U.S. Politics: The Flood Shall Wash Away The Cobbs

[Mexal]

Novartis released a statement which is interesting. Basically, they contracted with Cohen in Feb 2017 (how did they know the company of one even existed?), realized he couldn't fulfill what they wanted (what were they looking for?) and paid him anyway for a year ($1.2m). Question though is where is the rest of the money since Avenatti's document only mentioned 4 payments from Oct 17 - Jan 18. 

Oh and the most important thing from this document is Mueller's team knew about this at least 7 months ago. He's so far ahead of where we are.

https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/994252278713454592

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Trump might be arguably worse than Bush. But both are or were extremely bad. And for me, trying to parse the differences between the two becomes a Judean People’s Front versus The People’s Front of Judea situation.

 

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As long as Trump hasn't started a major war that is simply not true.

Most people in the world don't follow American politics that closely and are unaware just how bad Trump is. Or don't give a fuck, as they see this as US problems anyway.
Y'all seem to forget that W. killed the Kyoto protocol on climate change and said Iran was part of an axis of evil. With the Iraq war he antagonized most of America's allies.

Trump's is barely half-way there right now. He's seen as a buffoon (like W was) but so far, for anyone living outside the US, his bark has been worse than his bite.

Bush and Trump have a lot of similarities. Both have itchy trigger fingers to use the military, and both are comfortable with using bad information to do so. Both are economic neophytes who cut taxes despite it not being wise, long term, to do so. Both are climate change deniers who torpedoed global attempts to curtail its effects. Both are low IQ idiots who were not qualified for the job (as opposed to Bush I, Mitt and Kaisch, whatever you think of them, they had the capabilities to be President) Etc…

But there are key differences. Bush respected the office. Trump does not. Bush learned from some of his mistakes, albeit too late. Trump shows no ability to learn. Corruption occurred under Bush’s reign, but it’s nothing compared to what Trump is doing. And probably worst of all, Bush never left you (or at least me) with the feeling that he would subvert the Republican and end democracy as we know. Trump very much gives off the vibe that he has no problem doing so, and worse, he may actively want to do it given his authoritarian tendencies and love of dictators.

Bush II is one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, and despite not having started pointless wars that cost hundreds of thousands of lives (yet), Trump is worse.

[Kalbear]

Sorry, Tywin, but I think your perceptions are kind of massively off. I do agree that for the most part GWB did what he thought would be best for the US, and I genuinely believe he didn't have a lot of malice. But looking at the tape:

• He was responsible for the US torturing people
• He was responsible for the single biggest removal of personal rights (the Patriot Act) since Habeus Corpus was suspended by Lincoln
• He was responsible for an AUMF that has led to 17 years of neverending war against enemy after enemy
• Bush had something like 17 indictments of his people under his reign
• Bush also was responsible for the single worst economic calamity in the world since the great depression
• And all of this was done with an incredible amount of concentrating power in the Executive branch.

We STILL have people who are US citizens who have been detained for months without being charged with a single thing. We STILL are bombing people in countries we are not at war with. We STILL are allowing unlimited monitoring of communications by the government. the CIA STILL does not have oversight into enhanced interrogation techniques. These are pretty large erosions of what people consider Democratic principles and balances. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sorry, Tywin, but I think your perceptions are kind of massively off. I do agree that for the most part GWB did what he thought would be best for the US, and I genuinely believe he didn't have a lot of malice. But looking at the tape:

• He was responsible for the US torturing people
• He was responsible for the single biggest removal of personal rights (the Patriot Act) since Habeus Corpus was suspended by Lincoln
• He was responsible for an AUMF that has led to 17 years of neverending war against enemy after enemy
• Bush had something like 17 indictments of his people under his reign
• Bush also was responsible for the single worst economic calamity in the world since the great depression
• And all of this was done with an incredible amount of concentrating power in the Executive branch.

We STILL have people who are US citizens who have been detained for months without being charged with a single thing. We STILL are bombing people in countries we are not at war with. We STILL are allowing unlimited monitoring of communications by the government. the CIA STILL does not have oversight into enhanced interrogation techniques. These are pretty large erosions of what people consider Democratic principles and balances. 

Those are all absolutely valid criticisms of Bush. I’ve argued in the past that outside of combating HIV/AIDS in Africa, Bush has little to show for his time in office (and even that has some seriously bad flaws associated with it). That said, I have a few push backs to your argument. First, I’ve always assumed that any president, regardless of party, would have sought something akin to the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11, though I’m way less certain that the AUMF would have been pursued. Second, I don’t know how much of the blame Bush deserves for the economic collapse. It happened during his Administration, so he’ll always have to eat it from a historical perspective, but it’s my (limited) understanding that a more accurate assessment of culpability with regards to the crash belongs to several Administrations. Now that doesn’t absolve Bush of having bad economic policies, but the crash wasn’t entirely his fault. And lastly, while it’s fair to by highly critical of Bush for his torture policy, unlimited detentions, Executive overreach, etc., what worries me about Trump is that he learned NOTHING from any of it. We know torture doesn’t work. I sat in on a lecture lead by Ali Soufan, a highly respected terrorist interrogator, and he walked us step by step why it was ineffective, causing one student to straight up quit the class. This was a decade ago. And Trump not only wants to go back to waterboarding, he wants to go further. If you told Trump that he could detain members of the media who were critical of him indefinitely, he would not only leap at the chance, he’d probably want to go further. And if you told him he could house as many powers as he desired with in the Executive Branch, he’d leap at that too. The point is, Bush made a ton of terrible mistakes, and yet Trump not only did not learn anything from them, he wants to push them further. If you watch someone make a mistake and then willingly repeat it, you’re an even bigger idiot than the first person who made the initial mistake.

[Mexal]

Saudi Arabia will seek nuclear weapons if Iran does.

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 That said, I have a few push backs to your argument. First, I’ve always assumed that any president, regardless of party, would have sought something akin to the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11, though I’m way less certain that the AUMF would have been pursued.

I'm not convinced Obama would have done it. Clinton probably would have. Bush went a lot further than was necessary. Clinton probably wouldn't have gone for the AUMF, but Obama was cool with it. 

That said, we've still been at war for 17 years with effectively emergency powers in place, and no sign of them abating. And that's the new normal for a Democracy. 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Second, I don’t know how much of the blame Bush deserves for the economic collapse. It happened during his Administration, so he’ll always have to eat it from a historical perspective, but it’s my (limited) understanding that a more accurate assessment of culpability with regards to the crash belongs to several Administrations.

Sure, though he was the one who could have fought back on it, and he had the information and people telling him something was up years before something actually happened. His tax policies and easy credit didn't help things either. 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 We know torture doesn’t work.

I hate this argument. We should be against torture regardless of its efficacy, because the counterpoint is that we start arguing about if it works and not who we're performing it on. When we can even start arguing about it because it might work, we lose entirely the argument that no prisoner should be tortured. 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The point is, Bush made a ton of terrible mistakes, and yet Trump not only did not learn anything from them, he wants to push them further. If you watch someone make a mistake and then willingly repeat it, you’re an even bigger idiot than the first person who made the initial mistake.

Alternately, Trump learned from Bush that there was no real pushback to any of his stuff until an economic collapse, and by then he was long gone and got him and his friends rich. That sounds like Trump's MO to a T, as it does most elite VC and liquidator types. Trump learned that Bush stayed in office and in power for 8 years while advocating torture, endless war, harsh lines on the middle east, ignoring European and Asian allies and giving massive amounts of money to the rich. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mexal said:

Saudi Arabia will seek nuclear weapons if Iran does.

 

Saudi Arabia will also seek nuclear weapons if Iran doesn't. 

[Bonnot OG]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Saudi Arabia will also seek nuclear weapons if Iran doesn't. 

That country really should not have a nuclear weapon. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

That country really should not have a nuclear weapon. 

Trump's stated policy is that more countries should have nukes - South Korea, Japan, SA, Israel (hah), etc. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Yukle quote- "That I agree with. China's deals in Bangladesh were particularly unfair. China knew Bangaldesh would never repay the loans they were given, even at low interest, and now have two ports in Bangladesh on 99-year leases. It's eerily similar to what happened to China after the Opium wars: on the outside Britain was trading and helping to build their infrastructure, but in reality, they were making it easier to exploit the resources. "

^^^ Yep, they( China) are playing the long game and have their own history (receiving end) as the road map on how to exploit colonial power. They are also slated to spend billions building an entirely new Egyptian capitol, putting rails across Africa, canals in S. America and so forth. They are employing the winning strategy for the 21st century and meanwhile the U.S. has elected a duncecap who doesnt like to read. The decline and rate of that decline of American standing is breathtaking.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

And probably worst of all, Bush never left you (or at least me) with the feeling that he would subvert the Republican and end democracy as we know. Trump very much gives off the vibe that he has no problem doing so, and worse, he may actively want to do it given his authoritarian tendencies and love of dictators.

Kalbear already answered for me, but I'd like to  drive that point home

In between the USA Patriot Act, executive overreach, Ashcroft as AG, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib... etc, there was *massive* fear under W. that U.S. democracy had disappeared and would never be able to come back. The Patriot Act alone led to a huge grassroots movement throughout the country.

Here's some of my prose from back then:

Quote

The scale of the grass-roots movement against the Patriot Act has been utterly unprecendented. With the notable exception of the Vietnam War, few issues in the history of the United States have stirred such revolt against an administration’s actions. Though public support for the act was initially strong, concerns about fundamental rights slowly eroded it. The number of local resolutions passed against the act are now in the hundreds ; and the fact that statewide resolutions have also been passed means that the movement against the act has trully grown to national proportions. [...] In 2002 the New York Times reported that “resolutions passed by some towns […] have a sharper tone, going so far as to direct city personnel not to help federal or state officials in activities that could be considered in violation of civil rights or liberties.1” Reluctance to cooperate with federal authorities grew so much that some cities had to recommend compliance in spite of personal opinions. For instance in 2003, the city of Arcata (California), passed an ordinance “requiring the nine managers of the city –including the city manager, the city attorney, and the city police chief- to voluntarily cooperate with investigations, interrogations, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine […] that could violate the Constitution, and particularly, its Bill of Rights.” In 2003, the States of Alaska, Hawaï and Vermont passed resolutions affirming their commitment to the Bill of Rights ; they were joined by the State of Maine in 2004. Similar resolutions were proposed in more than half-a-dozen other States. At the beginning of 2004, the Washington Post reported that the National League of Cities (NLC) had passed a resolution calling for Congress to repeal parts of the Act3. With its 18,000 cities and 225 million residents, the NLC made up for a large majority of the American People. Large cities such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco passed local resolutions. Even New York City joined the movement on February 4, 2004.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of books that were written about that period, and almost all of them agree that the republican and democratic principles were under threat at the time.

Again, Trump is only half-way there right now.

 

[Zorral]

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As long as Trump hasn't started a major war that is simply not true.

Most people in the world don't follow American politics that closely and are unaware just how bad Trump is. Or don't give a fuck, as they see this as US problems anyway.
Y'all seem to forget that W. killed the Kyoto protocol on climate change and said Iran was part of an axis of evil. With the Iraq war he antagonized most of America's allies.

Trump's is barely half-way there right now. He's seen as a buffoon (like W was) but so far, for anyone living outside the US, his bark has been worse than his bite.

You probably know that the neighbors of the USA, particularly in the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America do not agree with you.  Now I haven't visited all those nations in these regions since the debacle of the election of 2016, but the ones I have -- I guarantee you they notice EVERYTHING the US does, and always have, and most certainly now with immigration bans and deportations are paying closer attention than ever.

[Ice Queen]

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You probably know that the neighbors of the USA, particularly in the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America do not agree with you.  Now I haven't visited all those nations in these regions since the debacle of the election of 2016, but the ones I have -- I guarantee you they notice EVERYTHING the US does, and always have, and most certainly now with immigration bans and deportations are paying closer attention than ever.

My Canadian friends know as much about US politics as Americans do.

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You probably know that the neighbors of the USA, particularly in the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America do not agree with you.  Now I haven't visited all those nations in these regions since the debacle of the election of 2016, but the ones I have -- I guarantee you they notice EVERYTHING the US does, and always have, and most certainly now with immigration bans and deportations are paying closer attention than ever.

Point taken. Of course, everyone everywhere follows U.S. foreign policies closely, and I've no doubt that in the Americas they also pay attention to domestic policy as well (as regard immigration and immigrants).
What I was trying to say is that the impression that American democracy is under threat today tends to be confined to the U.S. itself, and so far isn't as bad as it was after 9/11. Also, I think the U.S. was seen as far more dangerous after 9/11, especially in the Middle-East.

[DanteGabriel]

Re: Bush's awfulness. Don't forget the politicization of the Justice Department with the US Attorneys firing scandal. And the staffing of the Iraqi occupation with politically loyal numpties instead of competent administrators. Trump isn't a break from Bush the Lesser; he's just the next step in the devolution of the Republican Party into a fascist criminal conspiracy.

[Zorral]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

My Canadian friends know as much about US politics as Americans do.

Of course Canadians pay attention!  But the immigration and deportation issues, and even oil issues such as the debacle that currently is Venezuela, aren't in their face and affecting their every day lives.

 

[Zorral]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Point taken. Of course, everyone everywhere follows U.S. foreign policies closely, and I've no doubt that in the Americas they also pay attention to domestic policy as well (as regard immigration and immigrants).
What I was trying to say is that the impression that American democracy is under threat today tends to be confined to the U.S. itself, and so far isn't as bad as it was after 9/11. Also, I think the U.S. was seen as far more dangerous after 9/11, especially in the Middle-East.

Judging by the reactions in both the leftist presses of these regions, again, I disagree with you.  Initially, they just shook their heads.  It was baffling, made no sense, they didn't think it mattered so much or that the very fundamentals of the US as a nation were involved.  They know better now -- particularly with what they were taught in the aftermath of 9/11.

[Martell Spy]

John Bolton and Mike Pompeo Are Headed for a Clash

They may seem like kindred spirits, but their personal interests are totally different. That makes them destined for rivalry.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/09/john-bolton-mike-pompeo-donald-trump-218325

Quote

Pompeo’s ascent has been rapid and nothing short of astonishing. There have been casualties along the way—Clinton (over Benghazi), Rogers and Tillerson being the most prominent, but Sen. Tom Cotton may be the most interesting. In the fall, the news media were abuzz with rumors of a Pompeo-Cotton double act, with the Arkansan replacing him at CIA. Cotton is close to Pompeo ideologically and made no secret of his desire to go to Langley. But Pompeo recommended Gina Haspel, his deputy, to replace him and Cotton remains in the Senate. No one knows for sure why Pompeo recommended Haspel, but one theory is that Cotton would have been a bureaucratic rival for Trump’s ear and as a potential successor.

 

[Fragile Bird]

Good grief, there might not be a blue tide after all. And no loss of Congress for the Republicans.

I had been seeing Republican talking heads for weeks saying polling numbers looked great and wondered what the heck they were talking about, but while the Democrats had a 15 point advantage in February, that has now dropped to 3 points, within the margin of error. And the enthusiasm numbers have been steady for Dems, at 50%, but they have soared up for Republicans.

Eight years of Trump! The US won't be recognizable.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Good grief, there might not be a blue tide after all. And no loss of Congress for the Republicans.

I had been seeing Republican talking heads for weeks saying polling numbers looked great and wondered what the heck they were talking about, but while the Democrats had a 15 point advantage in February, that has now dropped to 3 points, within the margin of error. And the enthusiasm numbers have been steady for Dems, at 50%, but they have soared up for Republicans.

Eight years of Trump! The US won't be recognizable.

That's one poll, and while it's not a good sign it also isn't indicative of the rest of the polls. 

And as I've said before, the norm is 8 years of a president in the US; 4 years is very, very rare, and usually under really weird circumstances. 

What's more interesting and scary to me is that Trump's approval has increased by a net of +4 (+2 approve, -2 disapprove) in the last few weeks, despite increasing scandal about Stormy Daniels and the like.