Politics 2017 part 4

 

 

I don't get what Syria (if they atcually did do this) were hoping to accomplish with the chemical attack. It just seems illogical in every way.

The city they attacked was under rebel control

Chemical weapons in Syria are in a way all over the place. There were a number of warehouses that were ransacked. Syrian government and some opposition forces have them. What proof do we have that actually the Syrian government was behind this attack other than it happened in a city under rebel control?

 

With this attack by the US any rebel forces can use simple logic: use chemical weapons on civilians > media will automatically blame Assad > the US will attack our enemy Assad.

I am fully aware. I just tried to explain why it might make sense for Assad to launch such an attack.

noone knows who is good guy and who is bad guy there. I would just fence whole middle east and wait for winner to show at the gates

 

 

I don't get what Syria (if they atcually did do this) were hoping to accomplish with the chemical attack. It just seems illogical in every way.

The city they attacked was under rebel control

 

 

Chemical weapons in Syria are in a way all over the place. There were a number of warehouses that were ransacked. Syrian government and some opposition forces have them. What proof do we have that actually the Syrian government was behind this attack other than it happened in a city under rebel control?

 

With this attack by the US any rebel forces can use simple logic: use chemical weapons on civilians > media will automatically blame Assad > the US will attack our enemy Assad.

 

but to be honest only Assad and Russians are operating planes in that area if I am not mistaken

"The city they attacked was under rebel control"

 

"I am fully aware. I just tried to explain why it might make sense for Assad to launch such an attack."

 

Still doesn't make sense.  He killed a few people but, in reality, he gained nothing. There was no strategic gain  using chemical weapons in this situation. If Syria did this, it wa spure stupidity and malice not logical.    

Goresuch will be confirmed today. As much as I dislike using the "nuclear option" and it is something everyone will have cause to regret one day. But what else could be done? No justice appointed by Trump will meet the approval of the Democrats and as long as control of the Senate remained divided (which is always) the Supreme court would just get smaller and smaller until there was just one judge left.

 

Here is a good idea that will never happen (because it would require a Constitutional Amendment). Rather than having Justices serve for life, have them serve one 10 year or 15 year term after which they must step down. It would have to be at least that long to ensure the President that selected them does not replace them. That idea keeps the blood fresh and lessens the tension placed on the Senate and the justices themselves. Plus it will engage the voters more. That SCOTUS vacancy had a lot to do with Trump getting elected.

 But what else could be done? 

 

I would be so bold and say actual politics Meaning starting conversation that aren't meant to one-up over another party, but actually start to seek things that both parties can mostly agree and build unity in United States instead constantly seek new ways to divide its people more, meaning seeking compromises that most people from both sides can accept. But it seem that polarization is what politicians and people want, as it isn't just encouraged it is celebrated as like it is something positive and to be proud off.

 

 But what else could be done? 

 

I would be so bold and say actual politics Meaning starting conversation that aren't meant to one-up over another party, but actually start to seek things that both parties can mostly agree and build unity in United States instead constantly seek new ways to divide its people more, meaning seeking compromises that most people from both sides can accept. But it seem that polarization is what politicians and people want, as it isn't just encouraged it is celebrated as like it is something positive and to be proud off.

 

Politics in the US is becoming practically tribal already. And that is just among the citizens. There are people I work with who won't even socialize with Trump voters. The saddest irony of it all is there is far less differences between the donkeys and elephants than most realize. The both love government power so long as they are in control of it. They both become federalists only when they are in the minority. The biggest thing they have in common is they both love their committee chairmanships and other perks and can be counted on to fight like savages to get them back even when it means undermining the very institution they serve.

Thankfully we all learned that two wrongs make a right when we were growing up.

 

 

But what else could be done?

 

I would be so bold and say actual politics Meaning starting conversation that aren't meant to one-up over another party, but actually start to seek things that both parties can mostly agree and build unity in United States instead constantly seek new ways to divide its people more, meaning seeking compromises that most people from both sides can accept. But it seem that polarization is what politicians and people want, as it isn't just encouraged it is celebrated as like it is something positive and to be proud off.

 

Politics in the US is becoming practically tribal already. And that is just among the citizens. There are people I work with who won't even socialize with Trump voters. The saddest irony of it all is there is far less differences between the donkeys and elephants than most realize. The both love government power so long as they are in control of it. They both become federalists only when they are in the minority. The biggest thing they have in common is they both love their committee chairmanships and other perks and can be counted on to fight like savages to get them back even when it means undermining the very institution they serve.

 

No, there's far more difference than you realize. One party is simply corporatists trying to line their own and their friends' pockets and get reelected. The other party hates America and Americans : http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/27/chicago-should-be-just-fine-after-naming-a-street-after-a-convicted-terrorist/

 

Edit: In case more evidence was needed: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/06/portlandia-sheriff-giving-sex-pests-ice-damages-community-trust/

Edited April 7, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

"The city they attacked was under rebel control"

 

"I am fully aware. I just tried to explain why it might make sense for Assad to launch such an attack."

 

Still doesn't make sense. He killed a few people but, in reality, he gained nothing. There was no strategic gain using chemical weapons in this situation. If Syria did this, it wa spure stupidity and malice not logical.

It's about psychology. Making the rebels afraid. "I can kill all of you brutally at the push of a button"

 

 

 

But what else could be done?

I would be so bold and say actual politics Meaning starting conversation that aren't meant to one-up over another party, but actually start to seek things that both parties can mostly agree and build unity in United States instead constantly seek new ways to divide its people more, meaning seeking compromises that most people from both sides can accept. But it seem that polarization is what politicians and people want, as it isn't just encouraged it is celebrated as like it is something positive and to be proud off.

Politics in the US is becoming practically tribal already. And that is just among the citizens. There are people I work with who won't even socialize with Trump voters. The saddest irony of it all is there is far less differences between the donkeys and elephants than most realize. The both love government power so long as they are in control of it. They both become federalists only when they are in the minority. The biggest thing they have in common is they both love their committee chairmanships and other perks and can be counted on to fight like savages to get them back even when it means undermining the very institution they serve.

No, there's far more difference than you realize. One party is simply corporatists trying to line their own and their friends' pockets and get reelected. The other party hates America and Americans : http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/27/chicago-should-be-just-fine-after-naming-a-street-after-a-convicted-terrorist/

No, there's far more difference than you realise. One is an corrupt party full of cooperatists that pretend to care and one is an corrupt party full of cooperatists that apparently also attract right wing nuts

Terror attack in Sweden. Presumably three dead, says my radio.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-terror-attack-prime-minister-stefan-lofven-stockholm-lorry-crash-arrested-truck-brewery-a7672751.html%3Famp

Edited April 7, 2017 by Ben No.3

 

"The city they attacked was under rebel control"

 

"I am fully aware. I just tried to explain why it might make sense for Assad to launch such an attack."

 

Still doesn't make sense. He killed a few people but, in reality, he gained nothing. There was no strategic gain using chemical weapons in this situation. If Syria did this, it wa spure stupidity and malice not logical.

It's about psychology. Making the rebels afraid. "I can kill all of you brutally at the push of a button"

 

Assad is going to use chemical weapons giving him no tactical advantage over his enemies whatsoever while giving other nations reason to move against him. Makes sense.

 

Al-Nusra that holds that city says Assad used chemical weapons. They're a very trustworthy folks. An American bi-product like countless other groups in Syria. 

 

 

"The city they attacked was under rebel control"

 

"I am fully aware. I just tried to explain why it might make sense for Assad to launch such an attack."

 

Still doesn't make sense. He killed a few people but, in reality, he gained nothing. There was no strategic gain using chemical weapons in this situation. If Syria did this, it wa spure stupidity and malice not logical.

It's about psychology. Making the rebels afraid. "I can kill all of you brutally at the push of a button"

Assad is going to use chemical weapons giving him no tactical advantage over his enemies whatsoever while giving other nations reason to move against him. Makes sense.

 

Al-Nusra that holds that city says Assad used chemical weapons. They're a very trustworthy folks. An American bi-product like countless other groups in Syria.

Hey, I'm only making assumptions. We all know nothing, let's admit it

New frontiers in propaganda: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-adds-fact-check-feature-search-news-results-2017-4

 

How long before they stop showing "false" search results?

 

https://twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/849977809992896514

Edited April 7, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

"It's about psychology. Making the rebels afraid. "I can kill all of you brutally at the push of a button"    

 

More like,  "I'm willing to use even chemical qwepaons makinmg it so you have nothing more to lose so youa re going to become even more entrneched. Not to mention, I'm now gonna pulkl other coluntries in." Hmm.. I wonder whcih scenario happened? Oh yeah, the US bombed Syria. BRILLIANT PLAN.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Volourn

For the not completely connected argument..

 

Trump's missile attacks in Syria are a disgrace. Period. I don't care if Assad used chemical weapons or not.

 

If only Rand knew how to win elections well.

 "I don't care if Assad used chemical weapons or not."

 

Doesn't care about innocent people being hit by chemicalw epaons... gets all butthurt about missle attacks on an army base (supposedly) used to fire said chem weapons. But, yeah.

 

Not that 100% sold on the 'fact' that it was Assad but your logic shows an evil in you beyond edginess.

 

Honestly I don't think anyone is capable of caring anymore; caring would mean to the issue ahead of your political views. Not all this virtue signaling

Is virtue signaling alt-right lingo for a Tomahawk?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-officially-made-it-legal-to-kill-hibernating-bears_us_58e93960e4b05413bfe36c1b?

 

Hunters in Alaska can now track and kill hibernating bears thanks to a U.S. House and Senate resolution rolling back Obama-era regulations against the practice.

President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on Monday, which rolled back Alaska’s ban on killing the vulnerable bears, along with wolf cubs in dens. It also allows for hunters to target the animals from helicopters.

The Republican-sponsored legislation impacts 76.8 million acres of federally protected national preserves across Alaska.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) took to the Senate floor last month to denounce the previous rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued in August.

Murkowski called it “bad for Alaska, bad for hunters, bad for our native peoples, bad for America,” and a “direct attack on states’ rights.”

In Sullivan’s argument, the lawmaker said the change was for Alaskans “who value hunting as a deep part of their culture.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-officially-made-it-legal-to-kill-hibernating-bears_us_58e93960e4b05413bfe36c1b?

 

Hunters in Alaska can now track and kill hibernating bears thanks to a U.S. House and Senate resolution rolling back Obama-era regulations against the practice.

President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on Monday, which rolled back Alaska’s ban on killing the vulnerable bears, along with wolf cubs in dens. It also allows for hunters to target the animals from helicopters.

The Republican-sponsored legislation impacts 76.8 million acres of federally protected national preserves across Alaska.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) took to the Senate floor last month to denounce the previous rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued in August.

Murkowski called it “bad for Alaska, bad for hunters, bad for our native peoples, bad for America,” and a “direct attack on states’ rights.”

In Sullivan’s argument, the lawmaker said the change was for Alaskans “who value hunting as a deep part of their culture.”

 

Never mind that 'Federally protected national preserves' are thoroughly unconstitutional.

 

Never mind that giving a non elected body the power to 'regulate' is very arguably unconstitutional, and historically has always lead to thorough corruption...

Is virtue signaling alt-right lingo for a Tomahawk?

The left is now pointing that out because its Trump, they were more than happy to praise Obama and ignore his drone strikes.

 

Never mind that giving a non elected body the power to 'regulate'  [...] historically has always lead to thorough corruption...

 

This point would probably be more meaningful if Congress wasn't already wildly corrupt, and didn't have approval rates in or very near single digits.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Bartimaeus