Jump to content

U.S. Politics: We're Saying Merry Christmas, Again


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Yeah, probably, but nothing will come of it, facts no longer matter and Trump has no accountability for anything he says or does.

Today the WH issued a statement saying Obama never called John Kelly when his son died, I won't hold my breath expecting Kelly to ask that his boss not use his son as a political football.

Kelly has refused to speak to the press about his son, so I kinda think Trump's comments were made without his permission. It has been pointed out that the Kellys sat at Michelle Obama's table at the WH breakfast for Gold Star Mothers in 2011, held about 6 months after he died. 

It has been a long time policy of the WH not to speak about private conversations with the families of soldiers who have died in combat. People who worked at the WH in the last three administrations have been pretty vocal in their disgust with what Trump said.

Afaik, no WH statement was issued, it came out of Trump's mouth and 'an official in the WH' spoke to the press. I suspect that would be Kellyanne Conway, who rails against leaks but apparently likes to act as an anonymous source.

It should be pointed out that so far this year 6 US soldiers have died in combat. In 2010 500 US soldiers died. But Trump, of course, has done so much more than any other president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Have you seen You've Been Trumped? Really good documentary on the misadventures surrounding that Scottish Golf Resort deal. It was up on You Tube, but it looks like they have it behind a paywall now. 

I saw a clip of it I think. Safe to say the locals around his golf course hate his guts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Kelly has refused to speak to the press about his son, so I kinda think Trump's comments were made without his permission. It has been pointed out that the Kellys sat at Michelle Obama's table at the WH breakfast for Gold Star Mothers in 2011, held about 6 months after he died. 

I've read in a few articles that Kelly's always been private about his son's death, so it could cut either way, but I suspect Trump was lying. It will be interesting to see if this affects Kelly's tenure as CoS. That's the kind of thing that can make a person quit their job if they're already considering doing so.

Also, Trump had this to say today about the military and the fight against ISIS:

Quote

President Donald Trump took credit for the fact that ISIS is in retreat during an interview Tuesday, claiming that ISIS wasn't on the run before because "you didn't have Trump as your president."

The comment comes as US-backed forces fighting ISIS in Raqqa said "major military operations" in the city have ended and that the jihadists have lost control of their self-declared capital.
 
American officials have not yet formally announced that the fight is won, but the development marks a significant moment for the war on ISIS.
 
"I totally changed rules of engagement. I totally changed our military, I totally changed the attitudes of the military and they have done a fantastic job," Trump said on "The Chris Plante Show." "ISIS is now giving up, they are giving up, there are raising their hands, they are walking off. Nobody has ever seen that before."
 
When Plante asked why that hadn't happened before, Trump took the bait.
 
"Because you didn't have Trump as your president," he said. "It was a big difference, there was a big, big difference if you look at the military now."

And not only did he not give any credit to Obama, but he had this to say:

Quote
Trump also claimed on Tuesday that the US was losing the war on terror before he came in.
"I changed rules of engagement about a month ago and we are fighting now to win as opposed to fighting to stay there. We were losing, now we are winning," Trump said.

And lastly, and most importantly:

Quote

The President declared he would no longer announce troop levels 

Awesome. Who doesn't want a shadow war?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/trump-isis-raqqa/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

When you play poker you only call someone else's bluff if you don't have a damn shitty hand yourself.

But we come back to "cultural values" which is no doubt what @The Anti-Targ described as "moral interests."

Now it's fine if people want to vote for political candidates mainly based on such things. But if they don't think twice about what the candidates' position on economics means they only have themselves to blame for the consequences.

A different way to put it is that there's a price to pay for being certain of having the "right" to keep that gun under your bed or for making sure your neighbor's teenage daughter can't get easy access to an abortion.

So ok, I understand the original point made by @Michael Seswatha Jordan  that not all Trump supporters are racists. It just doesn't change that much on my sympathy-o-meter. So they're fine conservative people who can't bring themselves to vote for someone who's in favor of gun control or abortion? People who won't or can't be bothered to vote in terms of economic self-interest?

Nope, still can't feel sorry for them. At some point, if you really feel "ignored" perhaps you can take just a little bit of time to wonder who exactly has been ignoring you and who hasn't. It's not that hard.

I have family-in-law in the US who pretty much voted as such. Though they are upper-middle class financially so they didn't vote against their economic interests unless one thinks in the more holictis sense that if you keep large numbers of people poor and economically depressed those chickens will eventually come home to roost. I think they kinda believed some of Trump's MAGA bullshit, so they somewhat willingly voted for Trump, but there was also no way on God's green Earth that they would ever vote for a Clinton. But I think they are having buyer's remorse and it could be that if a palatable candidate pops up for the Democrats in 2020 they could vote for a Democrat for president the first time ever. But that means a NOT Bernie Sanders candidate. Any Democrat with the slightest whiff of the "S" word around them will be dismissed out of hand. If a socialist* candidate is nominated for the democrats would need to hope that a large number of middle class centre-right Republicans are just so disillusioned with Trump that they simply stay home.

 

*According to the populist American political definition, not the standard definition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Of the three polls for Virginia that came out today, two have Northam ahead, but with less of a margin than previous polls, and the third poll is the first to show Gillespie with an actual lead (+1). Pretty ominous.

On the flip side, a FOX News poll today showed the Alabama race being, I shit you not, a tie. Some of the secondary info in that poll was encouraging, such as Moore's supporters having more reservations.

(Links.)

This is going to be fucking intense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

On the flip side, a FOX News poll today showed the Alabama race being, I shit you not, a tie. Some of the secondary info in that poll was encouraging, such as Moore's supporters having more reservations.

Dear Suspended and Disgraced Not a Judge Roy Moore; 

I won't pray for you.

Luv,

Nasty Long Rider

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

It should be pointed out that so far this year 6 US soldiers have died in combat. In 2010 500 US soldiers died. But Trump, of course, has done so much more than any other president.

Here is where the media cannot afford to keep letting the ball drop. I know that investigations are expensive, but Trump claimed he mailed letters of condolence but "They weren't sent until today, maybe Tuesday they'll be sent."

This is flat out bullshit.

News outlets must follow this up. Contact the families and have them show the post mark on the letters - we know full well that they won't have been posted until well after Trump claims because he hadn't done them yet. Or, more likely, they'll never come at all. Wait a week and then post the story, "TRUMP LIED: HE NEVER SENT LETTERS TO GOLD STAR FAMILIES."

Be really explicit, none of this "his misled" stuff. Be really explicit: it's a lie when he doesn't tell the truth. He intentionally does it. Run that story into the ground, prove that he doesn't care one iota for the military. Have military veterans front and centre, explaining their PTSD, their disabilities and the means of support they need. Have them explain in their own words that they've nothing to do with the NFL kneeling, that they have real problems of their own. And then run the story in Puerto Rico - where military veterans are a disproportionate percentage of their population. They're probably the most reliable recruiting ground for America's armed forces and look how Trump treats them.

That's the story the media must run: for some reason Republicans have a monopoly on veteran issues even though they're utterly despicable when it comes to helping them. Hell, their spineless politicians allowed McCain to be trashed rather than stick up to a bombastic rapist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Here is where the media cannot afford to keep letting the ball drop. I know that investigations are expensive, but Trump claimed he mailed letters of condolence but "They weren't sent until today, maybe Tuesday they'll be sent."

This is flat out bullshit.

News outlets must follow this up. Contact the families and have them show the post mark on the letters - we know full well that they won't have been posted until well after Trump claims because he hadn't done them yet. Or, more likely, they'll never come at all. Wait a week and then post the story, "TRUMP LIED: HE NEVER SENT LETTERS TO GOLD STAR FAMILIES."

Be really explicit, none of this "his misled" stuff. Be really explicit: it's a lie when he doesn't tell the truth. He intentionally does it. Run that story into the ground, prove that he doesn't care one iota for the military. Have military veterans front and centre, explaining their PTSD, their disabilities and the means of support they need. Have them explain in their own words that they've nothing to do with the NFL kneeling, that they have real problems of their own. And then run the story in Puerto Rico - where military veterans are a disproportionate percentage of their population. They're probably the most reliable recruiting ground for America's armed forces and look how Trump treats them.

That's the story the media must run: for some reason Republicans have a monopoly on veteran issues even though they're utterly despicable when it comes to helping them. Hell, their spineless politicians allowed McCain to be trashed rather than stick up to a bombastic rapist.

The media runs with this story and within ten minutes Trump is on twitter talking about fake news.  They will be fake veterans and fake gold start families and fake envelopes with date stamps.  All fake.  That's what he will say and his base will believe him and it will further his cause on trying to discredit and dismantle the free press.  It's a dangerous game to play.  We are in a no win situation until Trump's base and all Republicans decide to remove him from office.  Even then, I suspect it will be a deadly event that would spark severe civil unrest or war.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to these guys:

https://mic.com/articles/185297/exclusive-army-bans-green-card-holders-from-enlisting-a-move-that-may-break-federal-law#.7qujb6WRi

The Army is sending out instructions that they will no longer accept green card holders. This is apparently illegal under federal law. And totally expected cause, you know, this is all about racism in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Notone said:

That is true, but not the whole story. The "mainstream" conservative ÖVP took a very sharp turn to the right, and it was basically Kurz (ÖVP) copying Strache (FPÖ) one quite a lot of issues. So to claim it wasn't a victory for the far right, because the far right party finished third and not second is a wee bit dishonest. Especially since both parties will be the next Austrian goverment.

Thank you for pointing this out.  It's also not lost on outside observers the origins of OVP, nor the dubious description of their platform as "mainstream" conservative, as it's understood in most other European countries.

9 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Hey guys, it's a been a while since I posted here, but I saw this fivethirty egiht article and was wondering if any lawyers could comment:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-allergic-to-math/

It's about the gerrymandering in Wisconsin case initially, but it's also about general anti-intellectualism regarding empircal and statistical methods in the Supreme Court and legal profession in general.

I don't think SCOTUS is any more likely to dismiss quantitative evidence than any other elected and/or appointed official.  In other words, while they may display more reticence towards empirical arguments than most, that's because they can.  If legislators or presidents could simply ignore basic facts they would - and we are in the midst of the latter doing exactly that. 

That being said, I'd like to believe Kennedy was genuine insofar as his Veith decision meant he was persuadable when the time had come.  The time has come - and while I'm not optimistic, I think he's aware at this point he will lose a certain amount of credibility.  That's not negligible.

3 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Interesting. Of the three polls for NJ that came out today, two have Northam ahead, but with less of a margin than previous polls, and the third poll is the first to show Gillespie with an actual lead (+1). Pretty ominous.

On the flip side, a FOX News poll today showed the Alabama race being, I shit you not, a tie. Some of the secondary info in that poll was encouraging, such as Moore's supporters having more reservations.

(Links.)

This is going to be fucking intense.

Don't think the NJ race is a concern (famous last words, I know).  Northam's lack of levity is very concerning.  When races tighten, you want to see the frontrunner collect a somewhat even amount of the undecideds.  He needs to be above 50 at this point and he's not.  Worst part about it - I can totally see Virginia electing a lifelong political hack like Ed Gillespie to replace lifelong political hack Terry McAuliffe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, the local Congresswoman was in the limo with the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson on the way to meet his coffin when Trump called. The call was on speaker.

Trump told her "He knew what he signed up for, but I guess it hurts anyway".

Holy shit. What tact. But Trump has done more for grieving families than any other president.

The family was sobbing because they were told they could not have an open casket....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I have family-in-law in the US who pretty much voted as such. Though they are upper-middle class financially so they didn't vote against their economic interests unless one thinks in the more holictis sense that if you keep large numbers of people poor and economically depressed those chickens will eventually come home to roost. I think they kinda believed some of Trump's MAGA bullshit, so they somewhat willingly voted for Trump, but there was also no way on God's green Earth that they would ever vote for a Clinton. But I think they are having buyer's remorse and it could be that if a palatable candidate pops up for the Democrats in 2020 they could vote for a Democrat for president the first time ever. But that means a NOT Bernie Sanders candidate. Any Democrat with the slightest whiff of the "S" word around them will be dismissed out of hand. If a socialist* candidate is nominated for the democrats would need to hope that a large number of middle class centre-right Republicans are just so disillusioned with Trump that they simply stay home.

I saw a bit of this at work the other day.  Gal came into a minor windfall and said the bulk of it was going to pay off bills - especially two medical bills.  She wanted them settled before 'Trump really screwed up the healthcare system.'  She supported, and voted for the Donald, and loathes democrats on general principles.  Others at the office share her sentiments; there was one youngish vet who used to loudly say 'give Trump a chance,' but refuses to discuss him anymore.  Others are concerned about Trump either tripping off an economic meltdown, or getting the US involved in a major war by accident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I saw a bit of this at work the other day.  Gal came into a minor windfall and said the bulk of it was going to pay off bills - especially two medical bills.  She wanted them settled before 'Trump really screwed up the healthcare system.'  She supported, and voted for the Donald, and loathes democrats on general principles.  Others at the office share her sentiments; there was one youngish vet who used to loudly say 'give Trump a chance,' but refuses to discuss him anymore.  Others are concerned about Trump either tripping off an economic meltdown, or getting the US involved in a major war by accident. 

"By accident"?

Lol, maybe you should tell them it probably won't be an accident....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

"By accident"?

Lol, maybe you should tell them it probably won't be an accident....

I see comments by disillusioned conservatives like her (and others where I work) on various political articles fairly frequently.  There are multiple variations, but it usually runs along the lines of -

1 - Obummer was an evil demoncrat out to destroy the country.

2 - Killary would be Obummer 2.0

3 - Therefore, I supported/voted for Trump to undo Obummers evil plots and 'Make America Great Again.'

4 - However, impossibly, Trump is worse than Obummer.

And that is as far as they can go on that line of reasoning.  It's like they run into a mental wall. 

A couple conservative posters in these threads, most recently 'Mother Cacanuts' (sp?) also displayed reasoning of this sort - going to immense lengths to NOT think through the implications of their beliefs.

These people would NEVER vote democrat, but they do consider certain programs - SS, Medicaid, Medicare, a couple others - as sacrosanct - notions apparently lost on much of the republican party.  Properly presented - suitable conservative moralistic slant - they might go for other 'entitlements' as well.  

My prediction is that unless the republican leadership realizes just how sacrosanct the majority of their base views things like SS and Medicaid, they will pay very, very dearly at the polls - regardless of gerrymandering and voter suppression.  These people won't vote democrat (democrats are automatically EVIL), but they could either stay away in droves or cast their votes for candidates utterly unacceptable to the power brokers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

I see comments by disillusioned conservatives like her (and others where I work) on various political articles fairly frequently.  There are multiple variations, but it usually runs along the lines of -

1 - Obummer was an evil demoncrat out to destroy the country.

2 - Killary would be Obummer 2.0

3 - Therefore, I supported/voted for Trump to undo Obummers evil plots and 'Make America Great Again.'

4 - However, impossibly, Trump is worse than Obummer.

And that is as far as they can go on that line of reasoning.  It's like they run into a mental wall. 

A couple conservative posters in these threads, most recently 'Mother Cacanuts' (sp?) also displayed reasoning of this sort - going to immense lengths to NOT think through the implications of their beliefs.

These people would NEVER vote democrat, but they do consider certain programs - SS, Medicaid, Medicare, a couple others - as sacrosanct - notions apparently lost on much of the republican party.  Properly presented - suitable conservative moralistic slant - they might go for other 'entitlements' as well.  

My prediction is that unless the republican leadership realizes just how sacrosanct the majority of their base views things like SS and Medicaid, they will pay very, very dearly at the polls - regardless of gerrymandering and voter suppression.  These people won't vote democrat (democrats are automatically EVIL), but they could either stay away in droves or cast their votes for candidates utterly unacceptable to the power brokers.

 

Here's the crucial wedge though, social security Medicare and Medicaid are not viewed as sacrosanct by the base; the base believes the minorities and special interests have received more than their fair shares of social security and medicaid and Medicare and thus the base themselves will NEVER get what belongs to them, what they are owed, because they know it to be totally true that the minorities on the dem team have deliberately bankrupted the programs with their thieving shenanigans. 

Thus the base will happily agree to axing all of of these programs because the base thinks that some pollution begs the knife.

The base believes amputation and or execution are perfectly acceptable solutions when the problem is "obviously" that minorities have bankrupted the system and thus have cheated them out of what rightfully belongs to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Thus the base will happily agree to axing all of of these programs because the base thinks that some pollution begs the knife.

No.  No base in American politics outside of the Club for Growth will happily axe Social Security nor Medicare.  Best thing about the ACA is the public is beginning to equate Medicaid with those two as well.

I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the type of nationalist populism Trump has grasped to assume it has anything to do with these programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Here's the crucial wedge though, social security Medicare and Medicaid are not viewed as sacrosanct by the base; the base believes the minorities and special interests have received more than their fair shares of social security and medicaid and Medicare and thus the base themselves will NEVER get what belongs to them, what they are owed, because they know it to be totally true that the minorities on the dem team have deliberately bankrupted the programs with their thieving shenanigans. 

Thus the base will happily agree to axing all of of these programs because the base thinks that some pollution begs the knife.

The base believes amputation and or execution are perfectly acceptable solutions when the problem is "obviously" that minorities have bankrupted the system and thus have cheated them out of what rightfully belongs to them.

Ax these programs, no.  Highly aggressive and possibly race based 'reform' to 'set matters straight,' maybe.  But there, they run into immediate logical/emotional problems, so they'd settle for 'less aggressive reform.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...