, 2020, 09:03:49 AM
I'm actually quite impressed that Iran managed to miss all the personnel on the bases in Iraq and I do think it was on purpose so to save face as Nereo detailed.

I could even imagine some back channel discussion allowing both sides to cooperate and save face.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2020, 09:09:17 AM
I'm actually quite impressed that Iran managed to miss all the personnel on the bases in Iraq and I do think it was on purpose so to save face as Nereo detailed.

I could even imagine some back channel discussion allowing both sides to cooperate and save face.


Scuttlebutt is, that's largely what happened.  The US got advanced warning of which bases were being targeted by the Iraqi's, who in turn were told by the Iranians.  Base forces had 1-2 hours to move personnel elsewhere - enough time to save lives and portable equipment but not enough to do much else.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on January 09, 2020, 09:20:33 AM
I'm actually quite impressed that Iran managed to miss all the personnel on the bases in Iraq and I do think it was on purpose so to save face as Nereo detailed.

I could even imagine some back channel discussion allowing both sides to cooperate and save face.


Scuttlebutt is, that's largely what happened.  The US got advanced warning of which bases were being targeted by the Iraqi's, who in turn were told by the Iranians.  Base forces had 1-2 hours to move personnel elsewhere - enough time to save lives and portable equipment but not enough to do much else.

Interesting.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2020, 09:30:33 AM
I'm actually quite impressed that Iran managed to miss all the personnel on the bases in Iraq and I do think it was on purpose so to save face as Nereo detailed.

I could even imagine some back channel discussion allowing both sides to cooperate and save face.


Scuttlebutt is, that's largely what happened.  The US got advanced warning of which bases were being targeted by the Iraqi's, who in turn were told by the Iranians.  Base forces had 1-2 hours to move personnel elsewhere - enough time to save lives and portable equipment but not enough to do much else.

Interesting.
For context:
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/477284-us-had-advance-warning-of-iranian-missile-assault-report (https://thehill.com/policy/defense/477284-us-had-advance-warning-of-iranian-missile-assault-report)

"...an Iranian verbal warning of the incoming strikes tipped off Iraqi officials, who informed U.S. commanders that the Iranian attack was underway"

The advanced missile warning system would have given troops about 15-20 minutes once they were launched given the distance (under 100 miles), but it's becoming plainly evident that we had "hours" of advanced notification.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 09, 2020, 09:36:49 AM
It's a good thing the Iranians are responsible and don't want war.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: caracarn on January 09, 2020, 09:47:20 AM
It's a good thing the Iranians are responsible and don't want war.
Yes, who would have thought a few years ago that if I had to pick the President of the United States of the leader of Iran to be the responsible one.  I wonder if this equation also will be proven to work with North Korea?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2020, 09:47:43 AM
It's a good thing the Iranians are responsible and don't want war.

Exactly.

When news came of Suleimani's assassination, I turned to my husband and said:

"And now, whether this descends into chaos depends on other world leaders, in particular Iran's, being more responsible and measured than Trump."

How fun for us that now it's our leader who's the unpredictable nutbag in the mix.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 09, 2020, 10:19:36 AM
From BBC News: Iran 'mistakenly shot down Ukraine jet' - US media (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51055219?ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_mchannel=social&ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1ymN5KChq-OH_ur3tEXQ1EHMo0-KLAFQg5kwkolhUqJn03QSICHZPzliE&fbclid=IwAR2heqbU6Egknc8VKATcVYIi2eGcrlJUiFyxG34Y_Fbkk-QuiMlZbdPbvsY&fbclid=IwAR3ftBdQXGQVPmWMAYSD9fp7JRoVBeVQBGb3FDpU2wcSSHgghZjVdk9-xPc&fbclid=IwAR04mO2fH2Vr-ylAsA-xF1aXnr_B4FutGooGwxa8FxdRT3TjlTBmjLa76eE)

Apparently CBS is claiming this. It seems incredibly irresponsible without further substantiation.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bluebelle on January 09, 2020, 12:05:43 PM
I guess I'm doing something wrong.....I didn't get a 90% return    :-)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2020, 12:14:48 PM
Is that satire?
What the heck is a 409k?

How does it compare to my 403b?
:-P
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bluebelle on January 09, 2020, 12:17:38 PM
Is that satire?
What the heck is a 409k?

How does it compare to my 403b?
:-P
given his past tweets, unfortunately, it isn't satire.....perhaps he hadn't had his covfefe when he tweeted it....and I guess 409Ks get 90% returns and lowly 401Ks get 10%....dunno
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 09, 2020, 12:25:43 PM
If you got the match, you already had a 50% return. That 50% returned 31% in the market over 2019, so...81%, which is rounded up to 90%.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 09, 2020, 02:27:50 PM
Maybe he thinks Mexico is supposed to pay for your 90% return.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Fireball on January 09, 2020, 10:20:36 PM
My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

This is not correct. The American Manufacturing sector produces a lot of stuff, and more stuff than it did during the 1990's. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS)

What the American Manufacturing sector is not doing is employing very many workers.

I read something once that said US manufacturing output is roughly 3x what it was in the 80s, and they employ 50% as many people to do it. In the words of someone wiser than I, "those jobs aren't coming back".
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on January 10, 2020, 01:47:23 AM
My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

This is not correct. The American Manufacturing sector produces a lot of stuff, and more stuff than it did during the 1990's. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS)

What the American Manufacturing sector is not doing is employing very many workers.

I read something once that said US manufacturing output is roughly 3x what it was in the 80s, and they employ 50% as many people to do it. In the words of someone wiser than I, "those jobs aren't coming back".
Agreed.  There's an industry near me (unnamed for anonymity purposes) which produces exactly the same amount of product as 100 years ago with 5% of the workers.  It's called productivity and it's what has made us all richer and more comfortable than our great grandparents.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 10, 2020, 06:20:12 AM
My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

This is not correct. The American Manufacturing sector produces a lot of stuff, and more stuff than it did during the 1990's. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS)

What the American Manufacturing sector is not doing is employing very many workers.

I read something once that said US manufacturing output is roughly 3x what it was in the 80s, and they employ 50% as many people to do it. In the words of someone wiser than I, "those jobs aren't coming back".
Agreed.  There's an industry near me (unnamed for anonymity purposes) which produces exactly the same amount of product as 100 years ago with 5% of the workers.  It's called productivity and it's what has made us all richer and more comfortable than our great grandparents.

Coal is a good example of this.  Annual coal production (i.e. tons of coal mined) has increased pretty steadily over the past 150 years until the most recent decade, while the number of coal workers has plummeted since the 1970s.  In 1978  the US mined 670 million short tons of coal with 190,000 workers.  In 2008 (30 years later) coal hit a high-water mark of 1,172 million short tons, but with fewer than 80,000 workers.

In other words, there was more than a 2x increase in coal production with fewer than half the number of workers.  On a per-worker basis coal mining is >4x as productive as during the 1970s, even as the easiest deposits to mine have been depleted.

Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: LennStar on January 10, 2020, 10:23:18 AM
Should Iran retaliate by attacking Americans, Trump will destroy 52 sites in Iran including cultural targets. Outrage of the day.

At some point we can start a new thread and call it War crime of the day...

Reminds me that the first time I heard about the Taliban (so long ago, still in school) was I think half a year before they attacked the towers. At this time they blew up some very old stone buddhas.

My thought at this was: Oh dear, there will be lots of trouble with those guys!
Because if your religion has gotten as bad as destroying world famous cultural objects just because a different religion made them, it means you are officially total nuts.

Well, no news on Trump here, but I still wanted to mention that. There are some things you just can't even think about doing if you are not completely irresonsible and, to talk jiddisch, meschuggo, and this includes destroying cultural sites.

Quote
Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not.
Well, I won't wager if it was a good idea or not (very likely a very bod one though), but speaking legally, Trump ordered the murder of a high state official on the (civilan) soil of a 3rd country.

It is not murder because he is the president. On the other hand that means that this is basically a decleration of war to two countries at once.

Quote
It sets a terrible precedent. We are now the "bad guys". 
Sorry to say that, but that train has departed at least half a century ago for most parts of the world.

On the airplane: I would be surprised if it was not an accidental shot down. And looking at the hesitance around the black boxes, I don't think I will be surprised - if the truth will actually be spoken.   
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 10, 2020, 10:57:45 AM
What struck me immediately was that Pompeo began his news conference by saying “East we did was 100% legal” ... before anyone had even voiced that concern

When your starting point is the legality - rather than the correctness - of an action, people should be skeptical about whether this was a good idea
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 10, 2020, 11:43:32 AM
By the way, this is pretty much the case with nearly all of Trump's actions.

Firing Comey, citizenship question, withdrawing troops from Syria, …

It's always that he has that power, never whether it's a smart judgement to use that.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on January 10, 2020, 12:21:37 PM
Quote
WASHINGTON (AP) - Devin Nunes (R-CA) announces his intention to introduce legislation changing 26 US Code § 401 to § 409, simultaneously moving the current § 409 to § 401. The congressman from California explained, "The founding fathers had always intended for the section of the US code pertaining to qualified retirement plans to fall under subset 409, and I support President Trump and his administration's efforts to rectify this problem that the Democrat party has ignored for years."
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: former player on January 10, 2020, 12:30:14 PM
Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize  (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 10, 2020, 12:58:54 PM
I've often thought that Obama--if he could have somehow found the ability--would have gone back and arranged for that Nobel Peace Prize to go to someone else. Being a President meant wealth was assured already, and his political opponents could simply hit him with that prize and the fact he didn't deserve it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 10, 2020, 12:59:42 PM
Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize  (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149)

Of course he does. The blind arrogance, it burns.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 10, 2020, 01:03:44 PM
Honestly, if the Nobel committee saw fit to award the NPP to Trump, I'd be fine with it. The prestige of their prize is theirs to manage.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Kris on January 10, 2020, 01:08:11 PM
I've often thought that Obama--if he could have somehow found the ability--would have gone back and arranged for that Nobel Peace Prize to go to someone else. Being a President meant wealth was assured already, and his political opponents could simply hit him with that prize and the fact he didn't deserve it.

I agree. He clearly didn't deserve it, and he said that he didn't feel he deserved it in his remarks in response to receiving it.

It always makes me snicker when people on the right freak out about his NPP, as though it was something bad that he did, when in fact he had no control over it at all. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 10, 2020, 01:28:45 PM
It's almost like people will choose any angle they can to attack a President, simply because they've already concluded they don't like the fact that he's the President.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bluebelle on January 10, 2020, 01:49:10 PM
Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize  (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 10, 2020, 02:15:32 PM
I’ve never really understood the rationale which seems to be: “Obama didn’t deserve to be a Peace Prize recipient, Therefore Trump should definitely get one as well
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 10, 2020, 02:29:27 PM
I’ve never really understood the rationale which seems to be: “Obama didn’t deserve to be a Peace Prize, Therefore Trump should definitely get one

Maybe Mexico will pay for it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Bloop Bloop on January 10, 2020, 03:17:16 PM
Trump tweets about attacking 52 Iranian cultural sites (despite this being a violation of the rules of war) and gets away with it.

An academic tweets about Iran attacking 52 American cultural sites and gets pillaged.

Americans aren't very good at taking their own medicine - I guess thinking that you the "the chosen one" must make you think like that. You have to understand that if you keep blowing up other countries, sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on January 10, 2020, 09:26:09 PM
Not a Trump outrage, but a heartbreaking consequence of military escalation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/world/middleeast/missile-iran-plane-crash.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 11, 2020, 06:06:45 AM
Not a Trump outrage, but a heartbreaking consequence of military escalation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/world/middleeast/missile-iran-plane-crash.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I feel the US is at least partially responsible for the downed airliner.  We assassinated an Iranian General, putting their country on high alert. Then Trump threatened to bomb 52 culturally sensitive sites.  Every radar contact was viewed as another possible attack.  People got jumpy. A bunch of innocent people died.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: partgypsy on January 11, 2020, 06:42:58 AM
Not a Trump outrage, but a heartbreaking consequence of military escalation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/world/middleeast/missile-iran-plane-crash.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I feel the US is at least partially responsible for the downed airliner.  We assassinated an Iranian General, putting their country on high alert. Then Trump threatened to bomb 52 culturally sensitive sites.  Every radar contact was viewed as another possible attack.  People got jumpy. A bunch of innocent people died.
. It really is a terrible tragedy. The US should bear some blame. It feels like things have de escalated somewhat, given that the Pentagon did not back up trump anf said no, we will not be bombing important and cultural sites of Iran. Still, anything is possible with 45 in office given that it's before the election. Trump is the ultimate grifter.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Roland of Gilead on January 11, 2020, 07:23:59 AM
I don't feel the USA is responsible.

When we invaded Pakistan to kill Osama, we were actually sending troops into a nuclear armed country to target and kill a person.  That could easily have triggered events such as this plane being shot down, but luckily it didn't.

Trump has plenty of outrages without having to put this one at his feet.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 11, 2020, 07:34:43 AM
Agreed.  Trump isn't responsible for the plane being shot down.  That's on Iran.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 11, 2020, 07:49:55 AM
Am I reading this correctly? Iraq’s parliament and prime minister have requested that the US withdraw, and the US is refusing to do so unless Iraq pays up, as per Trump (Reuters article).Washington spurns Iraqi call to remove troops (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security/washington-spurns-iraqi-call-to-remove-troops-idUSKBN1Z80P5)

I guess since he’ll almost certainly get away with extortion in Ukraine, why not try it again?

Quote
Abdul Mahdi asked Pompeo to “send delegates to put in place the tools to carry out the parliament’s decision,” his office said in a statement, adding that the forces used in the killing had entered Iraq or used its airspace without permission.

The State Department said any U.S. delegation would not discuss the withdrawal of U.S. troops as their presence in Iraq was “appropriate.”

- - -
Trump said in the Fox News interview that if Iraq wanted the United States to leave, he would tell them: “You have to pay us for the money we put in.”

He said the United States has $35 billion of Iraq’s money “sitting in an account.”

“I think they’ll agree to pay. Otherwise we’ll stay there,” Trump said.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 11, 2020, 10:31:03 AM
Psst.  Hey buddy.  Remember how we came into your country, blew everything up, threw out your leader, destroyed your police force and military, used your country as a jailhouse to illegally rape, torture, and murder middle easterners, allowed you to have democratic elections with only US approved candidates, then fucked off to let ISIS take over?  Bill's coming due!  Don't want to pay it?  I'd hate to have to break some of your fingers cultural sites . . .
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: LennStar on January 12, 2020, 05:06:49 AM
Agreed.  Trump isn't responsible for the plane being shot down.  That's on Iran.

But it would not have happened without the US attack. So yes, part of it goes to the US.


Quote
When we invaded Pakistan to kill Osama, we were actually sending troops into a nuclear armed country to target and kill a person.  That could easily have triggered events such as this plane being shot down, but luckily it didn't.
The difference is, of course, that Pakistan knew about it and it wasn't one of them that was targeted, but someone they wanted to get rid off too (to a certain amount, not high enough to get into a war with Al Queda)

Quote
Am I reading this correctly? Iraq’s parliament and prime minister have requested that the US withdraw, and the US is refusing to do so unless Iraq pays up, as per Trump (Reuters article).Washington spurns Iraqi call to remove troops
Or in other words illegal occupation, worse than Putin's of the Cremea?
Who cares?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on January 12, 2020, 04:47:36 PM
Agreed.  Trump isn't responsible for the plane being shot down.  That's on Iran.

But it would not have happened without the US attack. So yes, part of it goes to the US.


They shot down a passenger plane taking off from their own capital city airport. Just because we did something to make them nervous doesn't excuse incompetence like that.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 13, 2020, 07:36:27 AM
What's going on with this "First Snow in Washington" tweet?

Did it actually snow there?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Omy on January 13, 2020, 07:57:26 AM
What's going on with this "First Snow in Washington" tweet?

Did it actually snow there?

No. It was almost 70 degrees. It's either gaslighting or incompetence.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on January 13, 2020, 08:05:28 AM
I'm in Washington State and today is the first snow I've seen for the season.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 13, 2020, 08:18:44 AM
Clearly he must have meant Washington State, whose state-house looks almost exactly like the White House that is in the picture accompanying the tweet.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2020, 08:38:56 AM
Clearly he must have meant Washington State, whose state-house looks almost exactly like the White House that is in the picture accompanying the tweet.
So is it the WH or the state-house of Washington State in the photo? 

Seems like another lame and unimportant distraction, TBH.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 13, 2020, 08:58:20 AM
Clearly he must have meant Washington State, whose state-house looks almost exactly like the White House that is in the picture accompanying the tweet.
So is it the WH or the state-house of Washington State in the photo? 

Seems like another lame and unimportant distraction, TBH.

It's important to show everyone that climate change is a lie every time it snows somewhere in the world.  Otherwise people might get lured into believing facts and science.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 13, 2020, 09:47:03 AM
Clearly he must have meant Washington State, whose state-house looks almost exactly like the White House that is in the picture accompanying the tweet.
So is it the WH or the state-house of Washington State in the photo? 

Seems like another lame and unimportant distraction, TBH.

I have to own up that I went to Bing and looked for pictures of the Washington State Assembly house and this is not accurate.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: LennStar on January 13, 2020, 11:11:20 AM

They shot down a passenger plane taking off from their own capital city airport. Just because we did something to make them nervous doesn't excuse incompetence like that.

I sincerely hope you never work on anything that is even loosely connected to risk assessing and mitigation.

btw. the US kills hundreds if not thousands of civilians every year in Afghanistan alone. And by US I mean per drone strike remote controlled by soldiers 10000km away who have no reason at all to fear that a missile will kill them in less than a minute if they don't shoot back now.

Human Error? Certainly. Incompetence? Maybe. Something to be seen as a possibility? Definitely.

@Topic:

WOW! Snow in January! Certainly proof that there is no climate change!

Why didn't he twittered "Christmas. Still no snow as we used to have when I was a boy. Shame on you Coal Industry! Shame on you Obama that you didn't stop this!"
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Travis on January 14, 2020, 02:24:49 AM

They shot down a passenger plane taking off from their own capital city airport. Just because we did something to make them nervous doesn't excuse incompetence like that.

I sincerely hope you never work on anything that is even loosely connected to risk assessing and mitigation.

btw. the US kills hundreds if not thousands of civilians every year in Afghanistan alone. And by US I mean per drone strike remote controlled by soldiers 10000km away who have no reason at all to fear that a missile will kill them in less than a minute if they don't shoot back now.

Human Error? Certainly. Incompetence? Maybe. Something to be seen as a possibility? Definitely.

I deal in risk management all the time.  What does that have to do with this?  I also handle firearms on a daily basis.  If I were to walk outside and accidentally shoot my kid because I was upset that somebody else was throwing rocks at my house, I don't get to assign partial blame to anybody. It was my gun in my hands.

By the way, the Iranian people are holding their government solely responsible for the shoot down.  The Iranian president announced arrests of military personnel and didn't mention the US or President Trump.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 14, 2020, 05:53:01 AM

They shot down a passenger plane taking off from their own capital city airport. Just because we did something to make them nervous doesn't excuse incompetence like that.

I sincerely hope you never work on anything that is even loosely connected to risk assessing and mitigation.

btw. the US kills hundreds if not thousands of civilians every year in Afghanistan alone. And by US I mean per drone strike remote controlled by soldiers 10000km away who have no reason at all to fear that a missile will kill them in less than a minute if they don't shoot back now.

Human Error? Certainly. Incompetence? Maybe. Something to be seen as a possibility? Definitely.

I deal in risk management all the time.  What does that have to do with this?  I also handle firearms on a daily basis.  If I were to walk outside and accidentally shoot my kid because I was upset that somebody else was throwing rocks at my house, I don't get to assign partial blame to anybody. It was my gun in my hands.


What you are describing is the legal definition of duress, which is frequently evoked as a mitigating circumstances for violent crimes. 
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: megaschnauzer on January 14, 2020, 07:05:38 AM
anyone else find it weird that a government is taking responsibility for something they did wrong? almost like they were mature adults.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 14, 2020, 07:53:33 AM
anyone else find it weird that a government is taking responsibility for something they did wrong? almost like they were mature adults.

Yes. For comparison, the White House on Trump’s tweeting of a bigoted, Photoshopped meme of Sen. Schumer and Rep. Pelosi:

Quote
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham defended Trump’s retweet of the image, telling Fox News on Monday that the tweet was intended to show Democrats "have been parroting Iranian talking points, and almost taking the side of terrorists and those who were out to kill the Americans."

Source: Muslim groups denounce Trump retweet of fake Pelosi-Schumer photo (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/muslim-groups-denounce-trump-retweet-fake-pelosi-schumer-photo-n1114821)
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Glenstache on January 14, 2020, 08:42:45 AM
anyone else find it weird that a government is taking responsibility for something they did wrong? almost like they were mature adults.

Yes. For comparison, the White House on Trump’s tweeting of a bigoted, Photoshopped meme of Sen. Schumer and Rep. Pelosi:

Quote
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham defended Trump’s retweet of the image, telling Fox News on Monday that the tweet was intended to show Democrats "have been parroting Iranian talking points, and almost taking the side of terrorists and those who were out to kill the Americans."

Source: Muslim groups denounce Trump retweet of fake Pelosi-Schumer photo (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/muslim-groups-denounce-trump-retweet-fake-pelosi-schumer-photo-n1114821)

They really did a nice job of doubling down there.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 14, 2020, 08:48:40 AM
Worth noting that the Iranian people are not the same as the Iranian regime.  Unlike in democracies and republics where the populace elects their leaders, Iran is a totalitarian state.

Regardless, I see a lot of people equating civilians to terrorists based solely on their nationality.  Given that the US struck first, what would that make us?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: GuitarStv on January 14, 2020, 09:06:26 AM
Worth noting that the Iranian people are not the same as the Iranian regime.  Unlike in democracies and republics where the populace elects their leaders, Iran is a totalitarian state.

Regardless, I see a lot of people equating civilians to terrorists based solely on their nationality.  Given that the US struck first, what would that make us?

The US has a long history of terrorist acts.  So far, all signs point to this being yet another one.

To put it another way . . . imagine if Iran used a drone strike to kill George W Bush (guilty of war crimes related to the actions taken place under his time in power at Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay) and five other people with him in Texas.  Would anyone in the US see this as a fair and legal killing of a known criminal, responsible for many civilian deaths and the planned torture of civilians?
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 14, 2020, 09:10:26 AM
@GuitarStv your hypothetical occurs in Texas, but Suleimani was killed in Iraq at a time when US forces were legally operating there.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: Psychstache on January 14, 2020, 09:11:37 AM
Worth noting that the Iranian people are not the same as the Iranian regime.  Unlike in democracies and republics where the populace elects their leaders, Iran is a totalitarian state.

Regardless, I see a lot of people equating civilians to terrorists based solely on their nationality.  Given that the US struck first, what would that make us?

The US has a long history of terrorist acts.  So far, all signs point to this being yet another one.

To put it another way . . . imagine if Iran used a drone strike to kill George W Bush (guilty of war crimes related to the actions taken place under his time in power at Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay) and five other people with him in Texas.  Would anyone in the US see this as a fair and legal killing of a known criminal, responsible for many civilian deaths and the planned torture of civilians?

I think Donald Rumsfeld might be the more analogous example, but the point stands.

Edit: @talltexan then make it Rumsfeld doing a speaking engagement in Venezuela.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on January 14, 2020, 12:20:35 PM
What effect does Roberts have on the proceedings? He's faced with history watching the SC more so than any of the Congresslings.

It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts is quite concerned about the Supreme Court's institutional reputation so I think  he will  exert his authority to its maximum in the interest of conducting  a trial  that  is  scrupulously fair congressional politics notwithstanding.

 The New York Times 1/14/20

“This [impeachment trial] in particular is so poisonous,” Professor Bowman said, “that he’s   going to be concerned that any perception of partiality to either side will potentially damage the institutional legitimacy of the court.”
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on January 14, 2020, 12:32:45 PM
What effect does Roberts have on the proceedings? He's faced with history watching the SC more so than any of the Congresslings.

It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts is quite concerned about the Supreme Court's institutional reputation so I think  he will  exert his authority to its maximum in the interest of conducting  a trial  that  is  scrupulously fair congressional politics notwithstanding.

The New York Times 1/14/20

“This [impeachment trial] in particular is so poisonous,” Professor Bowman said, “that he’s going to be concerned that any perception of partiality to either side will potentially damage the institutional legitimacy of the court.”
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 14, 2020, 12:32:59 PM
What effect does Roberts have on the proceedings? He's faced with history watching the SC more so than any of the Congresslings.

It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts is quite concerned about the Supreme Court's institutional reputation so I think  he will  exert his authority to its maximum in the interest of conducting  a trial  that  is  scrupulously fair congressional politics notwithstanding.
As Chief Justice Reinquest found out during Clinton’s impeachment trial, while the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial, the senate (i.e. McConnell) control everything. Roberts will have very little power, and cannot determine what evidence or witnesses are presented, how they are presented, who gets to question them or for how long.
 The New York Times 1/14/20

“This [impeachment trial] in particular is so poisonous,” Professor Bowman said, “that he’s (Chief Justice Roberts)  going to be concerned that any perception of partiality to either side will potentially damage the institutional legitimacy of the court.”
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on January 14, 2020, 01:20:34 PM
What effect does Roberts have on the proceedings? He's faced with history watching the SC more so than any of the Congresslings.

It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts is quite concerned about the Supreme Court's institutional reputation so I think  he will  exert his authority to its maximum in the interest of conducting  a trial  that  is  scrupulously fair congressional politics notwithstanding.
As Chief Justice Reinquest found out during Clinton’s impeachment trial, while the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial, the senate (i.e. McConnell) control everything. Roberts will have very little power, and cannot determine what evidence or witnesses are presented, how they are presented, who gets to question them or for how long.
 The New York Times 1/14/20

“This [impeachment trial] in particular is so poisonous,” Professor Bowman said, “that he’s  going to be concerned that any perception of partiality to either side will potentially damage the institutional legitimacy of the court.”


 C.J. Rehnquest's book was published in 1992 so he was supremely (awful pun) prepared to preside at Clinton's  trial by the Senate.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: six-car-habit on January 16, 2020, 02:42:24 AM
 A few months ago - In one of the other off topic posts, i had put in a thought about Lev Parnas , Igor Fruman , and their business dealings with Guiliani, through the company called "Fraud Guarantee" -  .

  I just wanted to say, thanks Lev Parnas, for your previous offer of disclosing info, and now the judge's ruling making your records available to the House commitees today !!
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 16, 2020, 07:08:27 AM
The Lev Parnas records do indeed look bad for Trump.

But we already see Susan Collins ("It wasn't part of the evidence delivered by the House") workshopping a way to message her "do not remove" vote despite it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 16, 2020, 08:55:34 AM
SO much winning. As of this morning, from PBS:

White House violated law in freezing Ukraine aid, watchdog says (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white-house-violated-law-in-freezing-ukraine-aid-watchdog-says)

Quote
The Government Accountability Office says the White House Office of Management and Budget violated the law in holding up the assistance. The freeze is at center of the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Full report linked in the article.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 16, 2020, 09:05:09 AM
So--within 24 hours--House managers hand deliver the articles to the Senate, we have breaking news of the President directing a plot to stalk, intimidate, and possibly assault a sitting Ambassador, AND a GAO report comes out that the President's handling of the funds was indeed a violation of the law.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: OtherJen on January 16, 2020, 09:16:07 AM
So--within 24 hours--House managers hand deliver the articles to the Senate, we have breaking news of the President directing a plot to stalk, intimidate, and possibly assault a sitting Ambassador, AND a GAO report comes out that the President's handling of the funds was indeed a violation of the law.

Don't forget this gem, also from this morning: Ukraine Investigates Reports of Surveillance of Marie Yovanovitch (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/world/europe/ukraine-yovanovitch-investigation.html)

Quote
The police in Ukraine have opened a criminal investigation into whether allies of President Trump had the United States ambassador to the country under surveillance while she was stationed in Kyiv, the Ukrainian government said on Thursday.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: bacchi on January 16, 2020, 12:27:47 PM
It won't matter.

This will be wrapped up in 2 weeks. At the end, not only will Trump be "exonerated," but the Senate Republicans will applaud him for standing against the House Democrats.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 16, 2020, 12:35:49 PM
It won't matter.

This will be wrapped up in 2 weeks. At the end, not only will Trump be "exonerated," but the Senate Republicans will applaud him for standing against the House Democrats.
...and it will get reeeeaaaalllly uncomfortable for every Republican in a purple/blue state, and every Dem in a red state.
To me, this feels as much about putting people on record as anything.  With 45 Dems + 2 Independents even the "four possible GOP swing voters" are woefully insufficient to get to the 67 needed for removal.

The truth keeps slowly leaking out, and the defense strategy seems to be about bottling this up as quickly as possible before yet more revelations are revealed.  Then they can use the defense "it's already been litigated!" the next time some new piece of evidence comes forward.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on January 16, 2020, 12:45:36 PM
It won't matter.

This will be wrapped up in 2 weeks. At the end, not only will Trump be "exonerated," but the Senate Republicans will applaud him for standing against the House Democrats.
...and it will get reeeeaaaalllly uncomfortable for every Republican in a purple/blue state, and every Dem in a red state.
To me, this feels as much about putting people on record as anything.  With 45 Dems + 2 Independents even the "four possible GOP swing voters" are woefully insufficient to get to the 67 needed for removal.

The truth keeps slowly leaking out, and the defense strategy seems to be about bottling this up as quickly as possible before yet more revelations are revealed.  Then they can use the defense "it's already been litigated!" the next time some new piece of evidence comes forward.

Collins is already putting feelers out there to try and say that the latest evidence isn't believable since it's simply too convenient

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/impeachment-step-forward-and-step-back-susan-collins (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/impeachment-step-forward-and-step-back-susan-collins)
Quote
“I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it’s only now being revealed,” Collins told reporters when asked if the evidence changes her view on the need to hear from additional witnesses in the forthcoming trial.

The problem with this response, as the senator probably ought to know, is that the House “only now” produced this evidence because the House only recently received it: after Parnas was criminally charged in a campaign-finance case, the Justice Department seized his electronic devices.

She's definitely getting voted out.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 16, 2020, 01:02:59 PM
Maine can elect Democrats. Collins has won there several times, she'll be a tougher out than McCaskill was in Missouri.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 16, 2020, 01:10:52 PM
Colllins is one of my state senators.  Don't discount how many Trump supporters there are in this very rural, very impoverished, oldest-in-the-nation state.  Many of them are still extremely upset that Golden "stole" his seat from Bruce Poliquin due to ranked-choice voting. Sara Gideon isn't exactly primed to win rural voters over, coming from Freeport (aka "the other Maine").

Collins will have the first close re-election of her life.  but right now I'm giving her a 50/50 shot of holding on to her seat.  Money is pouring into the races from both sides in a way we've never seen before.  It's sure to get ugly.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: SomedayStache on January 16, 2020, 01:13:27 PM
Is there a web-page that I can bookmark which summarizes Trump's verified offenses and lists his associates that have been jailed? I have an email box filled with random links and news articles I've emailed myself over the last few years and it's kind of all over the place. Looking for something that puts it all in one place.

I am family/friends with Trump supporters. Some are rabid and I won't be approaching them, but others are disappointed that he hasn't 'lived up to the office'. However, they consume fox news and when I mention things (like his repaying money he stole from a charity) that I feel they should have heard, they have not heard of it.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: PathtoFIRE on January 16, 2020, 01:18:22 PM
While not personally verified by me, so take that in to account, saw someone report that the did a key word search on the Fox and Friends transcript from yesterday the morning after the Parnas evidence was released, and his name was not mentioned once.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 16, 2020, 01:18:55 PM
I've gotten really accustomed to my in-laws just having FoxNews on. My MiL insists that she isn't interested in a deep discussion on these topics. She has a set of things she cares about, but she seeks out just the minimum of information that she can insist she's "informed" about topics.

My FiL is already beginning the gymnastics he'll need to justify voting for Trump because the Democratic candidate is basically the same thing he is PLUS socialism.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: ixtap on January 16, 2020, 01:28:31 PM
I've gotten really accustomed to my in-laws just having FoxNews on. My MiL insists that she isn't interested in a deep discussion on these topics. She has a set of things she cares about, but she seeks out just the minimum of information that she can insist she's "informed" about topics.

My FiL is already beginning the gymnastics he'll need to justify voting for Trump because the Democratic candidate is basically the same thing he is PLUS socialism.

An ALWAYS TRUMP on my FB feed posted a meme showing all the crap any Democrat has ever done, including Ted Kennedy. Never mind that killing that woman and mishandling the aftermath actually did cost Kennedy the presidency.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on January 16, 2020, 01:40:38 PM
Colllins is one of my state senators.  Don't discount how many Trump supporters there are in this very rural, very impoverished, oldest-in-the-nation state.  Many of them are still extremely upset that Golden "stole" his seat from Bruce Poliquin due to ranked-choice voting. Sara Gideon isn't exactly primed to win rural voters over, coming from Freeport (aka "the other Maine").

Collins will have the first close re-election of her life.  but right now I'm giving her a 50/50 shot of holding on to her seat.  Money is pouring into the races from both sides in a way we've never seen before.  It's sure to get ugly.

This will also be Collins first race in ranked choice voting. I lived in Maine last year (granted in Portland), but I really got to know that Maine is a truly lean dem/independent state. However, what that Poliquin vote says to me is that when voters are allowed to vote their conscience, they are then forced to eventually pick between the 2 main contenders.

And Poliquin was in the red side of the state. ME-1 is going to vote against Collins 60-40, and based on the Polliquin vote, I'm not sure ME-2 will be able to overcome that.

She last ran 2014 and won 68/32 during peak anti-Obama hysteria, and since then Maine has also lived through and extremely unpopular GOP governor that has caused a full swing back to a Dem-trifecta of control in state government. She could still win, but she won't win by a much.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: FIPurpose on January 16, 2020, 02:57:48 PM
Colllins is one of my state senators.  Don't discount how many Trump supporters there are in this very rural, very impoverished, oldest-in-the-nation state.  Many of them are still extremely upset that Golden "stole" his seat from Bruce Poliquin due to ranked-choice voting. Sara Gideon isn't exactly primed to win rural voters over, coming from Freeport (aka "the other Maine").

Collins will have the first close re-election of her life.  but right now I'm giving her a 50/50 shot of holding on to her seat.  Money is pouring into the races from both sides in a way we've never seen before.  It's sure to get ugly.

This will also be Collins first race in ranked choice voting. I lived in Maine last year (granted in Portland), but I really got to know that Maine is a truly lean dem/independent state. However, what that Poliquin vote says to me is that when voters are allowed to vote their conscience, they are then forced to eventually pick between the 2 main contenders.

And Poliquin was in the red side of the state. ME-1 is going to vote against Collins 60-40, and based on the Polliquin vote, I'm not sure ME-2 will be able to overcome that.

She last ran 2014 and won 68/32 during peak anti-Obama hysteria, and since then Maine has also lived through and extremely unpopular GOP governor that has caused a full swing back to a Dem-trifecta of control in state government. She could still win, but she won't win by a much.

I looked up a bit more info on the ME-2 race that was actually determined by rank-choice

1.
Polliquin R - 46.33%   134,184
Golden D - 45.58%   132,013
Bond I - 5.71%   16,552
Hoar I - 02.37%  6,875

2.
Golden D - 50.6%  142,440
Poliquin R - 49.4%  138,931

This means that the Independent vote was split 20% R / 45% D / 35% Abstain

ME does have an independent streak. The GOP has had Collins seat since 1978
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: talltexan on January 17, 2020, 08:09:40 AM
I'm seeing headlines suggesting that Collins has become the least popular Senator in the country, less popular even than McConnell.

She doesn't have be to popular in 49 states, though, only in Maine.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: sherr on January 17, 2020, 08:18:44 AM
I'm seeing headlines suggesting that Collins has become the least popular Senator in the country, less popular even than McConnell.

She doesn't have be to popular in 49 states, though, only in Maine.

That's what the poll was measuring: popularity in their home state.

For what it's worth "least popular" is apparently 42/52 approve/disapprove.
Title: Re: Trump outrage of the day
Post by: nereo on January 17, 2020, 08:28:10 AM
I'm seeing headlines suggesting that Collins has become the least popular Senator in the country, less popular even than McConnell.

She doesn't have be to popular in 49 states, though, only in Maine.

Exactly.