U.S. Politics: If Trump Is In Attendance, The Next Protest Should Be A Roman Salute

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Shryke said:

- Russia.Trump is deep in bed with the Russians and easily influenced.

-

It's interesting to me here - because even if Trump is not in bed with Russia deeply, even if they don't have dirt on him - he is behaving precisely in their interests in the best possible way. 

They wanted to destabilize US-EU trade relations? Trump did it.

They wanted to weaken NATO? Trump did it.

They wanted back into the G8? Trump proposed it.

They wanted sanctions lifted? Trump proposed it.

They wanted firmer control of Syria? Trump did it. 

The only things that Trump has been 'tough' on Russia on are removal of diplomats (who were replaced immediately) and adding sanctions to a few Russian individuals - and that happened almost two years after the fact. 

What's especially bald about this is that in exchange for these things the US gets absolutely nothing at all. There is no value for the US getting Russia into the G8 again, there's a detriment to the trade values, there's a detriment to NATO - so far the US has gotten nothing from Russia or from anyone else for these actions. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I guess on the plus side, it looks like Trump is going to make it easier to legalize it at the state level.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-marijuana-20180608-story.html

Although it's possible this is meant to piss off Sessions more that anything else. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 6/6/2018 at 9:13 PM, Triskele said:

Voted yesterday in Schiff's district in California so not much drama in the House race.  Voted for Villaraigosa over Newsom for Governor only in a tactical vote to try to make it two Dems on the Fall ballot, but I confess I'm surprised that Villaraigosa had such a poor showing.  So Newsom is a virtual lock to be the next governor of California, arguably the 6th biggest economy in the world.

I meant to respond to this but forgot.

I keep going back and forth on whether it was good thing that Villaraigosa failed to secure second place. The argument that I keep hearing is that it will boost turnout for Republicans, but I'm not so sure about that. Is going out to vote for a sure loser really going to have that much of an impact? And likewise, would it not suppress turnout among liberals if two Dems are the choices? Overall I think it's probably a good thing, but I can understand how it could be a bad outcome at the margins in some of the tight races down ballot. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Shryke said:

When it comes to international economic policy, Trump doesn't really have a policy agenda so much as a driving series of personal failings and beliefs. In no particular order: [...]

That about sums it up.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's interesting to me here - because even if Trump is not in bed with Russia deeply, even if they don't have dirt on him - he is behaving precisely in their interests in the best possible way.

It's the classic Watergate Lesson - the coverup is worse than the crime.  That Trump is re-enacting it is why liberal America is so tempted to grab the popcorn.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I keep going back and forth on whether it was good thing that Villaraigosa failed to secure second place. The argument that I keep hearing is that it will boost turnout for Republicans, but I'm not so sure about that. Is going out to vote for a sure loser really going to have that much of an impact? And likewise, would it not suppress turnout among liberals if two Dems are the choices? Overall I think it's probably a good thing, but I can understand how it could be a bad outcome at the margins in some of the tight races down ballot. 

I think you, and more importantly the media, is way overthinking this.  Cox on the ballot isn't going to turnout any discernible number of Republican voters, just as him not on the ballot wouldn't disabuse any GOP voters that were going to vote otherwise.  I know everybody loves to say how stupid the American voter is - a perception buoyed if not emanating from my ilk - but voters aren't that stupid.  They know Newsome is going to beat Cox.  Whether they turnout for down-ballot races is orthogonal to that.

[Martell Spy]

David Simon Says He Has Been Banned From Twitter for Telling People to “Die of Boils”

His response was to tell Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to “die of boils,” too.

https://slate.com/culture/2018/06/david-simon-banned-from-twitter-lashes-out-at-jack-dorsey.html

Quote

As insults go, “die of boils” is as pithy as “delete your account” or “retire bitch,” but far more vengeful in tone, like a genie casting a dermatological curse. It is also, unfortunately for Simon, a pretty blatant violation of Twitter’s rule prohibiting “wishing or hoping that someone experiences serious physical harm.” Simon has been using the phrase on the site since at least 2016, though he has been employing it much more frequently lately while arguing with others about the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border:

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

BTW, Senator Merkley finally got in to that ICE facility to see the Trump Admin's current favourite crime against humanity:

Children separated from their parents and then caged like animals.

I heard him describe this on several public radio programs a couple of days ago.  Horrifying.  But utterly believable. This nation's sins, which were an enormous weight already, grow daily.

 

[DMC]

Only just saw this:

Quote

Charles Krauthammer, the famed conservative columnist, informed readers on Friday that he is confronting an aggressive form of cancer.

"My doctors tell me their best estimate is that I have only a few weeks left to live," he wrote.

I've loathed this man the entirety of my adult life.  Still, sucks.

[OldGimletEye]

What kind of people want to return to the bad old days when people with pre-existing conditions weren't able to buy decent health insurance?

I think the answer here is: One sorry ass bunch.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/7/17440120/obamacare-penalty-lawsuit-trump-brief

Quote

The Trump administration argued in a court brief filed on Thursday that Obamacare’s protections for preexisting conditions should be ruled unconstitutional, opening up another front in the White House’s crusade to roll back the law’s core insurance reforms.

Please Dumpsters, Conservative Clowns, Ditto Heads, Republicans, both siders, and other assorted creepy critters, explain the reasoning here.

Be sure to mumble something lame about best healthcare system in the world and "freedom".

A very interesting point of view by the so called "pro-life" crowd.

[SkynJay]

2 hours ago, Shryke said:

BTW, Senator Merkley finally got in to that ICE facility to see the Trump Admin's current favourite crime against humanity:

Children separated from their parents and then caged like animals.

Took my 7yo to 'Daniel's story' at the holocaust museum yesterday.  On the wake of this news it has even more of an impact.  Seeing MAGA hats inside it made my blood boil.

 

[KingintheNorth4]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

What kind of people want to return to the bad old days when people with pre-existing conditions weren't able to buy decent health insurance?

I think the answer here is: One sorry ass bunch.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/7/17440120/obamacare-penalty-lawsuit-trump-brief

Please Dumpsters, Conservative Clowns, Ditto Heads, Republicans, both siders, and other assorted creepy critters, explain the reasoning here.

Be sure to mumble something lame about best healthcare system in the world and "freedom".

A very interesting point of view by the so called "pro-life" crowd.

They'll mumble something about "muh premiums".

[Jace, Extat]

49 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

They'll mumble something about "muh premiums".

And crossing state lines.

[LongRider]

They'll throw their MAGA hats in the air; he saved us from Obamacare!

 

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, LongRider said:

They'll throw their MAGA hats in the air; he saved us from Obamacare!

 

Don't forget that they'll blame Democrats for not helping to fix the Affordable Care Act at the same time.

[Errant Bard]

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Sure!  I'll respond if and when there's a coherent argument presented for why this is the case.  Anti-globalization tends to elicit irrational responses, as we've all learned to our dismay, but I don't have to entertain every rambling on the subject.  At least not yet.

You don't need to respond, I cannot explain why people are paranoid and believe foreign countries want to screw them over, I was just telling you that they do entertain the hostile sentiment. But who cares, when it cannot be explained, right?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

15 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You give American voters too much credit. Trump is nearing all-time highs in terms of popularity with his base. If he lead them to the edge of a cliff and send jump, they’d gladly plummet to their deaths.

I’d say it really begun more in the mid 2000’s once it became clear that Bush was dead wrong about Iraq and that his Administration lied to their allies to get them to go along with it. But you’re right, it’s our military power and wealth that keeps us a top the mountain. That can only carry you so far though when the rest of the world starts to hate you. The surprising thing is that Trump supporters think Trump is improving our standing in the world while President Obama destroyed. What fools they are.

As far as Israel goes, that’s a whole other can of worms, and as a Jew, I’m deeply concerned about the health of the state. The comparisons to apartheid South Africa are accurate and fair.

USA's share of the world economy has been declining pretty much every year since 1945, so in that sense it began a lot earlier. But yes, regarding international relations Bush certainly ruined a lot of the influence the US has built up after the end of the Cold War. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

USA's share of the world economy has been declining pretty much every year since 1945, so in that sense it began a lot earlier.

Not sure, if stupid or dishonest to try to make a point.

The US had a higher share of the world's economy in 1945, it would however be helpful to explain why. A somewhat reasonable observer might note, that 1945 was also the end of WWII, with the US as the only economy that hasn't really been damaged by war (in a way America were the real beneficaries of WWII). The other economic powerhouses like England were bombed by Germany, and Germany in return got bombed by the RAF. Germany also lost a chunk of its land (and means of production). And it took western European nations (and economies) some time to rebuild.  So of course the reemerging economies of Britain, France and Germany (re-)gained shares of the global economy. To come forward and claim it's a sign of American decline is either really stupid, or really misleading.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

26 minutes ago, Notone said:

Not sure, if stupid or dishonest to try to make a point.

The US had a higher share of the world's economy in 1945, it would however be helpful to explain why. A somewhat reasonable observer might note, that 1945 was also the end of WWII, with the US as the only economy that hasn't really been damaged by war (in a way America were the real beneficaries of WWII). The other economic powerhouses like England were bombed by Germany, and Germany in return got bombed by the RAF. Germany also lost a chunk of its land (and means of production). And it took western European nations (and economies) some time to rebuild.  So of course the reemerging economies of Britain, France and Germany (re-)gained shares of the global economy. To come forward and claim it's a sign of American decline is either really stupid, or really misleading.

Reconstruction in Europe explains why America's share of the world economy declined between say 1945 - 1965, not for the half century that has passed afterwards. The continuing decline after that has more to do with the ongoing industrialization of a number of large countries in Asia. 

I don't really see what your point is to be honest. Of course the reason America's economic might peaked in 1945 was because of the war. The reason for why USA became a superpower in the first place was because all the European colonial empires destroyed each other in WW1 and WW2. 

The point is that in terms of global economic power, USA has been losing ground continuously since 1945. It is by no means something that began with Bush or Obama or whoever.  

In terms of image and foreign alliances it is a different question though. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Reconstruction in Europe explains why America's share of the world economy declined between say 1945 - 1965, not for the half century that has passed afterwards. The continuing decline after that has more to do with the ongoing industrialization of a number of large countries in Asia. 

I don't really see what your point is to be honest. Of course the reason America's economic might peaked in 1945 was because of the war. The reason for why USA became a superpower in the first place was because all the European colonial empires destroyed each other in WW1 and WW2. 

The point is that in terms of global economic power, USA has been losing ground every year since 1945. It is by no means something that began with Bush or Obama or whatever. 

In terms of image and foreign alliances it is a different question though. 

Which is something different from your initial post. You picked 1945 as the starting point for the great American decline. A small reminder of your post.

 

4 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

USA's share of the world economy has been declining pretty much every year since 1945, so in that sense it began a lot earlier. But yes, regarding international relations Bush certainly ruined a lot of the influence the US has built up after the end of the Cold War. 

 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

2 minutes ago, Notone said:

Which is something different from your initial post. You picked 1945 as the starting point for the great American decline. A small reminder of your post.

 

 

Because it is the starting point, at least in economic terms. I still don't see what you are arguing about. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

My argument is, you are making a dishonest/misleading statement. Simply picking 1945 as starting point, with the US (and Canadian) economy as pretty much the only western economies not directly effected by it, that is simply misleading. So of course there was bigger gap between the US and old Europe than ever before or after.  America didn't as much lose economic standing. It was simply Europe making a post war recovery. Which lead to an overall growth in the global economy, and of course those recovering economies grew faster, and (re-)gained shares of the global economy. Just look at what we call the G7 (or G8 if you prefer that) states, and see whose economies were damaged during the war.