Fragile Bird

US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

402 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Week said:

Edit:

Jesus, he's a child. 

To follow, this is what I was reacting to:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/trump-merkel-and-i-were-both-wiretapped-by-obama.html

Quote

Trump to Merkel about alleged wiretapping by Obama: “At least we have something in common, perhaps.” She appears to be very confused.

and...

Quote

Trump did not defend the substance of his accusation on Friday afternoon. But he did defend Spicer’s slander of GCHQ.

“We said nothing. All we did was quote a certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television,” Trump said. “That was a statement made by a very talented lawyer on Fox, so you shouldn’t be talking to me, you should be talking to Fox.”

The “very talented lawyer” whom Sean Spicer quoted was Judge Andrew Napolitano — a conservative pundit who has said that 9/11 “couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.”

Which is to say: The president of the United States just argued that it’s perfectly appropriate for the White House to spread conspiracy theories that implicate close allies — so long as a 9/11 truther on Fox News spread them first.

 

Edited by Week

Share this post


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

We could draft chicken hawks like John Bolton and Ted Nugent to do some of the fighing.

And then we could have the Ballad of Sir Robin.

That would ALMOST be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

That would ALMOST be worth it.

Yes, you are right. It would almost be worth it.

And plus there is the fact, I doubt Nugent's squad leader, platoon sergeant, or platoon leader would have time to change his diaper once the shooting started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, I guess this is a pebble on top of everything else, but one of these days, some R lawmakers are really gonna get tired of the amount of shit-gibbonry that keeps hitting the news.

Quote

BREAKING: US attorney Preet Bharara was investigating Health secretary Tom Price over his investment in biotech companies when he was fired by President Trump, according to an explosive new report.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324539-preet-bharara-said-to-have-been-investigating-tom-price

In other news, both Bret Baier and the increasingly awesome Shep Smith have now stated on air that they're not gonna help Trump get out of this mess by lending any credence to Napolitano's statements. I did kinda wonder how it would go over with Fox that Trump tried to pass the blame to them during the press conference with Merkel.

Edited by denstorebog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Not per the WSJ.  They are the leaders of the Republican Study Committee in the House.  Trump got their support by backing block grants and support for states adding a work requirement for the ability to receive medicaid.

Hmm. I was going off of the numbers I heard on NPR yesterday, but a quick Google search makes it clear that the numbers are all over the place. That said, the 12 number that Week threw out there is definitely referring to Senators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

So, I guess this is a pebble on top of everything else, but one of these days, some R lawmakers are really gonna get tired of the amount of shit-gibbonry that keeps hitting the news.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324539-preet-bharara-said-to-have-been-investigating-tom-price

In other news, both Bret Baier and the increasingly awesome Shep Smith have now stated on air that they're not gonna help Trump get out of this mess by lending any credence to Napolitano's statements. I did kinda wonder how it would go over with Fox that Trump tried to pass the blame to them during the press conference with Merkel.

I saw that about Bharara. No real surprise given it looks like a clear case of insider trading but it'll probably be swept under the rug now.

The Fox news guys seem to be pretty good about all of this while the opinion hosts are all bending over backwards to be the most pro-Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hmm. I was going off of the numbers I heard on NPR yesterday, but a quick Google search makes it clear that the numbers are all over the place. That said, the 12 number that Week threw out there is definitely referring to Senators.

The bill has to be passed by Congress first, before it goes to the Senate. Trump is not wasting his time on Senators at the moment, because if Congress doesn't pass it, there will be no Senate vote.

According to CNN, there are currently 22 Republicans who will either vote against the bill or who are on the fence. They can risk losing 21 votes. One of the 22 was in the group who met with Trump today, and Trump proclaimed he had convinced all of them to vote yes. That sonds like the bill will pass Congress and go to the Senate.

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The bill has to be passed by Congress first, before it goes to the Senate. Trump is not wasting his time on Senators at the moment, because if Congress doesn't pass it, there will be no Senate vote.

According to CNN, there are currently 22 Republicans who will either vote against the bill or who are on the fence. They can risk losing 21 votes. One of the 22 was in the group who met with Trump today, and Trump proclaimed he had convinced all of them to vote yes. That sonds like the bill will pass Congress and go to the Senate.

I get that, I was just clarifying something for Week. That said, I'm still not completely sold that it will pass the House. It's more likely than not, but still not a done deal. And if it does pass, it will be incredibly interesting to see what happens once it gets to the Senate. Several Republicans are in a situation where they're damned if they do vote for it and damned if they don't. They've really boxed themselves in on this one.

Share this post


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

Solid point...

Not really, no.

How is Trump the kind pf president bin Laden would've wanted?  I don't get it.  That feels like a godwin to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Not really, no.

How is Trump the kind pf president bin Laden would've wanted?  I don't get it.  That feels like a godwin to me.

Racist, incompetent, and reactionary. Pretty much what Radical Islam ordered, methinks.

Share this post


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

Racist, incompetent, and reactionary. Pretty much what Radical Islam ordered, methinks.

 

 

How so?  to the extent that they care, I'd assume they want a passive disinterested admin over anything else.  unless this is the old 'recruitment' argument?

I just don't see the connection.  you could maybe make an arguemnt that they'd favor american isolationism, but i don't think the kind of isolationism Trump represents fits the particular mold they would be looking for.

 

Granted, I'm not an expert on bin Laden.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

 

How so?  to the extent that they care, I'd assume they want a passive disinterested admin over anything else.  unless this is the old 'recruitment' argument?

I just don't see the connection.  you could maybe make an arguemnt that they'd favor american isolationism, but i don't think the kind of isolationism Trump represents fits the particular mold they would be looking for.

 

Granted, I'm not an expert on bin Laden.......

 

I don't think they want Isolationism. They want a Holy War. I don't see Trump being  truly Isolationist outside of his Russian/Nato stance.

Share this post


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

We could draft chicken hawks like John Bolton and Ted Nugent to do some of the fighing.

And then we could have the Ballad of Sir Robin.

Oh my, I don't think "chicken hawk" has at all the same slang meaning for me that it does for you, :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. He refused to do the handshake with Merkel for the press. What a classless a..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

 

 

How so?  to the extent that they care, I'd assume they want a passive disinterested admin over anything else.  unless this is the old 'recruitment' argument?

I just don't see the connection.  you could maybe make an arguemnt that they'd favor american isolationism, but i don't think the kind of isolationism Trump represents fits the particular mold they would be looking for.

 

Granted, I'm not an expert on bin Laden.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wtf, quote malfunction.

 

Anyways, SF; OBL's 'plan' was to bleed the US economy dry by getting them engaged in a quagmire a la Soviets vs mujahideen. He articulated this many times, though the specifics would get tweaked. So a 'passive disinterested' administration is exactly the opposite of what he'd want. Similarly Isil supposedly wants the US in a ME ground war, though with slightly different objectives. Neither wants a hands off US policy; multiple hard targets in your own region << soft targets 'over there'. 

Also, what's wrong with the 'old recruitment' argument? Several terrorist organizations have openly advocated it.

Lastly, I'll again argue against the term 'isolationist' as the alternative to US policy of repeatedly invading other states. Most nations in the world don't do the latter, nor are they isolationist. No nation continually at war around the world is remotely approaching anything like isolationism. It's a fantastically outdated and inappropriate term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, our dear and beloved “Party O’ Bidness!!” just has a way of sending me high and to the right.

There is just something about it. Now what could it be? Oh, I wonder, what that could be?

Oh, yeah, it’s because of people like Paul Ryan.

Ryan’s latest Randian fantasy.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/17/14960358/paul-ryan-medicaid-keg

Quote

“We’ve been dreaming of this since I’ve been around,” Ryan says, before interrupting himself to clarify exactly how big of an opportunity this is, “since you and I were drinking out of kegs.”

 

Quote

Undoing that sounds bad to me, but Ryan is passionate about the idea that the government helping low-income people can actually hurt them. 

Once again, Paul Ryan plays fast and loose with other people’s research about the effects of various welfare programs on people’s labor supply.

Quote

“The left,” he said, “thinks this is a good thing. They say, ‘hey, this is a new freedom — the freedom not to work.’” But they’re “making a big mistake here. What they're offering people is a full stomach and an empty soul.” Under Ryan’s health bill, if you want your kids to get medical care then you’re going to have go out there and hustle and make sure you find yourself a better, more soul-filling job. And he’s been dreaming about that kind of soul-filling for a long time.

You know, for a party, oh so worried, about people not wanting to work because they are getting free stuff from the Democratic Party, the little ol’ Republican Party itself ain’t all that great at boosting employment.

From Blinder and Watson:

https://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/Presidents_Blinder_Watson_Nov2013.pdf

Quote

Panel C considers employment and unemployment. The D-R gap in the annual growth rate of payroll employment is 1.42 percentage points, and the gap in employee hours in nonfarm businesses is somewhat larger (1.65 points). Both are highly significant. Somewhat puzzling, given these results, the partisan gap is much smaller in the household survey—just 0.56 percentage point—and not significant at conventional levels. The average unemployment rate is lower under Democrats (5.6% vs. 6.0%), but that difference is also small and not statistically significant. There is, however, a sizable and statistically significant difference in the change in the unemployment rate, computed as the difference between the average unemployment rate in the final year of the term minus the average value in the final year of the previous term. During Democratic presidential terms, the unemployment rate fell by 0.8 percentage points, on average, 5 while it rose by 1.1 percentage points, on average, during Republican terms--yielding a large and statistically significant D-R gap of -1.9 percentage points.

On top of this, the fact of the matter, the Republican Party, for the most part, fought the reality based community every fuckin step of the way, from the onset of the financial crises in 2008,in using both aggressive monetary and fiscal policy to restore full employment. Of course, the Republican leadership’s real agenda was to get tax cuts for the wealthy, arguing we should have done it the way Ronnie did it!!! Except you know, Ronnie was a big tax cut guy and welfare state hater, but when it came right down to it, the GDP growth over his term wasn’t much better than Jimmy Carter’s. You know, it would seem to me, Ronnie’s numbers would have been a lot bigger if it really expanded the supply of labor.

But aside, from what the leadership of the Republican Party leadership was trying to pull, the fact of the matter is that too many of your average Republicans would seem to have believed that the source of our problems has been too many lazy people on welfare rather than a lack of demand. While everyone else was trying to figure out how to get out of a liquidity trap, according to your average Republican the problem was just too many lazy people getting free stuff.

Paul Ryan is just ridiculous. And so is the party he belongs to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Wow. He refused to do the handshake with Merkel for the press. What a classless a..

I'm sure she was relieved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this a historic record for most allies offended in one day?  

I've never been more embarrassed to be an American.  

Share this post


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