maarsen Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Fez said: Not to get too conspiracy-minded, but Ezra Cohen-Watnick, one of the folks McMaster removed from the National Security Council for being grossly underqualified, landed a job at Oracle. Considering how strongly Oracle spokespeople denied that McMaster said this after the story broke, it does make me wonder if these "sources" were Cohen-Watnick and his allies making up a story to try to get McMaster fired. But then again, Trump IS an idiot, as is evident by his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 I'll join in on the bra eating with Winter Fox and even provide pics. Jones isn't getting elected in Alabama. I'm unsure if the Senate will follow through on pushing Moore out if he is elected. Probably not. I'm guessing a known pedophile will be legislating those good morals for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said: I may be being wildly optimistic here, but I've privately predicted a Jones win to a couple of friends so I'll go ahead and make it public here. I believe that the breaking of a sex scandal (or sexual assault scandal) will generally break most candidates, and that Trump just happened to be an exception to that rule rather than a change of the rule itself. In addition, Jones is out-fundraising Moore since the scandal broke and is spending a ton more money on advertising than Moore is. Polling has unanimously shifted in Jones' favor, even among polls that show Moore ahead. It will most definitely be close, but I predict that Jones pulls this one out in the 11th inning. Counterpoint: people are monsters and everything is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 2 hours ago, WinterFox said: Of the chocolate bra? You betcha! Pictures of you eating it, not wearing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivin Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said: Pictures of you eating it, not wearing it. Foiled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 His Majesty made you a major because he believed you would know when not to obey his orders. - Said by some random prince to some random major Anyway, hoping certain people have a very good notion of when not to obey. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/us-nuclear-commander-would-balk-any-illegal-order Quote But there’s a related concern that goes well beyond the president’s ignorance: what if Trump decided he actually wanted to use the world’s most dangerous weapon? There was some notable commentary on the subject over the weekend. The top U.S. nuclear commander said Saturday he would push back against President Trump if he ordered a nuclear launch the general believed to be “illegal,” saying he would hope to find another solution. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Saturday that he has given a lot of thought to what he would say if Mr. Trump ordered a strike he considered unlawful. Hyten told the audience that he and his colleagues “think about these things a lot,” adding, “When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 It never fucking ends Quote Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai will reveal plans to his fellow commissioners on Tuesday to fully dismantle the agency's Obama-era net neutrality regulations, people familiar with the plans said, in a major victory for the telecom industry in the long-running policy debate. The commission will vote on the proposal in December, some seven months after it laid the groundwork for scuttling the rules that require internet service providers like Comcast or AT&T to treat web traffic equally. President Donald Trump-appointed Pai’s plan would jettison rules that prohibit ISPs from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so-called paid internet fast lanes, the people familiar with the changes said. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/net-neutrality-repeal-fcc-251824 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Saturday that he has given a lot of thought to what he would say if Mr. Trump ordered a strike he considered unlawful. Hyten told the audience that he and his colleagues “think about these things a lot,” adding, “When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?” Well Sir, If you are really interested on how one would not think about this responsibility, just ask Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 10 hours ago, mormont said: I, too, like to balance my intake of healthy food by eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. If there was any healthy food around, I'd eat it... but as it stands, all one can do is hope for destructive interference between the toxins. 2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said: I believe that the breaking of a sex scandal (or sexual assault scandal) will generally break most candidates, and that Trump just happened to be an exception to that rule rather than a change of the rule itself. Rules of this nature do not change instantaneously, but there is no doubt that this type of accusation is becoming less effective. I agree with you that Moore is more likely to lose than not (though it'll be close). However, this is because in addition to the scandal, he has been fighting both the Democrats and a substantial fraction of the Republicans (during the primary, including even Trump!) the entire way. If McConnell had said "I believe in innocent until proven guilty" or, better yet, "Given a budget of order one million dollars, I know teams who can come up with a dozen people who will make any accusation you want against almost anyone", this would have been a different story. As it stands, the scandal will probably be effective this time, but the days of this strategy are numbered. Trump faced a similar problem as Moore, but the nature of Trump's opponent overwhelmed whatever opposition elements of the Republican party were able to muster. Moore faces far greater opposition from his party and is not nearly as lucky in his opponent, but the race is still close. The next few will be close in either direction, but, barring something provably illegal, the effects of such accusations will diminish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivin Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said: I'll join in on the bra eating with Winter Fox and even provide pics. Jones isn't getting elected in Alabama. I'm unsure if the Senate will follow through on pushing Moore out if he is elected. Probably not. I'm guessing a known pedophile will be legislating those good morals for the rest of us. Don't give in to the propaganda! The stain upon the species above is right. You have to use your brain machine to understand that only Roger More's bible and gun will keep the rocket man and the gaaaaaaaaaaaays away! It's not about whether he's a pedophile, it matters that he's going to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! Listen, I'm not suggesting I started a thread with an alternative motive to make friends with Australians so that I can move to their country if Roy Moore wins. But if that's something you would like to get in on, just hit me up with a PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 1 hour ago, WinterFox said: Foiled! Busted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 1 hour ago, WinterFox said: Don't give in to the propaganda! The stain upon the species above is right. You have to use your brain machine to understand that only Roger More's bible and gun will keep the rocket man and the gaaaaaaaaaaaays away! It's not about whether he's a pedophile, it matters that he's going to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! Listen, I'm not suggesting I started a thread with an alternative motive to make friends with Australians so that I can move to their country if Roy Moore wins. But if that's something you would like to get in on, just hit me up with a PM. Be careful what you wish for. The grass may not be greener. I would suggest a small tropical pacific Island, but they will mostly be under water in the next 30 to 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 5 hours ago, WinterFox said: Listen, I'm not suggesting I started a thread with an alternative motive to make friends with Australians so that I can move to their country if Roy Moore wins. But if that's something you would like to get in on, just hit me up with a PM. Just remember the golden rule of Australia: every single animal wants to kill you. That aside, there are a few of our ideas that you could export. Compulsory voting is one. It's counter-intuitive, because it seems punitive, but here's its genius: Since voting is compulsory, the government must make it as easy as possible for you to vote. Early voting, absentee voting, postal voting, disability assisted voting, voting in prisons, voting in hospitals, voting overseas - all of these are ready-made options for Australians. There's no voter-suppression, since voting must be done. As much as people complain about the completely exhausting task of lining up for a while at one of many voting booths (again, everyone has to, so there are many places to go), our turnout is high despite the fact that the penalty is just a $20 fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 8 hours ago, OldGimletEye said: His Majesty made you a major because he believed you would know when not to obey his orders. - Said by some random prince to some random major Anyway, hoping certain people have a very good notion of when not to obey. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/us-nuclear-commander-would-balk-any-illegal-order An illegal order would be something like him tweeting '@STRATCOM nuke Bozeman Montana everyone is saying how boring it is now TOTAL MAKEOVER NEEDED!'. If he ordered an attack on an ally, or Peru or somewhere, that also might be refused. Other than than, the entire US nuclear command and control architecture is about ensuring the President, and only the President has the authority to authorise and direct the use of nuclear weapons and making sure those orders are rapidly executed. If it's an order like nuke North Korea, China, Russia, etc, those orders are legal and the codes are in the football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 On 11/21/2017 at 5:07 AM, Horza said: An illegal order would be something like him tweeting '@STRATCOM nuke Bozeman Montana everyone is saying how boring it is now TOTAL MAKEOVER NEEDED!'. If he ordered an attack on an ally, or Peru or somewhere, that also might be refused. Other than than, the entire US nuclear command and control architecture is about ensuring the President, and only the President has the authority to authorise and direct the use of nuclear weapons and making sure those orders are rapidly executed. If it's an order like nuke North Korea, China, Russia, etc, those orders are legal and the codes are in the football. The quote I started with was said by Prince Frederick Charles to some random Prussian major during the Austrian-Prussian conflict (I believe that was the conflict where it happened. I don’t remember exactly as I’m getting senile and it’s been years since I read about. I do remember clearly that Moltke had the incident put into the officers training manual.) The Prince observed the major making some huge tactical blunder with his regiment. When the prince confronted the major about the blunder, the major gave the defense that he was ordered by a superior officer to do the act, and since the superior officer held his authority from the king, the order was tantamount to a legal order from the king and it would be hence unlawful to disobey. That’s when the prince retorted with the quote I put in. And I think every good officer needs to think about where he will break a lawful order, and deal with the consequences, if the order just appears too insane. And the princes point was the monarch doesn’t need individuals that simply follow orders, but the kind that are smart to enough to know when to break a completely stupid but legal order. And the general here in question, thinks he can deflect a completely stupid and rash order by simply saying it’s illegal, it would appear. The general may have to go beyond that and think where he will refuse an insane but “legal” order. And that was what I was thinking when I read the article and why I quipped kind of randomly with that quote. Obviously, having to break a legal order is a difficult situations to be in, and it would be easier if congress tightened up the presidents authority over nuclear weapons. That it hasn’t done so is probably because nobody thought it was possible that we would elect an idiot Orange Swamp Thing to the presidency. But, we did. And now, here we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 31 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: And the general here in question, thinks he can deflect a completely stupid and rash order by simply saying it’s illegal, it would appear. The general may have to go beyond that and think where he will refuse an insane but “legal” order. And that was what I was thinking when I read the article and why I quipped kind of randomly with that quote Note that the general doesn't even say that: Quote “I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do. And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.” He says he has an advisory role and he specifically doesn't say he'll refuse insane orders, only illegal ones, and those he will refine in order to produce something legal. He also rather conveniently assumes that Trump will display a sudden interest in legality and take advice on board. If that doesn't turn out to be the case it could get quite complicated. (Also the publicly available info on the chain of command suggests it goes: Donald > Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff > Stratcom > These guys so it's not clear Hynter would even be in a position to discuss the Bozeman annihilation order). Quote And I think every good officer needs to think about where he will break a lawful order, and deal with the consequences, if the order just appears too insane. And the princes point was the monarch doesn’t need individuals that simply follow orders, but the kind that are smart to enough to know when to break a completely stupid but legal order. I don't want to get too categorical, it's possible that the CJCS would try and halt a rash, Fox-and-Friends-induced order to melt Pyongyang, maybe even successfully. But the people who study this stuff say US nuclear chain of command is all about enabling Presidential authorisation, not challenging it. In that way, the US president is the absolute monarch of a kingdom of nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 Quote I don't want to get too categorical, it's possible that the CJCS would try and halt a rash, Fox-and-Friends-induced order to melt Pyongyang, maybe even successfully. But the people who study this stuff say US nuclear chain of command is all about enabling Presidential authorisation, not challenging it. In that way, the US president is the absolute monarch of a kingdom of nukes. I'm fairly sure it would be stopped if the scenario was Hannity randomly calling for it on Fox, perhaps because he has a hangover that day. However, what one person calls insane, another person can call legal and justified. The various calls for immediate war with Iran for example are seen as both legal and sane by some parties. The scenario where nukes might really be dropped is this: North Korea is about to have the capability to deliver a nuke to the mainland US. At that point some will be arguing that the only legal and sane thing to do is anything that stops NK from becoming a nuclear power. Now I strongly disagree with that, but Trump is likely to listen to it. So yes, I'm terrified, and Congress has shown little interest in doing much about it, beyond some noises from the Senate foreign relations committee. Some of the Congress critters, such as Senator Corker, who are very worried about what Trump might do, may not want to tie future Presidents hands or take much responsibility for decisions that are politically risky. If the GOP tax plan is so good, why do they lie so much about it? They ran on a middle-class tax cut. They’re delivering the opposite. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/20/16674640/gop-tax-plan-lies Why the Trump Administration Is Suing to Block the AT&T–Time Warner Merger The lawsuit may pit AT&T and Time Warner against the Justice Department. But it's the tech industry that might suffer the most. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/trump-att-time-warner/546443/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 14 hours ago, Ormond said: That's true of the national media, but is it true in Alabama? My understanding is that there isn't much of an Alabama media presence; most of it is just AP news aggregators or college football coverage. The two main exceptions are the independent Alabama Media Group (which runs Al.com and most of the big newspapers) and the right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group (which runs multiple ABC and NBC affiliates that serve Alabama); there's also some right-wing newspaper group that I can't remember the name of that was defending Moore at the start of the allegations but I haven't heard anything about in a while. Sinclair's ABC affiliate ran a hit piece about a week ago attacking Moore's accusers, and otherwise seem to be ignoring the election. The Alabama Media Group has been covering the story a lot and been extremely critical of Moore. Their editorial board ran an endorsement of Jones in all their papers on Sunday, though it was mostly on the basis of how bad Moore is; not sure how much they're otherwise covering Jones. Apparently Jones has been airing far more TV ads than Moore, but I think the 2016 election taught us that TV ads aren't a great metric for candidate exposure anymore. 13 hours ago, maarsen said: But then again, Trump IS an idiot, as is evident by his actions. He is. But McMaster seemingly is not an idiot, and it would be odd for him to be so reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 Fool me once, then shame on you. Fool me twice...then shame on, shame on,……... ya can’t get fooled again ya see? And we done got fooled again. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/21/16676390/donald-trump-george-bush-historical-analogies Quote We are living through unusual times, and the tendency is to reach for extreme historical analogies. I have seen this era compared to the run-up to the Civil War, to Watergate, to the dawn of Nazi Germany, to the presidency of Andrew Jackson, to the rise of Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, to the fall of the Roman Empire. But the most persuasive analogue is nearer both in time and in space. What this period most closely resembles, argues political scientist Brendan Nyhan, is the aftermath of the 2004 election, when George W. Bush defeated John Kerry. Then, like now, a culturally polarizing Republican candidate was narrowly elected after a campaign waged atop nationalistic, identitarian appeals. Quote This was the age in which Bill Clinton warned that "when people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right,” the era of flag pins, of Swift Boat Veterans, of books with titles like Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane. And that’s why, I guess, when Dubya walked upon that aircraft carrier with that stupid Mission Accomplished sign, despite the reality based community knowing it was going to be long conflict, and despite the warnings of General Shinseki, many conservative sorts of people just ate that shit up like it was the best thing ever. And let’s not forget the Bush Boom and Bullish On Bush, books that should be in any “true conservatives” library. ............................................................................ Yes, nobody really likes the individual mandate and it would be nice if we could do without it. But, the basic logic behind adverse selection is strong, even if conservative healthcare policy expert guy (and generally bullshit artist) Avik Roy doesn’t think so. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/21/16679274/senate-republican-tax-plan-alexander-murray Quote So Senate leaders are making a counteroffer: They will simultaneously pass a bill to stabilize the Obamacare marketplaces, negotiated by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-MA). The pitch is that this will help offset the consequences of repealing the mandate. The markets will be strengthened. Worried senators can thus support a tax bill with the mandate’s repeal. Quote “If the Congress is going to move forward with repeal of the individual mandate, we absolutely must have the Alexander-Murray piece that is passed into law,” she told Roll Call late last week, though she softened her stance slightly in a later statement. Collins also sounded open to the possibility, though she wants an additional infusion of federal dollars to shore up the insurance markets. But health policy experts say Alexander-Murray isn’t nearly enough to offset the consequences of repealing the mandate. The individual mandate, as unpopular as it is, is one of the pillars of the health care law. The stabilization bill does little more than guarantee payments to health insurers that were only in doubt because President Trump cut them off. .................................................................................... http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/false-promises-about-corporate-taxes-and-american-workers/ Quote Republicans in Congress and in the Trump administration have turned to tax reform, touting it as crucial for investment, job creation, and economic growth that will benefit American workers. While most policymakers agree that tax reform is overdue, true reform seems far less likely than poorly designed corporate tax cuts, and economic research shows that the results from such tax cuts are likely to be deeply disappointing to American workers. Quote How would corporate tax cuts affect the middle class? For corporate tax cuts to benefit workers, the resulting increase in corporate after-tax profits would need to fuel new investments, those new investments would need to increase the productivity of labor, and the higher productivity would need to boost wages. But why rely on indirect mechanisms to help workers when we have far more direct tools? Quote Further, much of the U.S. corporate tax base at present is excess profits, which are profits above the normal level accruing due to intangible sources of economic value and market power. U.S. Treasury economists now calculate that three-quarters of the corporate tax base is excess profits, often in the hands of very few superstar companies. Giving a tax cut to this part of the tax base just makes excess profits even larger, without stimulating capital investment or wages. Quote If burgeoning corporate after-tax profits were the key to investment and wage growth, then the previous 15 years should have been a paradise of wage growth, as after-tax profits in recent years have been about 50 percent higher than in decades prior (as a share of Gross Domestic Product), and higher than at any point in the past half-century. (See Figure 1.) Quote Those arguing for corporate tax cuts typically cloak their arguments under the guise of competitiveness. But this is nonsense. Our multinational companies are the most competitive on the planet. The United States has a disproportionate share of the Forbes 2000 list of global companies, and after-tax profits are at record levels. Further, our multinational companies are so skillful at exploiting loopholes to lower their tax bills that they often achieve effective tax rates in the single digits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 15 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: I guess you should buy a chocolate bra and wear that on the day of the elections, just as a precaution. I was thinking that bras have a awful lot of fiber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.