Org Mobile Site
Thread: Trump Thread
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
No war today gents.
OK thanks.No war today gents.
*Goes back to fighting Russia in HOI4.*
In all seriousness, my figures may have been inflated but I stand by my general point that European readiness is dangerously low. Last year it was reported that almost all of Germany's Eurofighters were grounded due to them not springing for an updated part and the old part no longer being produced. Then it was reported they had rejected a new frigate after sea trials. Even the Heer is considered to be in pretty poor shape, literally, a couple of years back it was reported some German tankers were too fat to fit their tanks. Probably not literally, but in the sense that they couldn't operate them efficiently.
France also has issues, chiefly that they never ordered their second aircraft carrier to be built despite having a "two carrier navy".
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
OK thanks.
*Goes back to fighting Russia in HOI4.*
In all seriousness, my figures may have been inflated but I stand by my general point that European readiness is dangerously low. Last year it was reported that almost all of Germany's Eurofighters were grounded due to them not springing for an updated part and the old part no longer being produced. Then it was reported they had rejected a new frigate after sea trials. Even the Heer is considered to be in pretty poor shape, literally, a couple of years back it was reported some German tankers were too fat to fit their tanks. Probably not literally, but in the sense that they couldn't operate them efficiently.
France also has issues, chiefly that they never ordered their second aircraft carrier to be built despite having a "two carrier navy".
If you are so concerned about our weakness and unreadiness as a stand alone country, why is it so critical that we remain part of one group while we absolutely must leave another group as a matter of sovereignty? If we cannot stand alone as Britain because we are more efficient at looking after our interests as part of a larger group, why do we have to leave the larger group?OK thanks.
*Goes back to fighting Russia in HOI4.*
In all seriousness, my figures may have been inflated but I stand by my general point that European readiness is dangerously low. Last year it was reported that almost all of Germany's Eurofighters were grounded due to them not springing for an updated part and the old part no longer being produced. Then it was reported they had rejected a new frigate after sea trials. Even the Heer is considered to be in pretty poor shape, literally, a couple of years back it was reported some German tankers were too fat to fit their tanks. Probably not literally, but in the sense that they couldn't operate them efficiently.
France also has issues, chiefly that they never ordered their second aircraft carrier to be built despite having a "two carrier navy".
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
If you are so concerned about our weakness and unreadiness as a stand alone country, why is it so critical that we remain part of one group while we absolutely must leave another group as a matter of sovereignty? If we cannot stand alone as Britain because we are more efficient at looking after our interests as part of a larger group, why do we have to leave the larger group?
The cost/benefit analysis is different. As I indicated, this is not about "efficiency" but about a defeatist attitude.If you are so concerned about our weakness and unreadiness as a stand alone country, why is it so critical that we remain part of one group while we absolutely must leave another group as a matter of sovereignty? If we cannot stand alone as Britain because we are more efficient at looking after our interests as part of a larger group, why do we have to leave the larger group?
These last few posts could be shunted to their own thread on UK rearmament.
This impeachment effort is ghastly to watch or listen to. But at least I can get to vote against him come November.
This impeachment effort is ghastly to watch or listen to. But at least I can get to vote against him come November.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
These last few posts could be shunted to their own thread on UK rearmament.
This impeachment effort is ghastly to watch or listen to. But at least I can get to vote against him come November.
Sorry.These last few posts could be shunted to their own thread on UK rearmament.
This impeachment effort is ghastly to watch or listen to. But at least I can get to vote against him come November.
I'd start that thread but it would be me writing a long speel about how we should rearm, what that should look like, how a large but not super-power level country should conduct itself on the World Stage etc.
That all the Americans would slap me on the back for having a backbone and all the Brits would decry me for taking money form the NHS/disrupting the flow of trade.
Where are we impeachment now?
Has he been formally impeached or have they put it off?
The HoR has voted two articles of impeachment. Yesterday they voted to forward those to the Senate for trial. They will be formally accepted today (Thursday 16 Jan). The Senate is currently set to begin votes on trial proceedings and particulars early next week.
No pundit is suggesting that the vote at the conclusion of the trial will remove Trump from office. All the discussion is centering on:
Who if anyone will break party ranks to vote against their "party's stance" on impeachment?
Will their be witnesses in addition to the evidence for removal proffered by the House Managers?
Will the whole thing run up to or past the Iowa Caucuses and, if so, what impact will that have on Dem candidates (since two of the top four will be sitting in the Senate trial and not out campaigning 6 days of each trial week)?
How will voters in the early states react to the information brought forward in the trial?
No pundit is suggesting that the vote at the conclusion of the trial will remove Trump from office. All the discussion is centering on:
Who if anyone will break party ranks to vote against their "party's stance" on impeachment?
Will their be witnesses in addition to the evidence for removal proffered by the House Managers?
Will the whole thing run up to or past the Iowa Caucuses and, if so, what impact will that have on Dem candidates (since two of the top four will be sitting in the Senate trial and not out campaigning 6 days of each trial week)?
How will voters in the early states react to the information brought forward in the trial?
A Very Stable Genius. Book.
Trump, unsurprisingly for those who knew what impoundment is, violated impoundment law in his corrupt extortion of Ukraine.
Brazil's culture minister fired for espousing Nazi ideology as the future of - what's Portuguese for Volksgemeinschaft?
Monty calls CSPAN about impeachment: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1197573672313200640
Trump, unsurprisingly for those who knew what impoundment is, violated impoundment law in his corrupt extortion of Ukraine.
Brazil's culture minister fired for espousing Nazi ideology as the future of - what's Portuguese for Volksgemeinschaft?
Monty calls CSPAN about impeachment: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1197573672313200640
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Monty calls CSPAN about impeachment: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1197573672313200640
Trust you.Monty calls CSPAN about impeachment: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1197573672313200640
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Trust you.
Different Monty!Trust you.
An even cooler story of an even Realer American, Daniel Burke.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Wow, remember a couple years back when we used to joke about Trump's Stalinist impulses around presenting his in-group vs. out-group?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...1a4_story.html
(Just to be clear, National Archives have apologized and promised to replace the image.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...1a4_story.html
Originally Posted by :
The large color photograph that greets visitors to a National Archives exhibit celebrating the centennial of women’s suffrage shows a massive crowd filling Pennsylvania Avenue NW for the Women’s March on Jan. 21, 2017, the day after President Trump’s inauguration.
The 49-by-69-inch photograph is a powerful display. Viewed from one perspective, it shows the 2017 march. Viewed from another angle, it shifts to show a 1913 black-and-white image of a women’s suffrage march also on Pennsylvania Avenue. The display links momentous demonstrations for women’s rights more than a century apart on the same stretch of pavement.
But a closer look reveals a different story.
The Archives acknowledged in a statement this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women’s March showcased at the museum, blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump. Words on signs that referenced women’s anatomy were also blurred.
The large color photograph that greets visitors to a National Archives exhibit celebrating the centennial of women’s suffrage shows a massive crowd filling Pennsylvania Avenue NW for the Women’s March on Jan. 21, 2017, the day after President Trump’s inauguration.
The 49-by-69-inch photograph is a powerful display. Viewed from one perspective, it shows the 2017 march. Viewed from another angle, it shifts to show a 1913 black-and-white image of a women’s suffrage march also on Pennsylvania Avenue. The display links momentous demonstrations for women’s rights more than a century apart on the same stretch of pavement.
But a closer look reveals a different story.
The Archives acknowledged in a statement this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women’s March showcased at the museum, blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump. Words on signs that referenced women’s anatomy were also blurred.
Originally Posted by :
A placard that proclaims “God Hates Trump” has “Trump” blotted out so that it reads “God Hates.” A sign that reads “Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women” has the word Trump blurred out.
A placard that proclaims “God Hates Trump” has “Trump” blotted out so that it reads “God Hates.” A sign that reads “Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women” has the word Trump blurred out.
Originally Posted by :
“As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy,” Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman said in an emailed statement.
Holy maloney, but it does track with his hollowing out of the bureaucracy and its replacement with personal whim and conditioned obsequiousness. Recall the similar but more dangerous (?) manipulation of official weather projections that did not comport with Trump's proclamations this past September.“As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy,” Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman said in an emailed statement.
(Just to be clear, National Archives have apologized and promised to replace the image.)
https://soundcloud.com/the-daily-bea...v-parnas-audio
Video reminder, too, of how stupid everything is.
Youtube Video
Video reminder, too, of how stupid everything is.
Youtube Video
I was surprised by the second article of impeachment. It was an interesting take that the managers proffered.
Impeachment:
The White House defense, as an extension of its revival of the failed theory that "if the president does it it's not illegal/corrupt," is that "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Aside from providing a pretext for establishingthe first Galactic Empire autocracy, the logic entails:
Any of the fake news about malfeasance by Obama and Clinton would be above challenge if real.
"Controversial" doctrines of executive power with no direct foundation in the Constitution would a fortiari invalidate the textually-defined recourse to impeachment for all presidents past and future.
A communist president could literally justify installing the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Ultimately the Republican argument is much simpler and more coherent than many would like to admit in polite company, namely IOKIYAR.
The White House defense, as an extension of its revival of the failed theory that "if the president does it it's not illegal/corrupt," is that "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Aside from providing a pretext for establishing
Any of the fake news about malfeasance by Obama and Clinton would be above challenge if real.
"Controversial" doctrines of executive power with no direct foundation in the Constitution would a fortiari invalidate the textually-defined recourse to impeachment for all presidents past and future.
A communist president could literally justify installing the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Ultimately the Republican argument is much simpler and more coherent than many would like to admit in polite company, namely IOKIYAR.
"The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.Those then, who resist a confirmation of public order, are the true Artificers of monarchy—not that this is the intention of the generality of them. Yet it would not be difficult to lay the finger upon some of their party who may justly be suspected. When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may 'ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'" -Alexander Hamilton, 1792
Trump's aquitted, as everyone knew he would be.
Romney crossed the isle but noone followed, only real thing to come out of the proceedings is to show how out of step he is with the rest of the party
Well, only thing aside from an expected clinton style bump in the polls for Trump.
Romney crossed the isle but noone followed, only real thing to come out of the proceedings is to show how out of step he is with the rest of the party
Well, only thing aside from an expected clinton style bump in the polls for Trump.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Trump's aquitted, as everyone knew he would be.
Romney crossed the isle but noone followed, only real thing to come out of the proceedings is to show how out of step he is with the rest of the party
Well, only thing aside from an expected clinton style bump in the polls for Trump.
Romney's defection was a 50/50 prediction for me, but it's useful inasmuch as it relieves Dems and hampers Repubs in close races. The media also loves a "conservative maverick" so he'll always have a home on that welfare circuit, but it was somewhat brave of him to stick his neck out - undoubtedly he has thousands of redcaps out for his and his family's blood now. At least he can, unlike others, afford any amount of security personnel. Trump's aquitted, as everyone knew he would be.
Romney crossed the isle but noone followed, only real thing to come out of the proceedings is to show how out of step he is with the rest of the party
Well, only thing aside from an expected clinton style bump in the polls for Trump.
It seems doubtful an unpopular president in a popular impeachment can get a popularity boost that a popular president didn't get following an unpopular impeachment.
In other news, Trump is openly purging everyone who testified against him and vowing revenge. Also neat that he reaffirms his belief that firing Comey saved his presidency.
Ueland, eh? That's also the name of one of the widest streets in Oslo. Possibly a little crossover here between that other topic and a specific scenario concerning migration to the US you wanted me to address. Funny.
Like John McCain was, Romney is pretty much one of the last Republicans keeping the lights on when it comes to the Republican party having any kind of moral backbone or honour.
Great, first mccain, then the bushes, now romney. Is there any neocon warmonger the left wont rehabilitate for providing token resistance to trump?
Honour? Moral backbone? We knew they didnt have that when they headed the republican party and they most certainly dont now. What motivates them isnt some higher standard; it's bitterness for rendering their wing of the party impotent.
So wound up they'd embrace the devil if he spits in trump's direction, its derangement, truly.
Honour? Moral backbone? We knew they didnt have that when they headed the republican party and they most certainly dont now. What motivates them isnt some higher standard; it's bitterness for rendering their wing of the party impotent.
So wound up they'd embrace the devil if he spits in trump's direction, its derangement, truly.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Great, first mccain, then the bushes, now romney. Is there any neocon warmonger the left wont rehabilitate for providing token resistance to trump?
Honour? Moral backbone? We knew they didnt have that when they headed the republican party and they most certainly dont now. What motivates them isnt some higher standard; it's bitterness for rendering their wing of the party impotent.
So wound up they'd embrace the devil if he spits in trump's direction, its derangement, truly.
I think you're both partially wrong, which is better than being partially right because it offers the opportunity for reflection.Great, first mccain, then the bushes, now romney. Is there any neocon warmonger the left wont rehabilitate for providing token resistance to trump?
Honour? Moral backbone? We knew they didnt have that when they headed the republican party and they most certainly dont now. What motivates them isnt some higher standard; it's bitterness for rendering their wing of the party impotent.
So wound up they'd embrace the devil if he spits in trump's direction, its derangement, truly.
On the one hand Rommey is more towards the Centre-Right (remember Rommeycare?) and doubtless finds Trump difficult to stomach at the best of time. On the other hand, being offended by Trump is a very low bar, morally speaking, and Rommey's 2012 presidential run, and his Primary campaign, helped to pave the way for Trump by pandering to the far-right.
Pandering to the far right helped cause trump? If you mean by the way his like failed to live up to the pandering when it came to action the electorate wanted: yes. If you mean he somehow turned the electorate "far right" through his pandering: no.
Trump came about because much of what he promised to do the neocon republicans had pledged to do themselves since the days of Reagan and failed to even attempt since Bush Sr. Intentionally or not; they could only fail so long before the electorate looked elsewhere.
Trump came about because much of what he promised to do the neocon republicans had pledged to do themselves since the days of Reagan and failed to even attempt since Bush Sr. Intentionally or not; they could only fail so long before the electorate looked elsewhere.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Ueland, eh? That's also the name of one of the widest streets in Oslo. Possibly a little crossover here between that other topic and a specific scenario concerning migration to the US you wanted me to address. Funny.
When Norway sends its people, they're not sending their best. Ueland, eh? That's also the name of one of the widest streets in Oslo. Possibly a little crossover here between that other topic and a specific scenario concerning migration to the US you wanted me to address. Funny.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Great, first mccain, then the bushes, now romney. Is there any neocon warmonger the left wont rehabilitate for providing token resistance to trump?
Last I checked, the left hate them all.Great, first mccain, then the bushes, now romney. Is there any neocon warmonger the left wont rehabilitate for providing token resistance to trump?
Originally Posted by :
So wound up they'd embrace the devil if he spits in trump's direction, its derangement, truly.
You do know these people all existed before Trump was a politician, right? So wound up they'd embrace the devil if he spits in trump's direction, its derangement, truly.
Originally Posted by :
Pandering to the far right helped cause trump? If you mean by the way his like failed to live up to the pandering when it came to action the electorate wanted: yes. If you mean he somehow turned the electorate "far right" through his pandering: no.
Trump came about because much of what he promised to do the neocon republicans had pledged to do themselves since the days of Reagan and failed to even attempt since Bush Sr. Intentionally or not; they could only fail so long before the electorate looked elsewhere.
Notably, what the earlier Republicans "failed" to do was reestablish herrenvolk patriarchy. What enflames the fascists so -and, poetically, what makes their defeat likely - is that there are more of us than there are of them.Pandering to the far right helped cause trump? If you mean by the way his like failed to live up to the pandering when it came to action the electorate wanted: yes. If you mean he somehow turned the electorate "far right" through his pandering: no.
Trump came about because much of what he promised to do the neocon republicans had pledged to do themselves since the days of Reagan and failed to even attempt since Bush Sr. Intentionally or not; they could only fail so long before the electorate looked elsewhere.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Trump came about because much of what he promised to do the neocon republicans had pledged to do themselves since the days of Reagan and failed to even attempt since Bush Sr. Intentionally or not; they could only fail so long before the electorate looked elsewhere.
Perhaps the promises they pledged were bunk to begin with and not real solutions to the problems.Trump came about because much of what he promised to do the neocon republicans had pledged to do themselves since the days of Reagan and failed to even attempt since Bush Sr. Intentionally or not; they could only fail so long before the electorate looked elsewhere.
Trump vowed to not cut Social Security and Medicare — hours before proposing just that
He's been doing this all term, and he's slowly succeeding (via executive power).
And
Hahahahaha
Hee hee
It's funny because it's true.
He's been doing this all term, and he's slowly succeeding (via executive power).
And
Originally Posted by :
For once, President Trump spoke the truth.
“We’re doing a lot of things that are good, including waste and fraud,” he said Monday, as his administration released its proposed budget. “Tremendous waste and tremendous fraud.”
Heh hehFor once, President Trump spoke the truth.
“We’re doing a lot of things that are good, including waste and fraud,” he said Monday, as his administration released its proposed budget. “Tremendous waste and tremendous fraud.”
Hahahahaha
Hee hee
It's funny because it's true.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Perhaps the promises they pledged were bunk to begin with and not real solutions to the problems.
Possibly true, in many cases, but the fact remains that these were promises that got them elected. That doesn't mean the polices should actually be enacted, or course.Perhaps the promises they pledged were bunk to begin with and not real solutions to the problems.
The point about Rommey is that when a centre-right Republican moved to the Right he moved the Republican party to the Right with him. If Bernie moves the Dems to the Left it will leave a hole in the middle of US politics large enough that a new party might need to emerge to fill it.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Perhaps the promises they pledged were bunk to begin with and not real solutions to the problems.
Perhaps the promises they pledged were bunk to begin with and not real solutions to the problems.
Seems to be a common refrain on both sides of the the aisle, the whole "they dont know what's good for them" angle, I mean look at bernie; there are more than a few democrats who say what you said about his promises, never mind republicans.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
That doesn't mean the polices should actually be enacted, or course.
Not in any scenario that includes maintaining people's faith in democracy. Scenarios without that tend to have bad ends.That doesn't mean the polices should actually be enacted, or course.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Possibly true, in many cases, but the fact remains that these were promises that got them elected. That doesn't mean the polices should actually be enacted, or course.
The point about Rommey is that when a centre-right Republican moved to the Right he moved the Republican party to the Right with him. If Bernie moves the Dems to the Left it will leave a hole in the middle of US politics large enough that a new party might need to emerge to fill it.
Darn it, you know little enough about American politics to be paid for your insight. What are you waiting for?Possibly true, in many cases, but the fact remains that these were promises that got them elected. That doesn't mean the polices should actually be enacted, or course.
The point about Rommey is that when a centre-right Republican moved to the Right he moved the Republican party to the Right with him. If Bernie moves the Dems to the Left it will leave a hole in the middle of US politics large enough that a new party might need to emerge to fill it.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Seems to be a common refrain on both sides of the the aisle, the whole "they dont know what's good for them" angle, I mean look at bernie; there are more than a few democrats who say what you said about his promises, never mind republicans.
The difference with Bernie is that there has never been a US government ran by democratic socialists. If one day it happens and they don't deliver the policy then we must start to think about the practicality of said promises.Seems to be a common refrain on both sides of the the aisle, the whole "they dont know what's good for them" angle, I mean look at bernie; there are more than a few democrats who say what you said about his promises, never mind republicans.
Republicans on the other hand...
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Republicans on the other hand...
Be careful not to slip into a common misunderstanding. The truth is...Republicans on the other hand...
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
The difference with Bernie is that there has never been a US government ran by democratic socialists. If one day it happens and they don't deliver the policy then we must start to think about the practicality of said promises.
Republicans on the other hand...
See, a lot of republicans would probably diagree with your first sentance. And your third for that matter, the republican party leadership doesnt exactly consider trump typical, to its detriment. Some would also say that before trump US government hadnt been run by thier idea of a republican since eizenhower or reagan. The difference with Bernie is that there has never been a US government ran by democratic socialists. If one day it happens and they don't deliver the policy then we must start to think about the practicality of said promises.
Republicans on the other hand...
Bernie and Trump are both reactions to failures to deliver; the desire to find a guy who will actually do what he says he will, as little watering down as possible. With the level of frustration that triggered these reactions whether or not the promised ideas work is almost immaterial.
Not that either of us would take much interest in the proclimations of inviability/bunk-dom by a competitor in such a polarized enviroment.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO