U.S. Politics: High Nunes or Russian to Judgement

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Trump's win doesn't fulfill McConnell's requirement.

Agreed. The whole thing is so messed up by those obstructionist assholes--this is the result, and they have the nerve, a few short months later, to act like they didn't do worse?

[Swordfish]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well as difficult to impossible as it may be I would recommend taking it out of the hands of the Senate and do something like what we do here. Substitute GG for President. And note it is not the president who would choose, but rather the president signs off (which means he/she has a right to refuse, but rarely should refuse).

Note the bolded sentence. Horrible use of double negative aside. It indicates that experience has shown that a less partisan approach (and an approach that does not waste the time of elected representatives, which could be used far more productively - Ha!) still puts experienced, knowledgeable, ethical people in place who are committed to the ideals of the rule of law and justice.

I'm admittedly a few beers in, but basically, the right of the senate to determine it's own rules is explicitly drawn out in the constitution.

I'm just not sure how any of the stuff you posted addresses that?

 

[Swordfish]

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

On a separate note, I spoke about Sean Spicer making me puke. Well, he did it again.

The poison gas attack in Syrian today that left about 70 dead, including at least 10 little children, was blamed on Obama. WTF? Trump has done so many appalling things, and again, the jaw just drops to the floor.

No connection to Rex Tillerson announcing that the US policy would now be 'it's up to Syrians to deal with Assad" rather than demanding that he must be gone. Nope. It was because years ago Obama didn't send troops in to Syria. Even though Syria agreed it would hand over all chemical weapons to the Russians, and the Russians said they were all gone.

Did Trump announce the US would send troops to Syria to fight Assad as a result of this gas attack, suspected to be sarin gas? Like he said Obama should have done? Nope. Today's attack was Obama's fault.

I guess for the next four or possibly eight years Trump will take no ownership of anything.

And, btw, I said possibly eight, because so far illegal crossings at the Mexican border are down 63% or 67% (contradicting numbers were reported) and if that continues, no wall will have to built, no billions spent.

But the fucking chutzpah of blaming today's gas attack on Obama is just unfucking believable.

ETA: And btw, while simultaneously calling out Obama on his red line, Trump at the time tweeted that the US should stay out of Syria. Talk about being on both sides of the fence at the same time.

I don't think I'm going to be the only person in the world who's going to be saying Rex Tillerson is going to wear this. His wife told him he spent 35 years at Exxon training for SoS, well guess what, he wanted it, he's going to find out there are consequences for the things the US SoS says.

True.  It's much more palatable when they are simply drone striked to death.

It's so messy when they start getting gassed.  Much harder to stomach.

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, so much this.

How many BernieBros still think that Clinton should have been indicted?

Jesus.  You're still clinging to piling on the so called  'bernie bros'?  You guys really did get butt hurt over having an actual opposition candidate, huh?

[Hereward]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

New Zealand really did get their political system right. If you were going to model a new system based on any in the world, they're one of  the best to look at. Another would be Singapore. 

A one-party state with one of the most severe legal systems in the world, an only notional free press, where opposition parties can get 40% of the vote and 1% of the MPs, where the president can appoint people to parliament if the people make mistakes in not electing them and opposition leaders who become popular are mysteriously ruined in dubious morality trials or civil defamation cases? OK, seems like the US is on the right track then.

[DireWolfSpirit]

 I dont think there's incontravertible proof that the chemical attack was the work of Assad forces. Our former Administration was quick to lay blame of previous attacks on Assad. I think both sides have used chemical attacks so i'm skeptical when McCain types immediately jump on these tragedies and attempt to lay blame on one side or the other without the specific facts or proof. The regime change proponents are counting on public opinion to think each chemical weapon violation has been by the government , the reporting of rebel/terrorist chemical attacks isnt nearly as widely reported, but they have used chemical attacks as well.

There is no viable or moderate group in Syria that will fill the void from an Assad regime change. With Assad out you will inherit ISIS. Head chopping, history erasing, terrorists.

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D) recently visited Syria http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-denies-trump-syria_us_58e28430e4b0f4a923b0beab?f2k&

Gabbards position, which is the same as mine, is that- 

Quote

“If Assad is removed and overthrown, ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra [now Jabhat Fateh al Sham], these Islamic extremist groups will walk straight in and take over all of Syria ... they will be even stronger,” Gabbard told CNN in 2015.

Tonight on MSNBC's Chris Hayes show, the guest made a very compelling statement imo. He pointed out that he was very reluctant to believe Assad forces would resort to using a chemical attack. He pointed out that a chemical attack is invariably only resorted to by a beligerant that is losing badly, a side in desperation. That would be the position of the rebels/terrorists in Syria. Certainly not the position Assad is in currently. He is in a position of strength currently, as most accounts have him defeating the insurgents quite handily.

I agree with Chris Hayes guest as well as Congresswoman Gabbard. The pundits trying to lay these attacks at Assad's  feet are the same regime change cheer leaders crawling out of the woodwork to try and breathe life into their pet policy that has now fell out of favor with a new W.H. 
I dont believe Assad's forces committed this chemical attack. This was the desperate act of the rebel groups who have their backs against the wall imo.

 

[Ser Reptitious]

13 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I have no idea why you think I'm upset with the democrats over this.  I'm not upset at all about it.  We are talking about strategy.

 

I wasn't upset about it then either, so don't hurt yourself straining your memory.

Let's examine this: 

Last year, when the Republicans were obstructing, this was your take:

Quote

I think it's totally expected for politicians to attempt to stand on tradition for political reasons.  I also think it's completely reasonable for politicians to break tradition for political reasons.  And I think it's pretty reasonable for the supporters of both those parties to support those actions on the grounds that it's in their best interest politically.

Nary a peep about what's best for the country, or that such a consideration should supercede considerations about what is best for the party. Nope, it simply makes perfect sense for either party to merely do what helps them politically. Nothing further is to be expected of them. 

Now let's fast forward to the Democrats being obstructive:

Quote

If that's the kind of brinksmanship you think is best for the country, then again, we'll have to disagree.  I could care less which party gets to wag it's dick around as being the 'winner' of this political pissing contest, but YMMV.

Wait, what's that? Suddenly what is best for the country is important? Looks like Swordfish 2016 and Swordfish 2017 are in disagreement here.

Also, let's see what Swordfish 2016 has to say about the expected electoral impact of the Republicans' obstructionism:

Quote

But to pretend either side has some kind of high ground here is laughable, as is assuming that the average voter really cares that much about whether or not another justice actually gets confirmed this year, beyond simply using it as a tool to fuel their pre-existing  'that party is the worst' mentality.

Let's see what Swordfish 2017 has to say about that:

Quote

Filibustering this choice is engaging in EXACTLY the type of behavior the dems went apeshit over with Garland.  I don't think 'But...  THEY STARTED IT!!!!!' is a strategy that is going to work particularly well for them, and it's certainly not something that, IMO, is going to go over particularly well with swing voters.

Wait, so swing voters do care after all? This is getting confusing.

Even within your most recent posts you are rather inconsistent:

Quote

Unlike many others, I never saw the republicans strategy to block garland as anything but political, just like the democrats strategy to rush the nomination.  that's what made all the melodramatic claims from the democrats about constitutional duty and the dangers to the republic of being down a justice so laughably transparent.

So the Democrats were simply being melodramatic last year when they claimed that Republican obstructionism was bad for the country (rather than just being bad for the Democrats)? But this is your point of view of the current obstructionism by the Democrats:

Quote

If that's the kind of brinksmanship you think is best for the country, then again, we'll have to disagree.

Quote

It's certainly not something that i believe we ought to be rooting for our representatives to engage in.

Why so melodramatic, Swordfish? 

 

To summarize the Swordfishian view on obstructionism, if the Democrats do it, it's wrong, it's bad for the country, and the voters should (and possibly will) punish the offending party. If the Republicans do it, your reaction largely seems to be .

[Darzin]

4 hours ago, Hereward said:

A one-party state with one of the most severe legal systems in the world, an only notional free press, where opposition parties can get 40% of the vote and 1% of the MPs, where the president can appoint people to parliament if the people make mistakes in not electing them and opposition leaders who become popular are mysteriously ruined in dubious morality trials or civil defamation cases? OK, seems like the US is on the right track then.

But they make the trains run on time! Seriously Singapore is a scary place, it's a positive dystopia , everything is watched everything is cataloged everything is perfect, and do one thing to mess up that perfection and so help you God, you will wish you didn't. 

[OldGimletEye]

Last week Trump said we were at war with Eurasia.

This week he says we haven't been at war with Eurasia. He says we've been at war with Eastasia all along.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-tries-blaming-obama-deadly-chemical-attack-syria

Quote

The developments in northern Syria are gut-wrenching: the Assad government is suspected of launching a chemical attack on rebel-held territory in the Idlib province, leaving at least 58 people, including 11 children, dead. These are preliminary totals, and it’s likely the death toll will rise.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/upshot/democrats-are-bad-at-midterm-turnout-that-seems-ready-to-change.html

Hoping the Democratic Party can get it's act together. We'll see.

Quote

But there are early signs this could be changing. If it does in 2018, it will be consistent with a longer-term trend in which the party out of power benefits in midterm elections, seemingly from a stronger turnout.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/public-says-obamacare-now-republican-problem

Trump's and the Republicans' strategy of blame Democrats for their own incompetence. How does that look?

Quote

In its latest tracking poll, the Kaiser Family Foundation decided to test President Trump's theory that if he encourages allows Obamacare to blow up, the public will hold Democrats responsible. It didn't go well:

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 hours ago, Kalbear said:

New Zealand really did get their political system right. If you were going to model a new system based on any in the world, they're one of  the best to look at. Another would be Singapore. 

Isn't Singapore a dictatorship?

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Let's examine this: 

Last year, when the Republicans were obstructing, this was your take:

Nary a peep about what's best for the country, or that such a consideration should supercede considerations about what is best for the party. Nope, it simply makes perfect sense for either party to merely do what helps them politically. Nothing further is to be expected of them. 

Now let's fast forward to the Democrats being obstructive:

Wait, what's that? Suddenly what is best for the country is important? Looks like Swordfish 2016 and Swordfish 2017 are in disagreement here.

Also, let's see what Swordfish 2016 has to say about the expected electoral impact of the Republicans' obstructionism:

Let's see what Swordfish 2017 has to say about that:

Wait, so swing voters do care after all? This is getting confusing.

Even within your most recent posts you are rather inconsistent:

So the Democrats were simply being melodramatic last year when they claimed that Republican obstructionism was bad for the country (rather than just being bad for the Democrats)? But this is your point of view of the current obstructionism by the Democrats:

Why so melodramatic, Swordfish? 

 

To summarize the Swordfishian view on obstructionism, if the Democrats do it, it's wrong, it's bad for the country, and the voters should (and possibly will) punish the offending party. If the Republicans do it, your reaction largely seems to be .

None of those quotes are even remotely inconsistent.  I have been talking specifically about what the impact of filibustering would have to the democrats POLITICALLY.  Just like I did then, in the very quotes you've spent so much of your leisure time dredging up.

That's a lot of effort to spend trying and failing to catch me in a gotcha.  I'm sort of flattered in a weird kind of way, frankly.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 hours ago, Triskan said:

Your humble narrator called Gillibrand as a darkhorse a while ago.  Here's a piece on her and the potential for the future.  

 

And here's a totally depressing piece suggesting it might be foolish to run a woman at the top of the ticket. 

Sadly most political scientists believe that the first woman president will have to be a Republican....

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

After watching part of the Ivanka Trump interview I feel comfortable saying that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. She's more polished and less cartoonish than her father, but once you take her off the teleprompter she sounds exactly like him. 

I wonder if a Trump ancestor and a parrot were caught in a teleportation machine at the same time......

[Swordfish]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

After watching part of the Ivanka Trump interview I feel comfortable saying that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. She's more polished and less cartoonish than her father, but once you take her off the teleprompter she sounds exactly like him. 

I wonder if a Trump ancestor and a parrot were caught in a teleportation machine at the same time......

I don't think I've ever actually heard her speak.  I'll google it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

I don't think I've ever actually heard her speak.  I'll google it.

She's just like her father, stringing random words together and hoping people think she's make a coherent statement. 

[Swordfish]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

She's just like her father, stringing random words together and hoping people think she's make a coherent statement. 

Ha.  First link I found, it's the first thing they talk about.

 

 

[Ser Reptitious]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

None of those quotes are even remotely inconsistent.

Wow, I'd like some of what you're smoking! 

 

Quote

 I have been talking specifically about what the impact of filibustering would have to the democrats POLITICALLY.  Just like I did then, in the very quotes you've spent so much of your leisure time dredging up.

1. You didn't seem to think that voters would care about the Supreme Court obstruction coming from the Republicans last year, so why do you think they will care this year, when it's the Democrats doing it?

2. If you're simply talking about the political impact this could have on the Democrats, why bemoan that this sort of "political pissing match" is bad for the country? You didn't seem worried about that last year (and in fact called the Democrats melodramatic for expressing the exact same sentiments back then that you do now).

 

Quote

That's a lot of effort to spend trying and failing to catch me in a gotcha.  I'm sort of flattered in a weird kind of way, frankly.

Don't worry, it didn't take very long, actually. All I had to do was go back to the U.S. Politics thread around the time of Scalia's death and look at your posts. Sure enough, there you were handwaiving all the Republican obstruction away. 

Is it 15 minutes I could have spent doing more productive stuff? Sure, but debating you is kind of like trying to nail jelly to a wall, due to your constant dodging, side-stepping, obfuscating, evading, denying, or playing obtuse. Generally I just laugh it off as Swordfish being Swordfish, but once in a while the hypocrisy becomes just a little too much to ignore. 

ETA: And no, that is not an ad hominem. It's simply an observation of your posting style, at least in the U.S. Politics thread.

[DMC]

11 hours ago, Triskan said:

Your humble narrator called Gillibrand as a darkhorse a while ago.  Here's a piece on her and the potential for the future.  

 

And here's a totally depressing piece suggesting it might be foolish to run a woman at the top of the ticket. 

I've always been a huge Gillibrand fan.  Wouldn't describe her as a darkhorse either - she has as much potential to garner support from establishment Democrats as anybody, and is well liked by both main wings of the party (at least for now).  I think her problem - and why some may be wary - is not because she's a woman per se but because of all her links to Hillary both demographically and in terms of her career.  I also think she can overcome this if she runs a good campaign and grows as a candidate.

[Week]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/susan-rice-denies-leaking-names-of-trump-officials-in-intelligence-reports/2017/04/04/26997e56-1978-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html?utm_term=.84f783fadcd9

In all the furor over Susan Rice what seems to be missed - maybe why I don't find it compelling - is that the discussion is around:

Did Susan Rice unmask Trump staffers for political purposes?

How exactly would this be possible without requesting to uncover ALL US identities in contact with surveilled Russians? Prior to unmasking, there is no way to glean who was concealed/anonymized without requesting an unmasking. So, the unmasking must have either been unusually thorough, really good guessing, or discussions were sufficiently problematic where requesting to unmask identities was necessary. Any other thoughts on this?

The other half of it is did she leak the information - frankly, this feels like the alt-Right, Breitbart, etc. not being able to get over their obsession with Susan Rice as a ongoing continuation of Benghazi.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/kendall-jenner-pepsi-commercial-protest-twitter-controversy-1202023140/

 

/Somebody just stab me in the face, please.

[Fez]

Bannon's been removed from the National Security Council. Unclear if this is the start of a complete fall from grace for him, or if just that Trump's been convinced it was untenable to have a political advisor on the NSC. The current White House spin is:

Quote

An official says Bannon was only on board to oversee now-ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's work to "deoperationalize" the National Security Council from the broad purview it had under Susan Rice.

Regardless of the reasoning though, having him off the NSC makes me feel better.