Jump to content

U.S. Politics: And a Happy "Shithole" Year


Sivin

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

What about this story makes you think that it will be a problem for Trump?  No one, including social conservatives, believe that Trump has been faithful to his wives.  I mean, he was caught on tape bragging about trying to have an affair back in 2005. 

 

I highly doubt it will be a problem for Trump. I just think the ensuing hand waving from SCs will be funny in the sense that they’re so willing to debase themselves for this man who represents everything they claim to be against (and yes, as others have noted, they’re total hypocrites). We’re trap in a dark comedy Maith, and it’s part 1 in the Idiocracy series.

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Word is that In Touch is going to publish the 2011 story and there might be some, uh, physical descriptions shared. If there's anything unflattering, imagine how difficult it would be for him to avoid responding or lashing out.

There were already a lot of descriptions in the link I shared. Safe to say he didn’t rock her world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Don't delude yourself that this is just biased pollsters. 

Ipsos is a good pollster, and they've have 4 weekly polls in a row with Trump at or above 40%.  Prior to that, he hadn't been able to manage 40% since September with them. 

The YouGov poll has Trump at 42%, you have to go all the way back to April before he got a result that good with them.  Zogby has him at 46%, his highest poll since February. 

Sure, he's still only around 40%, and some quality pollsters have found recent results below that, but it's pretty inarguable that he's been getting better polling in January than he has for many months. 

I stand corrected, that sounds like a valid counterpoint. We'll just have to see how it goes from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

I think he was probably referring to pussy gate, and the various allegations of sexual assault against Trump, rather than this specific story. 

Yeah, this was before the most recent sex scandal of him having affairs with porn stars while his wife takes care of their infant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Word is that In Touch is going to publish the 2011 story and there might be some, uh, physical descriptions shared. If there's anything unflattering, imagine how difficult it would be for him to avoid responding or lashing out.

Why should anything be unflattering to his followers?

Also, he'll find a doctor who will attest to the fact that he is the most virile, beautiful, sexually inventive man who ever graced the earth. At the same time, Trumpists will loudly show their support, for God only intended one way to have sex.

Nobody will notice the contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Yeah, this was before the most recent sex scandal of him having affairs with porn stars while his wife takes care of their infant.

Let's please not make this a bigger deal than it is.  No one knows what sort of relationship Trump and Melania have.  There don't appear to be any consent issues between Trump and the porn star.  Even offers of a tv job came well after the initial sexual contact.  It's a given that his base won't care about this because they are a bunch of hypocrites.  But the liberals shouldn't be up in arms about this one either.  It's none of our business what happens in a private marriage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple is going to pay $38 Billion in taxes and repatriate overseas cash, taking advantage of the 15.5% tax rate in the recently passed tax reform bill. It will also build another new facility and hire 20,000 more workers in the US, spending $30 B in the US over the next 5 years.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-pay-38-billion-in-repatriation-tax-plans-new-u-s-campus-1516215419?mod=e2fb

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fez said:

SoCons are incredibly hypocritical and are about this very topic, but the right comparison is Bill Clinton, not Al Franken (and even that isn't perfect, because the US President-Intern power divide is much bigger than TV Host-Porn Star power divide).

Minor caveat to add though. Trump wasn't just the host, he was an executive producer, and he was dangling a spot on the Apprentice over her head. That, in part, is why it became an affair rather than a one night stand.

52 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Yeah, this was before the most recent sex scandal of him having affairs with porn stars while his wife takes care of their infant.

Remember when Obama did that? Yeah, me neither.

34 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Let's please not make this a bigger deal than it is.  No one knows what sort of relationship Trump and Melania have.  There don't appear to be any consent issues between Trump and the porn star.  Even offers of a tv job came well after the initial sexual contact.  It's a given that his base won't care about this because they are a bunch of hypocrites.  But the liberals shouldn't be up in arms about this one either.  It's none of our business what happens in a private marriage.  

I agree that Dems shouldn't make too big a deal out of this, but it is important to highlight the hypocrisy on display. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump's credibility crisis on Capitol Hill
Lawmakers find it difficult or impossible to negotiate when the president can't seem to stick to a position for more than a few hours.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/trump-credibility-capitol-hill-lawmakers-negotiating-342989

If only there were some sign or evidence during the campaign season to show that Trump is a fickle, inconstant, narcissistic, uninformed, self-aggrandizing, unprepared, conman so they could have wised up and thrown their support to a different candidate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, WinterFox said:

Stop adding conditions. 

All we need is two Republicans to say that if Trump fires Muller they will no longer vote on any legislation until the new Congress is sworn in. 

That's it. 

And they don't even have to go that hardline. All they have to do is make it absolutely clear that they will take on no issues that do not directly relate to the continued functioning of the Government until the new Congress is sworn in and the American people are able to make their voices heard for continued investigation in the House. 

It's that simple, Bear. 

And it doesn't matter, as I pointed out. That stance changes literally nothing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Minor caveat to add though. Trump wasn't just the host, he was an executive producer, and he was dangling a spot on the Apprentice over her head. That, in part, is why it became an affair rather than a one night stand.

Remember when Obama did that? Yeah, me neither.

I agree that Dems shouldn't make too big a deal out of this, but it is important to highlight the hypocrisy on display. 

I've kind of thrown my hands up when it comes to Evangelical hypocrisy. It makes me both angry and depressed. I'd probably just shrug at their nihilism, if they weren't engaged in a large project to make radical right wing changes to our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

First, I highly recommend checking it out if the history of the Roosevelt family peaks your interests. Just know that it’s a large time investment. Second, what did you Google search, cause I found this near the top of the page:

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/09/16/pbs-doc-teddy-roosevelt-imperialist-killer-who-glorified-war

Ken Burns didn’t specifically say it, but historians in his documentary did. I also found some other historians who used similar language when discussing this aspect of Roosevelt’s life and personality. I probably should have phrased it better in my initial post though.

Also, dude killed A LOT of animals, both as a youth and as an adult. When did psychologists start using that as a sign of antisocial behavior?

He hunted. There is no sign of torture or particular cruelty to animals or other people in any of his life, and point of fact he took a lot of absurd risks when facing animals - like hunting bear with a revolver with one bullet. 

 

Nor was there any other outward sign of psychopathy; he didn't lie particularly much, he didn't blame others for his issues, he had a firm grasp of reality, he had a stern moral code that appeared to largely be affected by others, etc. The idea that Roosevelt is a psychopath because he believed in waging war as policy is absurd on its face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure this will make Trump happy:

Quote

White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly told Democratic lawmakers Wednesday that the United States will never construct a physical wall along the entire stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border and that some of President Trump’s campaign promises on immigration were “uninformed.”

The comments put Kelly at odds with Trump, who repeatedly said during his presidential campaign that he would build a border wall that Mexico would pay for, not U.S. taxpayers. Kelly’s statements also reinforce the chaos and indecision over immigration policy that has plagued the White House for several months since Trump announced the end of an Obama-era program protecting young immigrant “dreamers” in September.

Democrats and Republicans have warned in recent days that Trump is not clearly stating what he wants as part of a deal to replace the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and bolster security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Kelly’s comments, made in a closed-door session at the U.S. Capitol with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), also show that senior administration officials know that Trump will not be able to fulfill two key campaign promises  — the construction of a wall along the southern border that is paid for by Mexico.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/01/17/kelly-says-some-of-trumps-campaign-pledges-on-immigration-wall-uninformed-meeting-attendees-say/?utm_term=.6e03db762599

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zorral said:

Making judgments about Fidel and about Cuba and the Cuban way of life cannot be valid without having ever spent time there, over a long span of time, as well as knowing well many Cubans from all the strata of the society, including those who were imprisoned for, well, things like refusing to join the army -- which you, like everyone else who pronounces, have not and do not. 

Wow.  This is so extraordinarily absurd I'm unsure on where to start.  First, let's clarify that the only one making judgments "about Cuba and the Cuban way of life" is you.  Moreover, I'm echoing the vast consensus of Cuban exiles in Florida that I've spent time with, "over a long period of time," which is your own ludicrous standard.  Have you?

So let's extrapolate that standard.  Its logic dictates that since I can't have an opinion on Castro, virtually nobody reading this can have a valid opinion on, say, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Un, or Vladimir Putin.  Further, forget about any historical figure.  After all, while I've lived in the United States all my life, I certainly did not "spend time, over a long span of time, as well as knowing well many Americans from all the strata of the society" when it comes to 1960s America - so how can I make judgments on JFK, or LBJ, or Nixon?  Further yet, I've spent a long period of time in the DC area, getting to know many of from all strata of society.  I'll wager you have not, so how can you make judgments on basically anyone or anything relating to national American politics?

7 hours ago, Zorral said:

So it's impossible to trust anything such ilks pronounce, since so generally such pronouncements are not correct, particularly since the benchmark of the pronouncements is the 1970's, and Cuba's government, as well as Fidel and so much else, has changed constantly throughout. 

Right.  Such "ilks" like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House - well known bastions of American imperialist creed - have continued to pronounce the Castro regime one of the most repressive in the world well past the 1970s and to this day.  I'm unclear, are you denying that Castro ordered the killing and torture of a substantial portion of his own people?  And they weren't just "imprisoned" btw, let's be clear they were sent to forced labor camps and tortured.  It's people like you that don't seem to be able to "balance" or factor this in to the judgment of Castro but rather obfuscate by focusing on the greatness of the Cuban people, and now the decidedly tangential instance of Cuban intervention in Angola.  But go ahead, explain how that - or the US trying to assassinate Castro literally hundreds if not thousands of times for that matter - justifies Castro killing and torturing his people.  It's always good for a laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Hm.  Well, I certainly agree that the GOP leadership is exchanging loyalty for acquiescence from Trump on their policies.  I think the best insight into Trump's psyche (of the myriad that are bandied about) is that he's purely transactional, and this reflects that.  But, I think they entirely are factoring in that the base will back Trump when push comes to shove.  That's why they are willing - and one could argue politically required - to make such a tradeoff in the first place.  I think this is a chicken or egg disagreement - I think Trump already dominated control over the 30% of the electorate (or 75% of the GOP) and that's why GOP members publicly express loyalty, while you think Trump has gained this through such expressed loyalty.  What's the breaking point? is perhaps the most important question we've all been wondering for a year now.  I don't think anybody knows the answer.

Interesting, and perhaps you're right. One thing I'd changed though is that he didn't gain dominance, he consolidated it, which he needed to do for his own protection. I'm sure there was some quid pro quo in which Trump got protect from the Russia investigation in exchange for differing to Congressional Republicans on most pieces of legislation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Interesting, and perhaps you're right. One thing I'd changed though is that he didn't gain dominance, he consolidated it, which he needed to do for his own protection. I'm sure there was some quid pro quo in which Trump got protect from the Russia investigation in exchange for differing to Congressional Republicans on most pieces of legislation. 

It may be unspoken. Pence installed an army of Koch agents around Trump. It would seem the tax bill and the SC appointment helped solidify GOP loyalty. Also Flake's dropping poll numbers after he crossed Trump were a key moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree that Dems shouldn't make too big a deal out of this, but it is important to highlight the hypocrisy on display. 

But it's the nature of conservative evangelicals.  When you put imaginary creatures ahead of anything - including politics and science - you're naturally going to come up with this sort of hypocrisy.  Their imaginary world will operate in any way they need it to operate at any given time.  You're pointing out the hypocrisy to people who already understand that it's all stupidly ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Wow.  This is so extraordinarily absurd I'm unsure on where to start.  First, let's clarify that the only one making judgments "about Cuba and the Cuban way of life" is you.  Moreover, I'm echoing the vast consensus of Cuban exiles in Florida that I've spent time with, "over a long period of time," which is your own ludicrous standard.  Have you?

So let's extrapolate that standard.  Its logic dictates that since I can't have an opinion on Castro, virtually nobody reading this can have a valid opinion on, say, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Un, or Vladimir Putin.  Further, forget about any historical figure.  After all, while I've lived in the United States all my life, I certainly did not "spend time, over a long span of time, as well as knowing well many Americans from all the strata of the society" when it comes to 1960s America - so how can I make judgments on JFK, or LBJ, or Nixon?  Further yet, I've spent a long period of time in the DC area, getting to know many of from all strata of society.  I'll wager you have not, so how can you make judgments on basically anyone or anything relating to national American politics?

Right.  Such "ilks" like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House - well known bastions of American imperialist creed - have continued to pronounce the Castro regime one of the most repressive in the world well past the 1970s and to this day.  I'm unclear, are you denying that Castro ordered the killing and torture of a substantial portion of his own people?  And they weren't just "imprisoned" btw, let's be clear they were sent to forced labor camps and tortured.  It's people like you that don't seem to be able to "balance" or factor this in to the judgment of Castro but rather obfuscate by focusing on the greatness of the Cuban people, and now the decidedly tangential instance of Cuban intervention in Angola.  But go ahead, explain how that - or the US trying to assassinate Castro literally hundreds if not thousands of times for that matter - justifies Castro killing and torturing his people.  It's always good for a laugh.

You know why I just laugh at this? Not because I don't believe the Castro regime has treated their opposition harshly, I know they did, but because the criticism is coming from a country that supported horrific regimes that did all the things Cuba did and more and worse. Countries across Central and South America. Just look at Chile and Argentina, where tens of thousands disappeared. Argentina where they took people out to sea on helicopters and threw them off. Where the children of the disappeared vanished because they were kidnapped and placed into military families as 'adoptions'. Not to mention absolutely brutal economic moves that caused enormous suffering among the population, without the accompanying free health care and education systems Cubans had.

Various opposition groups talked about thousands being executed by Castro between 1959 and 1987, but when Amnesty International went in they could only verify 237 death sentences, 21 of which were not carried out. The majority of the early executions were the result of public trials and executions of military and police who, you know, tortured and brutalized people, though human rights organizations said their trials were not very fair. The executions were popular, apparently, with those who had been abused. Cuba was infamous for jailing people and using work camps, where people were beaten and mistreated, in the 60s and 70s, but I gather they don't exist anymore. There are no reports, however, of people flown over the sea and thrown out from 1,000 feet. And the method used by the Cuban government now is short term detention and house arrest to harass human rights advocates. They do still give people arrested for political reasons long jail sentences of 15 or 20 years, but executions are rare. The US, on the other hand, locks up people found with marijuana for 30 years or people convicted three times of a crime in some states, life. And the US executes more people than any 1st world country, since almost no other 1st world country has the death sentence anymore.

Part of the reason why there was NOT "killing and torture of a substantial portion of his own people" is because 10% of the population left for the US, 1,200,000 people. And when the US was stupid enough to claim Cuban jails were full of political prisoners, Castro opened all the jails and let everyone go the US, and guess what? The US got thousands of thieves, rapists, murderers and other members of the criminal class, plus, apparently, the mentally ill from hospitals because Cuba was accused of locking up political prisoners in psychiatric facilities.

On top of all that, the US entered into a treaty with Cuba to try to curb the numbers of people making the sea crossing by agreeing they would issue 20,000 visas to Cubans every year. The US has never fulfilled that agreement, usually issuing only about 500 visas a year. So much for helping the oppressed Cubans.

Human Rights organizations have estimated there are currently between 50 and 97 political prisoners in Cuban jails. I bet you could easily find a couple of thousand people in US jails who consider themselves political prisoners, jailed unfairly for reasons like their skin colour.

Some links.

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/mar/22/raul-castro/are-there-political-prisoners-cuba/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2018 at 9:22 AM, Zorral said:

And how much time over several decades have YOU spent on the ground in Cuba, and hanging out with Cubans of all strata of Cuban society, that you all believe you have the insight and right and knowledge to speak definitely about Fidel, Cuba and Cubans, while reducing all of Cuba and Cubans to a single person, i.e. Fidel -- while simultaneously ignoring the opinion of all three that many in the Caribbean, Central America and South America share, opinions diametrically opposed to yours.  O - wait -- these are all nations on the shithole country list, therefore unworthy paying any attention to or learning anything about.

Not to mention that Canada has had long and close relationships with Cuba the state on and Cubans the people for many decades.

Once again, people on this forum, who pride themselves on knowing so much more than the average USians,  defaulted to viewing the entire world through the USian lens, which is a truly flawed vision.  This vision that the US matters most to everyone and everything is mattering less and less and less EVERYWHERE, including Cuba. What Cuban and Mexicans and many others globally care about when it comes to the US now isn't even wealth (US dollars are worth less in Cuba even than here and nobody in Cuba even wants US dollars now, because they lose value when exchanging it) -- but the physical threats, both militarily and environmentally -- and the harm the US is already doing to family members in the US.

It's funny, isn't it, how differently one sees things, when spending extensive time actually on the ground in the countries being discussed and spending even more extensive time with people there -- and o yah. speaking Spanish, French, Kreyol and Portuguese while doing so.

 

 

There is a  book you might find of interest. . The Double Life of Fidel Castro My 17 Years as Personal Bodyguard to El Lider Maximo  by. Juan Reinaldo Sanchez with Axel Gylden.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the moral relativism thing - my office mate was this Romanian woman, and she was 100% in favor of Ceaucescu when he was in power and afterwards. She liked that he was strong, that he killed his enemies, that he imprisoned people who spoke out against him, that he ruled the country with strength. 

If you go to Russia and talk to most people they'll say how happy they are with Putin. 

That doesn't in any way, shape or form change the atrocities committed. 

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...