US Politics: Passing Gas In Public is Abhorrent Behavior

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

And Saddam threw a little gas on Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and Reagan knew about it and did nothing. But of course it was a totally legit reason to invade 15 years later.

To be fair, that was before even the US had signed treaties against chemical weapons use and manufacture. 

Whereas the above clip was from Trump in 2015 on the campaign trail talking about chemical attacks as just not that big a deal. 

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

To be fair, that was before even the US had signed treaties against chemical weapons use and manufacture.

If that technically let's Reagan off, why was Saddam retroactively guilty?

[Kalbear]

Just now, James Arryn said:

If that technically let's Reagan off, why was Saddam retroactively guilty?

Probably because he continued to make them long after 1990? Fuck if I know, I don't really give a shit about prosecuting Hussein. Really, ya'll are kind of totally missing my point.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

39 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think this might be the biggest flip-flop position of anyone I've ever seen. Saddam throws 'a little gas' and people go crazy. YOU DON'T SAY.

 

To be fair, it's hard to flip-flop when you have no actual position. It's all just hot air with this guy. I don't think he has what you can call a foundational set of beliefs outside of Me, Me, Me.

[Kalbear]

Also, remember that hiring freeze? Nope, sorry, Trump is overriding his own EO because it is making it impossible to have the government work.

Quote

 

The Trump administration is lifting a federal hiring freeze as of Wednesday morning.

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney announced the policy change in a briefing to reporters Tuesday.

Cautioning "this does not mean agencies will be free to hire willy-nilly," Mulvaney said the across-the-board hiring freeze the president imposed by executive order three days after taking office in January is being replaced with a "smarter plan, a more strategic plan, a more surgical plan."

 

 

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, Fez said:

Why is this White House leading the War against Easter?!

U winz zee innertubez, babee!  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To be fair, it's hard to flip-flop when you have no actual position. It's all just hot air with this guy. I don't think he has what you can call a foundational set of beliefs outside of Me, Me, Me.

He does a few core beliefs and he's been remarkably consistent on them over the course of several decades. That said, the problem is that he has absolutely no intellectual curiosity and hasn't bothered to study anything else. 

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Probably because he continued to make them long after 1990? Fuck if I know, I don't really give a shit about prosecuting Hussein. Really, ya'll are kind of totally missing my point.

We're missing each other's, I think. Mine was more about citing that guilt as a war pretext as mentioned in the post you quoted. I agree with you about Trump here, but I will almost never let a chance to point out how wrong past unilateral invasions are go by without sounding off, kind of my thing.

[Dr. Pepper]

FYI, Trump voters now love NATO forever and ever and ever until the next time Trump changes his mind.

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/12/523483637/trump-hosts-nato-leader-amid-tension-with-russia

Quote

"I said it was obsolete; it's no longer obsolete," Trump declared,

 

[James Arryn]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

FYI, Trump voters now love NATO forever and ever and ever until the next time Trump changes his mind.

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/12/523483637/trump-hosts-nato-leader-amid-tension-with-russia

 

Oliver's right. At this point I expect every single thing he does to be directly contradicted by previous statements.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

FYI, Trump voters now love NATO forever and ever and ever until the next time Trump changes his mind.

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/12/523483637/trump-hosts-nato-leader-amid-tension-with-russia

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

  Quote

"I said it was obsolete; it's no longer obsolete," Trump declared,

 

I guess when Trump thought Russia was a country he could actually turn into a strategic ally it might have been a reasonable conclusion to say NATO is obsolete. Now that Trump has bumped up against reality, it's fortunate indeed that Trump has done a 180.

[DMC]

7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Differences between team Democrat and team Republican, Syria intervention edition:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/syria-reflexive-partisanship-doesnt-apply-both-parties

The asymmetry in polarization is very well documented.  The only thing new here is the fact the GOP asserted their congressional power when it looked like Obama was going to engage in a military strike.  Personally, I of course think it's ludicrously hypocritical and shameless.  Institutionally, I don't know if that's a bad thing.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Also, remember that hiring freeze? Nope, sorry, Trump is overriding his own EO because it is making it impossible to have the government work.

Otherwise known as an acknowledgement he needs careerists bureaucrats in order for the government to function, and it's not so easy to "destruct" the administrative state.  Hm, who coulda seen this coming?

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

We're missing each other's, I think. Mine was more about citing that guilt as a war pretext as mentioned in the post you quoted. I agree with you about Trump here, but I will almost never let a chance to point out how wrong past unilateral invasions are go by without sounding off, kind of my thing.

Wait, so are you guys actually taking issue with how Bush I dealt with Saddam in the first Gulf War?  That's an honest question, I'm not sure.  The Reagan administration certainly had its hand in Saddam's actions during the Iran-Iraq War, and obviously Dubya's excursion was, well, really dumb to put it nicely.  But sometimes I feel like I'm back in Peter Kuznick's class, i.e. insane anti-establishment, when I'm on here.  Hopefully I'm wrong.

[The Anti-Targ]

Did the Trump campaign play Russia? Given the connections we already know about, and the more than zero probability that there was direct collusion between Russia and someone / people in the Trump campaign, was it strictly a marriage of convenience until the election from the perspective of the Trump campaign, even while the Russians may have been expecting something in return?

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 

Wait, so are you guys actually taking issue with how Bush I dealt with Saddam in the first Gulf War?  That's an honest question, I'm not sure.  The Reagan administration certainly had its hand in Saddam's actions during the Iran-Iraq War, and obviously Dubya's excursion was, well, really dumb to put it nicely.  But sometimes I feel like I'm back in Peter Kuznick's class, i.e. insane anti-establishment, when I'm on here.  Hopefully I'm wrong.

Yep.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The asymmetry in polarization is very well documented.  The only thing new here is the fact the GOP asserted their congressional power when it looked like Obama was going to engage in a military strike.  Personally, I of course think it's ludicrously hypocritical and shameless.  Institutionally, I don't know if that's a bad thing.

Otherwise known as an acknowledgement he needs careerists bureaucrats in order for the government to function, and it's not so easy to "destruct" the administrative state.  Hm, who coulda seen this coming?

Wait, so are you guys actually taking issue with how Bush I dealt with Saddam in the first Gulf War?  That's an honest question, I'm not sure.  The Reagan administration certainly had its hand in Saddam's actions during the Iran-Iraq War, and obviously Dubya's excursion was, well, really dumb to put it nicely.  But sometimes I feel like I'm back in Peter Kuznick's class, i.e. insane anti-establishment, when I'm on here.  Hopefully I'm wrong.

No, second/Dubya. Hence 'unilateral'.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

No, second/Dubya. Hence 'unilateral'.

Aight, in agreement there!  Why you have a problem with citing chemical weapons use IRT Saddam being "retroactively" guilty (because he was) in response to Kal's post is still beyond me, but whatever.  That was pretty much the only legit argument Dubya had.

[DMC]

27 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Did the Trump campaign play Russia? 

No.  It's the other way around.  Putin wanted to destabilize our political system.  That's always been one of the KGB's prime objectives.  In that regard, he has been incredibly successful.  The saber-rattling that's gone on since Trump's strikes are just that.  Don't overreact to posturing.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

42 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Otherwise known as an acknowledgement he needs careerists bureaucrats in order for the government to function, and it's not so easy to "destruct" the administrative state.  Hm, who coulda seen this coming?

Yeah, possible the most asinine, amateurish assumption he's made to date. Which really also make me question his business acumen, as these types are also essential to any successful business.

[The Anti-Targ]

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Aight, in agreement there!  Why you have a problem with citing chemical weapons use IRT Saddam being "retroactively" guilty (because he was) in response to Kal's post is still beyond me, but whatever.  That was pretty much the only legit argument Dubya had.

I think you confuse truth with legitimacy for action. It is beyond question that Saddam used chemical weapons in 1988. But that fact in no way provides the faintest shred of legitimacy for Dubya's invasion in 2003.

There wasn't a legit argument then and there sure isn't one in hindsight now.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, possible the most asinine, amateurish assumption he's made to date. Which really also make me question his business acumen, as these types are also essential to any successful business.

Never question his business acumen!  Clearly, it's unquestionably deplorable.  

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think you confuse truth with legitimacy for action. It is beyond question that Saddam used chemical weapons in 1988. But that fact in no way provides the faintest shred of legitimacy for Dubya's invasion in 2003.

There wasn't a legit argument then and there sure isn't one in hindsight now.

Thanks for the semantics lesson.  Point was, Saddam did use chemical weapons, which made it a legit point - as opposed to yellowcake uranium, Colin Powell destroying his career at the UN, and whatnot.  I was protesting Dubya's invasion of Iraq the night it happened, where were you?