Martell Spy

US Politics: Papers, Please

396 posts in this topic

Old thread is full. Please continue.

 

Rice, Albright criticize Trump's executive order

http://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2017/02/condi-rice-and-madeline-albright-deliver-blistering-joint-rebuke-of-trump-immigration-policy-109285

 

Democrats Should Not Fear the Nuclear Option
Why liberals have every reason to fight the Gorsuch nomination to the hilt, filibuster be damned.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/democrats-should-not-fear-the-nuclear-option-214730

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump has put the Iranians ON FORMAL NOTICE over their firing of a ballistic test missile. No more information on what this means.

The United States carrying out any kind of attack on Iran would be extraordinarily dangerous, given Iran's capability of retaliating against allies in the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/u-s-military-sources-criticize-trump-approved-yemen-strike.html

U.S. Military Sources Claim Trump Approved Yemen Strike Without Enough Preparation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question: what happens if Trump just tells North Korea and Iran to fall in line or he'll nuke Pyongyang and Tehran out of hand? What do they do? Do they try to call his bluff? Does Congress try to stop him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Martell Spy said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/u-s-military-sources-criticize-trump-approved-yemen-strike.html

U.S. Military Sources Claim Trump Approved Yemen Strike Without Enough Preparation

So how many of you conservatives want to talk about Benghazi right about now?

Don't be shy or modest. Say something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So how many of you conservatives want to talk about Benghazi right about now?

Don't be shy or modest. Say something.

 

Probably as many as want to talk about emails.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall a decent amount of violence at Trump rallies.  I firmly believe we should cut off his federal funds.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

So how many of you conservatives want to talk about Benghazi right about now?

Don't be shy or modest. Say something

 

They're too busy. They are laser focused on what is happening on college campuses in the US, as is Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

They're too busy. They are laser focused on what is happening on college campuses in the US, as is Trump.

Campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was interesting to see a young Trump supported being pepper sprayed while giving an interview during the riot. On first glance it looked bad but after viewing it again it looks like they did not get her with a direct hit which is fortunate. 

Normally I would not even raise the incident here but it is noteworthy from the perspective of the previous conversation around the alt-right guy that was punched in the face. Seems like the general view on that one was violence is bad but no one will lose sleep over it because he was a nazi.  This incident points out the concern by some posters that the actions could extend beyond a known Nazi and set a tone where violence was acceptable when directed at people who hold different views. 

link to video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Interesting question: what happens if Trump just tells North Korea and Iran to fall in line or he'll nuke Pyongyang and Tehran out of hand? What do they do? Do they try to call his bluff? Does Congress try to stop him?

I doubt Tehran does. They look careful at what he's doing and so far responded with a tactic that looks like 'eye for an eye' but I suppose they just desperately want to show Trump that his policies have repercussion. I don't think they have any interest in a direct confrontation, no sane leader does. Especially when there is a certain chance that the guy with the button isn't bluffing at all...

Pyongyang however... I have to put my hands into the air, that one is utterly unpredictable, especially since they burned bridges with their only remaining ally, China, for god knows what perceived reason. That could get awry really fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zelticgar said:

It was interesting to see a young Trump supported being pepper sprayed while giving an interview during the riot. On first glance it looked bad but after viewing it again it looks like they did not get her with a direct hit which is fortunate. 

Normally I would not even raise the incident here but it is noteworthy from the perspective of the previous conversation around the alt-right guy that was punched in the face. Seems like the general view on that one was violence is bad but no one will lose sleep over it because he was a nazi.  This incident points out the concern by some posters that the actions could extend beyond a known Nazi and set a tone where violence was acceptable when directed at people who hold different views. 

link to video

The shit that happened at Berkeley is and was wrong. I don't condone any violent protests and think it sets the left back in today's age of instant, viral news as all protests will be associated with violence even if it was only a small group. Hated to read about this today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mexal said:

The shit that happened at Berkeley is and was wrong. I don't condone any violent protests and think it sets the left back in today's age of instant, viral news as all protests will be associated with violence even if it was only a small group. Hated to read about this today.

Agree with this. There is so much from the right to ridicule and criticize that this isn't necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, zelticgar said:

It was interesting to see a young Trump supported being pepper sprayed while giving an interview during the riot. On first glance it looked bad but after viewing it again it looks like they did not get her with a direct hit which is fortunate. 

Normally I would not even raise the incident here but it is noteworthy from the perspective of the previous conversation around the alt-right guy that was punched in the face. Seems like the general view on that one was violence is bad but no one will lose sleep over it because he was a nazi.  This incident points out the concern by some posters that the actions could extend beyond a known Nazi and set a tone where violence was acceptable when directed at people who hold different views. 

link to video

and this is exactly why nazis and white supremacists shouldn't be called the alt-right.  They start to become just people with "different views", which is absurd.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, conservatives like to call CNN the "Clinton News Network".  But, with Stephen Moore being hired by them, maybe a more apt name would be the "Clown News Network".

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/31/cnn_hire_hack_trump_advisor_to_spout_gibberish_about_economics.html

Quote

This is a fairly minor development amid all the turmoil that's gripped the country over the past week, but I would like to pause for a brief moment to commemorate the act of journalistic malpractice CNN has just committed by hiring conservative scribbler and Trump adviser Stephen Moore as an economics analyst. It is a doozy.

 

Quote

He founded the conservative Club for Growth in the late 1990s, joined the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and at one point became the Heritage Foundation's chief economist, despite lacking an economics Ph.D. (he has a master's). What the man lacks in actual academic training he makes up for in movement credentials.

I'll just say, I don't really care if Moore has a PHD or not. That really isn't the issue. 

There have have been some conservative people that do hold PHD's that have made some wildly dumb statements. Perhaps my favorite has been University of Chicago's John Cochrane, who made some real howlers back in the day.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I finally found the time to read the “muslim ban” executive order (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html).

Some points.

1. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I would be very surprised if this order is effectuated as written. I assume that there is a lot of pushback, and many details will be changed. I have nothing to offer on these points; instead, I am honestly curious where this will end. I view this as a first step in determining the envelope of policies that are both constitutional and politically enforceable.

2. I see this very much from a European perspective, so the national filters distort how this will play out. The US is way more concerned with religious rights that the EU, so I assume it will be much harder to have a religion-based restriction effectuated. So just because something doesn’t work in the US doesn’t mean it can’t work in Europe. On the other hand, the US so far is pretty safe from Islamic influence (a few notable terrorist attacks excepted), so I believe Europe will be more willing than the US to overlook constitutional or moral principles. Maybe these concerns cancel each other out. I honestly don’t know.

3. For me, the most interesting part (in terms of the Overton window) is the motivation for the order. Let me quote the final paragraph:

Quote

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Note the clarity with which this order aligns itself with the ideals of liberal democracy, feminism, tolerance of LBTQ, etc. This is exactly how I believe this enormous cultural change will come to pass: by co-opting the rhetoric of progressive liberalism in order to protect classical liberalism. This is very well done and will be very difficult to counter. 

I predict that most European countries will adopt the same rhetoric. Policy-wise there will be minor variations, both in the US and Europe. But I find it very plausible kind of policy (to the extend that it is not already in place in Europe) will become completely normalised, and indeed will be normalised by completely mainstream parties.

But we’ll see. I find the speed of this development stunning. It is also very unpleasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, conservatives like to call CNN the "Clinton News Network".  But, with Stephen Moore being hired by them, maybe a more apt name would be the "Clown News Network".

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/31/cnn_hire_hack_trump_advisor_to_spout_gibberish_about_economics.html

 

I'll just say, I don't really care if Moore has a PHD or not. That really isn't the issue. 

There have have been some conservative people that do hold PHD's that have made some wildly dumb statements. Perhaps my favorite has been University of Chicago's John Cochrane, who made some real howlers back in the day.

Your view on Thomas Sowell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Happy Ent said:

Note the clarity with which this order aligns itself with the ideals of liberal democracy, feminism, tolerance of LBTQ, etc. This is exactly how I believe this enormous cultural change will come to pass: by co-opting the rhetoric of progressive liberalism in order to protect classical liberalism. This is very well done and will be very difficult to counter. 

It seems to me something like,"Now we don't want any Muslims discriminating against the LBTQ community. We don't want any Muslims cuttin in on Conservative Christians' action."

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


In the last thread it was noted that Mike Pence identifies as an 'evangelical Catholic' and I explored some of Pence's record as governor of Indiana.  Here's the link to my post in case you missed it:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/144968-us-politics-spicey-onion-indigestion-in-the-age-of-trump/&do=findComment&comment=7860196
 
Pence selected as Trump's running mate in July of '16 and Bannon came on board as CEO of Trump's campaign the next month in August.  I would consider Pence to be someone Bannon would be quite pleased as the pick for VP as Bannon identifies as a Catholic also.  

Buzzfeed has an article on it's site that is a transcript (and a audio of) a talk Bannon gave by Skype to a conference held inside the Vatican in the summer of 2014.  This conference was  part of a 50-minute Q&A during a conference focused on poverty hosted by the Human Dignity Institute that BuzzFeed News attended as part of its coverage of the rise of Europe’s religious right.
It's a long article but well worth one's time.  

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.lhbV6wBEy#.woa4RnB9A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It seems to me something like,"Now we don't want any Muslims discriminating against the LBTQ community. We don't want any Muslims cuttin in on Conservative Christian's action."

yea this is pretty disingenuous bullshit coming out of an administration with Pence- pence, ffs-- at the helm.   Christian conservatives have been the gravest threat to those of the wrong race, gender and sexuality in this country, so it's quite rich they're going after another religions supposed intolerance.

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.