US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

No, you can't. 

Yes, you can (ha ha). We were talking about how embarassing it was for the US to have an idiot as president. If you want to shift the subject to experience and/or qualification, Eisenhower or Grant also had zero political experience before being elected, and Wilson only had two years.

I sympathize with the anti-Trump sentiment, but at some point the hysteria has to stop. Trump may be unique in some respects, but it's not like he's the first terrible president the US has ever had. A bit of historical perspective will go a long way to understand what the dangers really are.

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, you can (ha ha). We were talking about how embarassing it was for the US to have an idiot as president. If you want to shift the subject to experience and/or qualification, Eisenhower or Grant also had zero political experience before being elected, and Wilson only had two years.

I sympathize with the anti-Trump sentiment, but at some point the hysteria has to stop. Trump may be unique in some respects, but it's not like he's the first terrible president the US has ever had. A bit of historical perspective will go a long way to understand what the dangers really are.

Different world today. Everything is connected and we have progressed as a society. Trump threatens that progression while also threatening the world as we know it. He's the most powerful man in the most powerful country and he can do a lot of damage. I think the hysterics is warranted especially as he only became president on Friday.

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I see DT has sent his son-in-law to Canada, to Calgary, where the federal cabinet is meeting this week.

I thought Kushner's role was going to be saving the Middle East. You know, negotiating The Peace that no one else has been able to do?  Is he supposed to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada at the same time?

Maybe Trump isn't as fond of his son-in-law as he claims to be.

This speaks to how important Kushner is, not how unimportant. Kushner's role is to be Trump's top political advisor, co-foreign policy advisor alongside Bannon, and one-third of the West Wing triumvirate alongside Bannon and Preibus. Power is very concentrated inside this White House and Kushner (and the other two) have way more responsibilities that people in their positions usually have.

[Mexal]

Just to keep everyone updated on his first executive orders.

 

[Ice Queen]

All old white guys. 

[TrueMetis]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Just to keep everyone updated on his first executive orders.

 

Wait, so what about all the jobs that are unstaffed?

[ljkeane]

Speaking of Executive Orders apparently Trump is pulling out of the TPP trade agreement.

[Fez]

The linked article is pretty clearly about suicide prevention among service members and veterans, but the tweet, um, yeah.

 

[Arakan]

55 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, you can (ha ha). We were talking about how embarassing it was for the US to have an idiot as president. If you want to shift the subject to experience and/or qualification, Eisenhower or Grant also had zero political experience before being elected, and Wilson only had two years.

I sympathize with the anti-Trump sentiment, but at some point the hysteria has to stop. Trump may be unique in some respects, but it's not like he's the first terrible president the US has ever had. A bit of historical perspective will go a long way to understand what the dangers really are.

Why do you choose Eisenhower and Grant, two persons who SERVED their country with their lifes and who had DIRECT responsibility for the lifes of hundred of thousand men? 

Trump and his whole behavior are an unprecedented embarrassment. As I said the only comparison I could make is with Kaiser Wilhelm II. And because the comparison with GWB has been made...well GWB at least had a charming personality and some other qualities e.g. the quality of self-irony (at least from time to time), something which DJT totally lacks. Trump makes more the impression of a clear cut narcissistic sociopath with massive complexes and a tendency to megalomania. But lacking any deeper intelligence (thus any comparisons to Hitler, Mao, Stalin are also wrong). 

There really is no comparison in the last 100 years with a leader of a category A nation who matches DJT's profile. 

 

Edit

FOR GOD's SAKE this man was a part-time wrestler :))). Just watch those YT videos...hallelujah

[SkynJay]

Remember all the right wing hand wringing about Obama''s unprecedented use of executive orders?  

[Rippounet]

15 minutes ago, Arakan said:

There really is no comparison in the last 100 years with a leader of a category A nation who matches DJT's profile.

If you say so.

BTW, what do you think of this Norman Mailer quote?

Quote

We have the worst President in America's history. He's ignorant, he's arrogant, he's stupid in all ways but one: which is that he's immensely shrewd about the American people, particularly the less intelligent half of America. Because they're very happy with him in that they realize how stupid he is, and they say to themselves, "Wonderful! If that stupid guy can be President, so can I.

Sounds like it could work for Trump, right?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If you say so.

BTW, what do you think of this Norman Mailer quote?

Sounds like it could work for Trump, right?

Eisenhower oversaw the largest Naval invasion in world history, commanded millions of men, oversaw the distribution millions of tons of materiel, managed expectations from the home front, balanced the egos various allied commanders and delivered in exemplary fashion. What Grant did was on a smaller, school, but perhaps just as impressive given the ad-hoc nature of federal bureaucracy at the time, and less advanced communications and transportation technologies. Woodrow Wilson was a highly respected scholar of political science and was president of a major university. And that's in addition to being a Governor.

Hell, Ronald Reagan, was by all accounts a very generous and charitable person (they said that if he'd ever met a person whose benefits he cut, he invite that person in for dinner and buy him/her a house). He was a Governor. And most importantly, he could at least play that role of President on TV (in the Martin Sheen/Josiah Bartlett sense)

And George W. Bush, the guy you're so obliquely mentioning, was an Elder Statesman compared to Trump. Remember his speech insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, and that we were only at war with violent radicals?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 hours ago, Arakan said:

When I think about it, I still cannot believe that DJT is president of the mightiest nation on earth...a country with almost 250 years of continuous democratic tradition, a country of many bright minds. 

It's unbelievable. Berlusconi is maybe the nearest thing but Silvio had charme, could be quite funny and eloquent. An Italian Don. 

But the Donald is just a 70 year old man-child, a narcissist without much humour, charme or the ability to take a joke. I cannot imagine more embarrassment for such a objectively great nation. There is absolutely no historic comparison. Maybe Kaiser Wilhelm II, by a stretch. But he was a monarch and the people had no choice. 

America, America. what have you done? The only hope is that his people get him under control. But we are speaking of the Donald, a man who always got his way. 

Ahum, especially as a Bavarian you ought not cast stones so hastily at the yanks and their embarassment in chief. I have three letters for you FJS. He checked quite a few of the Trump boxes, too. And your southern tribe is still cherishing him like an icon in an orthodox church. Not mention your current chieftain and his tribal council.

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Its probable that they spoke with Tillerson and decided (rightly or wrongly) that, much like Mattis, he is on a completely different page, different chapter, different book from Trump. He's definitely knowledgable about foreign affairs and at dealing with erratic foreign leaders; and ExxonMobil claims that they severed all ties with him on Jan. 3 to ensure compliance with conflict-of-interest laws. If he convinced the senators that he actually is separate from the company now and will not take actions to benefit them, he wouldn't be the worst pick for SoS.

Its just, I don't think there's any way to be 100% certain that he is conflict-of-interest free or that he won't go right back to ExxonMobil after his public career ends; especially not after seeing how oil guys acted under the Bush administration.

There is severing ties and then there is severing ties.  Tillerson has spent his entire adult career as a part of ExxonMobil, has he not? And Maddow had some interesting connections between ExxonMobil holdings in Russia vs the rest of the world and exactly how much they were actually drilling in Russia vs the rest of the world...something stinks here.  

See if I can find the link...Found it...

[Rippounet]

12 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Hell, Ronald Reagan, was by all accounts a very generous and charitable person (they said that if he'd ever met a person whose benefits he cut, he invite that person in for dinner and buy him/her a house). He was a Governor. And most importantly, he could at least play that role of President on TV (in the Martin Sheen/Josiah Bartlett sense)

And George W. Bush, the guy you're so obliquely mentioning, was an Elder Statesman compared to Trump. Remember his speech insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, and that we were only at war with violent radicals?

You're missing the point. I'm not denying that Reagan or W. had their good sides, far from it. I'm also content to let some hyperbole fly. What I'm taking issue is when people start saying this or that is "a first" when often it is not. I guess Trump is unique in that he is mediocre in so many ways. Yet, so far, appart from his twitter antics, he hasn't even been that innovative yet.

Edit: though on second thought, I have to admit, the phone call with the Taiwanese PM was a good one. Creating a minor diplomatic crisis before being inaugurated? I'll have to check whether that's been done before.

[Einheri]

3 hours ago, Kouran said:

Ok you sure can seize civilian ships, about 10 minutes later when every nation on earth embargoes them I'm sure the Russians will regret it. You dont mess with merchant shipping without serious consequences.

Depends on whose ships they're seizing.

Additionally, sure roads and railroads can be rebuilt, but a large number of roads/railroads in Norway/Sweden have large sections that are elevated or against cliffs, again a decent demo team can drop a few spans or collapse a cliff face. You aren't going to drive a 40 ton tank over an improvised bridge, you're going to rail head it to near the front then use it.

Even modern Russian gear has high mechanical failure rates for drive trains, final drives and transmissions so putting more hours on the clock just means you have to repair more shit. Good luck bringing all the spares along with food, fuel and ammo if you hauling shit around improvised bridges. Not to mention the rail gauge difference. 

This is true, and might be a cause of significant delays. I've taken the railroad between Trondheim and Bodø, and I've certainly seen parts like that. However, I'm not entirely convinced that it's possible to stop road traffic between these cities, and the Russians can still move tanks and heavy vehicles with wheeled tank transporters. And we don't exactly have a lot of heavy weapons ourselves, so even a lighter force of mainly wheeled armored vehicles might be enough to get the job done.

Regarding sabotage, this is a problem but Russia could resort to the same tried and tested countermeasures as the Germans did to stop saboteurs from causing too much trouble: Reprisals against the civilian population.

Sure the Wehrmacht stayed in Norway for 4 years, they also had functioning ports and a supply line from Denmark through Oslo. The Russians have 1 year road ice free port they could use on a Scandinavian adventure. Good luck with that every attack sub on earth would be parked outside Murmansk waiting to kill anything with  a Russian flag on it. In addition, there is a world of deference in keeping a semi modern army/airforce supplied instead of a WW2 army that had essentially no electronics. 

The crap tactic supply job the Russians are doing in Syria is on point. They have a year round warm water port that's 982 km away and they can't keep an understrength brigade supplied to combat readiness levels. That's 50 hours at sea at 10 knots with no bad weather.

Maybe you're right, or maybe you're underestimating them and what they're capable of if they really put their mind and best efforts into it. In any case, I admit that you make a good case why a Scandinavian invasion from the north would be extremely difficult, and perhaps they'd have to be foolish to even try it. That said, a more limited land grab wouldn't pose as much problems (Norway's largest county, Finnmark, is still a nifty price, and the Norwegian army considers it  impossible to hold). And it's not like it would be the first time that someone have overestimated their own abilities and at the same time underestimated the challenge they were planning on embarking upon, and if Europe is weak this becomes more likely, hence I want  more military spending because a) I don't want war in Europe, even if it's a war we'll win and b )  if shit does hit the fan, I want us to be as ready as possible for it

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

Many times, but Trump continues to insist that his lawyers advise him to the contrary. (Well, he would never use a phrase like 'to the contrary' but you know what I mean.)

And now, according to that logic, he will never have to release his tax returns because the President is automatically under audit. 

[Werthead]

Quote

 

Edit: though on second thought, I have to admit, the phone call with the Taiwanese PM was a good one. Creating a minor diplomatic crisis before being inaugurated? I'll have to check whether that's been done before.

 

There was the phone call with the Taiwanese PM, the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, the suggestion that the United States would not permit North Korea to continue developing ballistic missiles and Tillerson's suggestion that the United States could blockade China's new military bases (which would be an actual act of war), all of which are major political-military statements in themselves, let alone all together.

[Fragile Bird]

I'm listening to Sean Spicer spewing out crap about how the American people are fed up with delays and roadblocks to work getting done. Pretty rich coming from a Republican, when the Republicans are the ones who delayed and roadblocked for 8 years.

He also bitched about the head of the CIA not being approved yet. But their candidate has plans to do more snooping into your lives, including 'lifestyle' snooping. He has also said he is willing to re-examine what's allowed in the CIA Handbook, which sets out their rules of conduct. This has been interpreted as returning to methods of torture which the Obama administration disallowed, like waterboarding, which Trump is so famously in favor of. Republicans have denied this.

Spicer also said the transition team has gone out to every department, looking for cost savings, including looking for duplicity. I guess he doesn't understand the meaning of duplicity, but ironically, he's probably correct.

[Werthead]

Spicer started off doing the right thing. He was very cool and efficient. Now he's trying to address the elephant in the room with a smile on his face and it's starting to blow up in his face. This is getting a big excruciating. "DID REAGAN HAVE YOUTUBE?"