Politics Generations

[Gromnir]

58 minutes ago, Malcador said:

It is hard to think on what an overcorrection of Trump would be.   Maybe someone that tries to be super inoffensive or something ?

the problem is misidentifying trump problems. calls for reduced immigration were, for decades, a democrat talking point. push for a reduced fed government is as old as federalists and anti-federalists in US politics. stronger military and even climate change (or at least degree o' response required) is the kinda stuff 'pon which Presidents may differ. etc.

so what? fact democrats were ardent anti-immigration for so long didn't make 'em corrupt or evil. 

the trump problem, beyond the narcissism which drives all his behaviours, is not what he wanted but how he chose to go 'bout achieving. want a border wall were stoopid, but were ultimate only a minor issue until trump declares a fraudulent national emergency to do an end-around on Congress. similar, to attempt an end o' US middle-east military involvement is not vile and many would be in favor o' such. however, trump's cowardly betrayal o' the kurds and his flailing to find solutions to obvious miscalculation regarding his withdrawal o' troops is beyond our expectations and enraged parties on both sides o' the aisle in addition to our allies abroad. etc.

starting point for positing a potential overcorrection is the issue. misidentify policy positions as being starting point for overcorrection is myopic and ignorant. the US system o' government, for all its flaws, largely self-corrects, trump is an exception 'cause he ignores rule o' law and spits 'pon the Constitution. overcorrect such flaws is taking a bit o' imagination and reveals initial complaint as ridiculous.

the danger is not overcorrection. real danger is that trump actions is new norm. for example, suppose a new President comes into office and believes they can end second amendment via an executive order. this is not an overcorrection o' a genuine problem. if the new President were to lobby Congress to make changes to gun laws and enacted rules for atf which didn't direct affect existing fed legislation, then gun control advocacy by a new administration would not be an actual problem, though would likely be ineffectual. takes a great deal o' effort and debate in committee to get new legislation on divisive issues passed by Congress. 

our (smallish) fear for the next administration, regardless o' who is in the wh, will be that we see a continuation o' the norms started or advanced by trump. pettiness. divisiveness. extra-legal. unconstitutional. 

the last two Presidents has changed the culture in washington, and not for the better. trump, and to a lesser degree obama, attacked media and undermined seperation o' powers. just as with trump, democrat senators under obama were willing to turn a blind eye to excesses and frequent enabled a chief executive who were unwilling to play fair.

Shocked by Trump aggression against reporters and sources? The blueprint was drawn by Obama.

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

sure, the scale o' what trump has done is orders o' magnitude worse than were obama, but is arguable it were obama who flipped the lid on pandora's box.

regardless, am thinking what is most important is electing a chief executive who dedicates self to changing the culture o' the chief executive. impeachment won't fix underlying problems. am marginal less cynical 'bout the democrat candidates than is gd, but not by much. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

34 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The will never forgiver her for supporting Sanders in 2016: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset-groomed-to-ensure-trump-re-election

Well, not sure they are, seems like Clinton should just shut up and enjoy retirement.

[HoonDing]

Trying to capture the "I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat" crowd.

[ShadySands]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Well, not sure they are, seems like Clinton should just shut up and enjoy retirement.

Ego won't allow it

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, ShadySands said:

Ego won't allow it

lose presidential nomination to obama had to be difficult.  the email nonsense, which at best painted her as a bumbling incompetent just shy o' criminal negligence, had to be a bruise to her ego. end political career by losing to trump 'cause she didn't bother to campaign in a handful o' battleground states...

when clinton were a senator, with aspirations for bigger and better, is doubtful she imagined her legacy would be as it appears to be in 2019. 

am agreeing on assessment o' clinton's motive being ego, but am believing her need to respond to political events o' the day is hurting her legacy more than helping.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

the last two Presidents has changed the culture in washington, and not for the better. trump, and to a lesser degree obama, attacked media and undermined seperation o' powers. just as with trump, democrat senators under obama were willing to turn a blind eye to excesses and frequent enabled a chief executive who were unwilling to play fair.

Shocked by Trump aggression against reporters and sources? The blueprint was drawn by Obama.

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

sure, the scale o' what trump has done is orders o' magnitude worse than were obama, but is arguable it were obama who flipped the lid on pandora's box.

regardless, am thinking what is most important is electing a chief executive who dedicates self to changing the culture o' the chief executive. impeachment won't fix underlying problems. am marginal less cynical 'bout the democrat candidates than is gd, but not by much. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I have a theory that the culture change is because of the internet. There is no trusted arbiter of truth any more with the diminishing role of traditional media. So, clickbait and fake news, as in factually fake news designed for clicks and emotional appeal, wins out. You know, It's the echo chamber thing, and the fact that people have become used to being abrasive to each other because communication is impersonal. 

So, attacking the media works. All you have to do is 'win' doesn't matter if you are correct. 

 

 

[Malcador]

51 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Ego won't allow it

Seems that way.   Trump gave a rather funny press briefing today, apparently the US has control of Middle East oil, the Kurds are very happy with the deal.

[Elerond]

 

[Gromnir]

5 minutes ago, Elerond said:

vid

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

28 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Seems that way.   Trump gave a rather funny press briefing today, apparently the US has control of Middle East oil, the Kurds are very happy with the deal.

That's because the US isn't withdrawing from Syria any more, it's just withdrawing from the areas Turkey wants and staying not just at Al Tanf but at the oil fields and most of SE Syria too.

That's why Graham has done a 180, he of course never gave two flying asterisks for the Kurds or betraying their allies and cared only about sticking it to Iran/ benefiting Israel. The happy Kurds are the happy ex ISIS arab guys Saudi bribed to swap sides who now don't have to suffer the revenge of the bits of their tribes that didn't join ISIS, didn't get slaughtered and got bottled up in Deir Ez Zor city. The ex ISIS guys now get to continue selling homebrew oil under the protection of US SF. Wouldn't be surprised if they'll go back to the old Turkey deal and have rump SDF sell the oil direct to Turkey just like they did under ISIS.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Zoraptor

[Guard Dog]

Gabbard has responded to Hillary Clinton"

Quote

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/tulsi-gabbard-fires-back-at-queen-of-warmongers-hillary-clinton-for-suggesting-shes-a-russian-asset/

[HoonDing]

she tells it like it is

[Malcador]

 

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Gabbard has responded to Hillary Clinton"

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/tulsi-gabbard-fires-back-at-queen-of-warmongers-hillary-clinton-for-suggesting-shes-a-russian-asset/

 

What an age, political figures having slap fights on Twitter.  Decent enough response, although I'm not sure there's a campaign to eliminate Gabbard with how she's polling and all. 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Malcador

[ShadySands]

I don't know how organized the opposition is but she's been taking friendly fire since day one of her campaign. She was always a long shot but she never really stood a chance against the really, Hillary, awfully bitter crowd and the "blue hawks."

 

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

What an age, political figures having slap fights on Twitter.  Decent enough response, although I'm not sure there's a campaign to eliminate Gabbard with how she's polling and all. 

She's definitively being Shareblue'd, if nothing else. Way too many potted responses whenever she's mentioned, and no matter how tangentially. Her polling at 1-2% and attracting so much negative attention is probably the best evidence she's being botted, rather than going against it.

[Gfted1]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

What an age, political figures having slap fights on Twitter.

Seriously, its a race to the bottom that includes the Speaker of the House being an intern Twitter troll and a four star general is trying to land zingers. smh.

Aside, I propose Trump was the overcorrection to Obama.

[Malcador]

8 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

She's definitively being Shareblue'd, if nothing else. Way too many potted responses whenever she's mentioned, and no matter how tangentially. Her polling at 1-2% and attracting so much negative attention is probably the best evidence she's being botted, rather than going against it.

Possible, but just sort of expected her to not set the race on the fire or anything with the field as packed as it is and with Warren and Sanders present.

 

2 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Seriously, its a race to the bottom that includes the Speaker of the House being an intern Twitter troll and a four star general is trying to land zingers. smh.

Aside, I propose Trump was the overcorrection to Obama.

Eh, Mattis' wasn't too bad and he's just giving what he's getting.  Heh, still wish I could have read his mind during that first cabinet meeting where the other members other than Tillerson were sucking up to Trump.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

 

Aside, I propose Trump was the overcorrection to Obama.

It makes one tremble to imagine the overcorrection for Trump. Then the over correction for that overcorrection. Suddenly I feel the need to stockpile more ammunition.

[HoonDing]

Trump is banging Tulsi tbh

[Guard Dog]

The only publication Gabbard has received anything but negative press in is Reason. Hell even the Honolulu Star has taken a set against her. And why? Because she thinks it's pointless to continue to flush billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives down the mid east toilet? Put her foreign policy ideas aside she is on the same page as every other democrat on every other issue: tax the living s--t out of everyone and spend the country into ruin. She checks off every other box. Well, except one: she opposes third trimester abortion unless there is medical necessity. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me but whatever. 

It's hard not to wonder if maybe she has a point. After all CNN and other news outlets actually did try to help Clinton against Sanders. The DNC has seen to it she gets a well funded primary challenger every election since she took Sanders part over Clinton. They may have gotten rid of the Super Delegates but there is still very little democracy in the Democratic Party. She is being bottled up no doubt. And the coverage she gets is decidedly negative.

Pushing her to run for the Green Party might be a clever way of getting rid of her. If she ever did such a thing not only is it a purely quixotic endeavor she would be done forever with the Democrats. There is no coming back from that. And I only vote third party. 

I don't know if you guys have noticed but Buti-something's press has turned somewhat negative over the last few days. Of course it may be that Democrats just don't like veterans. Because they do not from my own experience. 

[Gromnir]

6 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The only publication Gabbard has received anything but negative press in is Reason. Hell even the Honolulu Star has taken a set against her. And why? Because she thinks it's pointless to continue to flush billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives down the mid east toilet?

there may be a conspiracy against her, but am thinking there is possibility for folks to disagree with gabbard sans any undue influences. ms. gabbard has attacked the media, and the nyt in particular, but the times did not call ms. gabbard a russian asset as she claimed. times did note how rt and official russian sources is defending and promoting her. attack media for accurate reporting? is one o' those things which has us a bit sensitive given trump's "enemy of the people" calls. am also believing american isolationism would make foreign powers hate the US no less while simultaneous removing our capacity to respond and prevent mischief and malfeasance.  am not gonna get too deep into her curious refusal to condemn assad, but given how strong were her condemnations o' obama's refusal to use "radical islam" label, am seeing a certain 'mount o' hypocrisy.  furthermore, much o' the gabbard dislike from democrats significant predates the 2016 election as her frequent fox appearances condemning obama foreign policy were seen as treacherous for a party which were as close tied to their President as republicans is current embracing trump. etc.

perhaps most damning, much o' gabbard's domestic policy positions align with bernie sanders, so as long as bernie is running, gabbard is kinda the newer and shiner version o' the more recognizable bernie... which hasn't been an enviable position when it comes to attracting endorsements from progressives.

not directed specific at gd, but am gonna need a bit more than thin correlative evidence to convince us that there is some kinda organized campaign to undermine gabbard beyond recognition she is hardly the ideal democrat candidate as expressed earlier in our post. unfair attacks on media and loud protests o' victimization is all too familiar refrains from a certain republican we could mention, so when we see similar in democrats, is no more endearing.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Well some of the negative press has been earned. Refusing to call Assad a war criminal is, as Gromnir would say, stoopid. And I can certainly imagine a candidate with ideas on American non-interventionism would be appealing to the interventionist Russians. That does not make her a Russian stooge. And it does not mean taking a step back from foreign entanglements is a bad idea. Had GWB not invaded Iraq there would be no ISIS, no Syrian Civil War and Gary Johnson would not be the only person who has no clue where Aleppo is. Well, all those things did happen but the only one talking about walking away from it altogether (which is a bad idea) is Trump.  But she is certainly opposing starting any new conflicts which makes sense to me. 

[Gromnir]

35 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Well some of the negative press has been earned. Refusing to call Assad a war criminal is, as Gromnir would say, stoopid. And I can certainly imagine a candidate with ideas on American non-interventionism would be appealing to the interventionist Russians. That does not make her a Russian stooge. And it does not mean taking a step back from foreign entanglements is a bad idea. Had GWB not invaded Iraq there would be no ISIS, no Syrian Civil War and Gary Johnson would not be the only person who has no clue where Aleppo is. Well, all those things did happen but the only one talking about walking away from it altogether (which is a bad idea) is Trump.  But she is certainly opposing starting any new conflicts which makes sense to me. 

try and convince us endless foreign wars is bad for america is pointless as Gromnir is only one potential voter, and not even a democrat.  lord knows we ain't suggesting gabbard is a russian stooge, but neither did the times in spite o' gabbard claiming she were victimized by that paper. 

*shrug*

sam nunn style democrats is plentiful particular in the 2019 south, so mention american isolationism as a selling point ignores how is simultaneous a negative for more than a few democrats. am not denying gabbard has appeal. all we is saying is she gots some negatives which go a long way in explaining why she doesn't have broader appeal particular 'mongst democrats and we need not conjure up conspiracy theories or media crusades to get to where we is. 

heck, tell us eight months ago gabbard would be w/i one point o' senators booker and klobuchar and former hud secretary castro and we would tell you to lay off the psychedelics. fact she is even in the conversation is something o' a minor miracle, particular given the ill will she built up with obama loyalists. whatever clinton animosity exists towards gabbard is a mouse fart in the wind compared to the hurricane o' anger she brought 'pon herself with multiple attacks o' obama on freaking fox news.

but if we are talking Gromnir, we already noted the assad stuff is for us a genuine "red line."  is not just the refusal to condemn assad, but the way she went after obama which bothers us, and as you know, we didn't particular like obama as a President, so ain't as if am being knee-jerk emotional. fact gabbard lambasted obama over the refusal to use "radical islam" label while simultaneous willful ignoring assad behaviours is displaying a fundamental lack o' character which requires some kinda explanation, an explanation she refuses to provide 'cause she invariably deflects when her assad position is addressed. red line. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

Lol Bellingcat.

Their reliability can best be summed as being 100% certain the CW attack was via rocket. Right up to the point the OPCW-JIM said it was a bomb, at which point those saying it was a rocket became useful idiots for Russia instead. Funny thing being, they were right and the crater was definitely from a rocket, and the 'filler cap' was a part of the rocket engine and can be seen in wreckage from multiple grad impacts (eg). Chemical bombs are fused to 'explode' above ground, and have almost no actual explosive in them since explosion/ fire is a great way to destroy your CW agent, you want just enough to force the CW agent out through the 'nebuliser'.

(If you're faking/ false flagging an attack you wouldn't fire a rocket or blow up your CW in any case as you'd lose much of it; you'd mix it with a propellant and release it via a standard compressed gas cannister and mask that with a conventional rocket)

[ktchong]

 

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by ktchong