US Politics Thread 2016-2020 [Archive] - Page 11

View Full Version : US Politics Thread 2016-2020

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Bubblehead1980

04-04-17, 01:31 PM

The ongoing left wing freak out over President Trump is nothing short of hilarious, but also SAD.

President Trump is the FIRST President since perhaps Andrew Jackson who has been so viciously opposed by the power structure. Jackson faced powerful forces in the US primarily, where as Trump is taking on the evils of globalism, which has entrenched itself in the US over the last 70 years or so.

President Trump represents American Nationalism, which is a Civic Nationalism, not based on race or religion, but on the ideology of this country and it's people first, as it should be.Support of Capitalism, truth, pl direct speech, respect for our sovereignty, and the constitution before anything else.Opposition to globalist policies that harm our people, infringe upon our sovereignty, political correctness, etc. Finally standing up to Islam, which is the great threat to our civilization, but the so called "elites" refuse to acknowledge this.President Trump is fighting the devastating hordes of illegal immigrants and the harm caused to citizens by excess legal immigration, no because of race or religion but because before we allow others in, every citizen should go first This flies in the face of Marxist inspired globalism, and everything in it's minions agendas.

Although a billionaire, Trump is not part of the club, he is disliked, much as Jackson was, because he is not from their circles and he refuses to tow the line and can not be bought. Much as with Brexit lead by the great Nigel Farage, the people of the US chose to stand up and save our civilization before it is too late.

People are mostly shocked that someone is actually following through on campaign pledges and was not just making empty promises.Trump declared war on the globalists during the campaign with a quote that should be on his headstone:

"We will no longer surrender our country or it's people to the false song of globalism."

eddie

04-04-17, 01:54 PM

Interesting-

"But NBC has learned that Rice didn't — and couldn't — "order" the unmasking of any American because only the agencies that gathered the surveillance (usually the NSA or FBI) can make that call and the process is subject to rules and reviewed by lawyers.
The bar is high too because there has to be a legitimate intelligence reason to justify identifying the person or persons.
Also, it's not unusual for administrations to request the identities of people captured on surveillance so they can better understand the intelligence. Former NSA chief Keith Alexander told NBC he routinely turned down unmasking requests by senior officials in the Obama and George W. Bush administrations.
Unmasking does not mean making public. The reports are still highly classified and viewable by just a select group of people with top secret clearance."

Bilge_Rat

04-04-17, 01:54 PM

news is moving fast.

Susan Rice was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell. She confirms that she asked for the unmasking of the names of Trump campaign officials, but denies this was done for political purposes.

two weeks ago on PBS, she said she had no knowledge of any surveillance whatsoever. :hmmm:

They really have to get their story straight.

Now, Rice just dropped another nugget:

Rice implied that President Obama himself ordered the compilation of intelligence reports on Trump officials. “…the president requested the compliation of the intelligence, which was ultimately provided in January [2017].”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/04/susan-rice-msnbc-interview-andrea-mitchell/

the noose is getting tighter...

August

04-04-17, 01:57 PM

The reports are still highly classified and viewable by just a select group of people with top secret clearance."

Unless one ensures that the reports are leaked anonymously to the press. Then they're viewable by everyone unless the press determines that they are either damaging to the Democrats or favorable to the Republicans.

Catfish

04-04-17, 02:00 PM

August

04-04-17, 03:02 PM

^ Breitbart? Interesting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fbi-breitbart-investigate-alt-right-wing-websites-fake-news-bots-donald-trump-a7641826.html

How comes that sites like "Breitbart" or "Amercian Thinker" (lmao) or "Daily caller" can be even quoted as only halfway credible "news"? What the hell went wrong.

We should quote left biased companies like CNN, MSNBC and ABC instead? They're just as biased the other way, even more so imo.

Bilge_Rat

04-04-17, 03:17 PM

^ Breitbart? Interesting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fbi-breitbart-investigate-alt-right-wing-websites-fake-news-bots-donald-trump-a7641826.html

How comes that sites like "Breitbart", "American Thinker" or "Daily caller" can be even quoted as only halfway credible "news"? What the hell went wrong.

that is a nice fake, but if you listen to the actual interview on MSNBC, you will hear the exact same quote at 6:39:

https://youtu.be/bFc5YsLq6zs?t=37

Knock yourself out. :O:

Catfish

04-04-17, 03:38 PM

I heard it from the beginnning to the end, also around 6.39. What does that prove, or suggest?

Rockstar

04-04-17, 03:57 PM

... What does that prove, or suggest?

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/cf/cf4ecff19343b94f5911cd5c3ad8bf631493b898f3d8cd7c19 a937bd46c204f7.jpg

Bilge_Rat

04-04-17, 04:05 PM

I heard it from the beginnning to the end, also around 6.39. What does that prove, or suggest?

The implication that Obama may have ordered it, certainly that he was aware of it.

Rice said the actions were legal, but the entire story raises more questions.

We now have confirmation that there were FISA warrants and that persons in the Trump transition team were being spied on. If the targets were foreign officials and the spying on U.S. citizens was "incidental", then yes, that would seem to be legal.

However, according to Nunes, the transcripts he saw had "nothing to do with Russia" which raises the question of why Rice would want to see them and know who was talking by "unmasking" the names. If the FISA warrants were being used to find out what the policies of the Trump transition team were, that would be an abuse of power and maybe illegal. This is what the Watergate scandal was all about, spying on your political enemies.

There is also the question of why Susan Rice would need those transcripts in the first place? Those are typically seen by the field investigators at the NSA and FBI who review the info and decide whether there is anything to act on.

The National Security Adviser is not an investigator. Typically, the NSA would receive a report with conclusions. Again, why would Rice want to see the actual transcripts and know the names of the Trump officials talking or being talked about? That is not her job. That does seem like she was doing her own digging and again seems to imply it was done for political purposes.

This story is not going away anytime soon.

Bilge_Rat

04-04-17, 04:48 PM

interesting.

this is from John Schindler who, even though he works for a media outlet Jared Kushner owns, is one of the most anti-Trump journalist around.

He is also a former NSA analyst. This is his take on this:

Yet there are caveats. Although it’s all but impossible to prove, if Rice asked for those identities for political—not national security—reasons, there’s a problem. Then there’s the possibility that she may not have adhered to NSA’s rigid rules about protecting the identities of those unmasked USPs. If she informed White House staffers without a need to know who those Americans were, the FBI may have something to investigate.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Susan Rice is a deeply unpopular figure with our Intelligence Community. Her abrasive personality and overall incompetence grated on the IC. Her habitually coarse language was inflicted on senior intelligence officials more than once, while nobody outside Obama’s inner circle considered Rice even marginally competent at her job. Simply put, she was the worst National Security Adviser in American history—at least until Mike Flynn’s dismally failed three-week tenure.

In addition, Rice didn’t like to play by the rules, including the top-secret ones. On multiple occasions, she asked the NSA to do things they regarded as unethical and perhaps illegal. When she was turned down—the NSA fears breaking laws for any White House, since they know they will be left holding the bag in the end—Rice kept pushing.

As a longtime NSA official who experienced Rice’s wrath more than once told me, “We tried to tell her to pound sand on some things, but it wasn’t allowed—we were always overruled.” On multiple occasions, Rice got top Agency leadership to approve things which NSA personnel on the front end of the spy business refused. This means there may be something Congress and the FBI need to investigate here.

Susan Rice and Team Trump are both despised by our intelligence agencies, albeit for different reasons. The prospect of a death-match between them is causing unusual emotions in the IC. “For us, this is like the Iran-Iraq war,” explained another longtime NSA official: “We’d like both sides to lose.”

http://observer.com/2017/04/nsa-susan-rice-donald-trump/

Platapus

04-04-17, 04:53 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Those who have no guilt will fear no investigation.

20 people who lived around Salem Massachusetts in the 1692-3 might disagree with you. :03:

Mr Quatro

04-04-17, 06:21 PM

After President Trump won the election, Obama quietly expanded the NSA’s ability to spy on innocent Americans just days before leaving office.

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.
The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

Trump questioned whether the NSA and FBI were behind a multitude of leaks handed to the New York Times and Washington Post.
The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.
These are Obama loyalists who reports suggest may have worked to sabotage Trump by ousting Flynn in order to preserve Obama’s Iran deal.
Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.’s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.
Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for “minimizing” privacy intrusions.
“This is not expanding the substantive ability of law enforcement to get access to signals intelligence,” said Robert S. Litt, the general counsel to Mr. Clapper. “It is simply widening the aperture for a larger number of analysts, who will be bound by the existing rules.”
But Patrick Toomey, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the move an erosion of rules intended to protect the privacy of Americans when their messages are caught by the N.S.A.’s powerful global collection methods. He noted that domestic internet data was often routed or stored abroad, where it may get vacuumed up without court oversight.
“Rather than dramatically expanding government access to so much personal data, we need much stronger rules to protect the privacy of Americans,” Mr. Toomey said. “Seventeen different government agencies shouldn’t be rooting through Americans’ emails with family members, friends and colleagues, all without ever obtaining a warrant.”

Robert S. Litt, the general counsel to Mr. Clapper said. “It is simply widening the aperture for a larger number of analysts, who will be bound by the existing rules.”

https://www.infowars.com/obama-expanded-nsa-powers-days-before-leaving-office-now-theyre-being-used-to-sabotage-trump/

The more people that know what is going on = more people that talk behind your back :yep:

August

04-04-17, 10:10 PM

20 people who lived around Salem Massachusetts in the 1692-3 might disagree with you. :03:

As would a certain former boxer immortalized by Bob Dylan... :yep:

vienna

04-05-17, 04:25 AM

I say we should unmask vienna :haha:

Just kidding vienna, but I will say to the anti-trump crowd you are more passionate than we are for POTUS Donald Trump.
...

Oh, I don't wear masks; a prime reason I never liked Halloween... :D

As far as my being passionate is concerned, I am not necessarily anti-Trump: I'm just anti-Bandini. When the person who is supposed to be the face the US presents to the world is little more than a bullying, sociopath liar whose own ego doesn't even allow him to concede he is considerably out of his depth as President, then yes I am passionate about being opposed to that person. I mean, Trump even lies about the lies he has spoken. I would feel this way if Clinton or Rand Paul or anyone else were in the Oval Office acting as Trump has done in his short time. I say, and have said, there should be open investigations into anyone who is suspect of illegal behavior, past or present; I will, however, suggest the questionable activities of those who are currently in positions of power and influence and whose actions and activities have the gravitas of more immediate effect on the conduct of governance and an effect on the lives of our citizens is of a rather higher priority; Clinton, Rice, and whoever else may have done whatever else, whenever else, are not in positions of power - the Trump administration and its minions are and are an immediate concern. Clinton, Rice, et al, aren't going anywhere and can be dealt with at leisure; we do not have that luxury in regards to the current state of the White House...

20 people who lived around Salem Massachusetts in the 1692-3 might disagree with you. :03:

...and those trials were conducted by self-righteous religious-based (or 'faith-based', if you will) zealots who believed their "morality" trumped the rule of law...

..although I wonder if it might not be a good idea to dunk The Donald and see if he floats or sinks... :hmmm: :D

As would a certain former boxer immortalized by Bob Dylan... :yep:

...who was tried under a corrupt system populated by people who subscribed to a "win at any cost" mentality. It should be noted the self-same system that put Hurricane Carter in prison was, after a thorough, unbiased, and complete subsequent investigation the means that freed him. There will always be the cases that serve as the '"exceptions that prove the rule"; here in California, we have had a couple of recent cases where persons who had served quite long sentences for crimes they did not commit were subsequently found to have been innocent of the crimes; and let's not get started on the number of people executed in places like Texas who were later found to have been innocent...

In the matter of the investigations of the Trump associates or Clinton or Rice, there is the advantage of the investigations by Congress will be out in the open, or, at least, in the Senate: GOP Chairman Nunes seems to feel it is somehow proper to have closed door hearings where the subjects of the investigations will be allowed to testify without being under oath; so much for the vaunted Trump/GOP-era of rule of law, swamp-draining, and governmental transparency...

Here is the third in the series of LA Times editorials:

Trump’s Authoritarian Vision:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-trumps-authoritarian-vision/

<O>

Dowly

04-05-17, 05:35 AM

Augustine may have brought back stability,Who's Augustine?

military power of Rome after Sulla'S reforms and the professionalization of the army.Sulla's reforms?

Sorry for the OT post, but as someone who has spent years reading about ancient Rome, I will continue to show how shaky Skybird's (even basic) knowledge of the issue is.

Skybird

04-05-17, 11:12 AM

Just in: Steve Bannon looses his NSC seat.

-----------------------------------------

Dowly, I do not know when and when not the German versions of the Greek's and Romans' Latin names equal English names, and when not. Aristotle in German would be Aristoteles, but Sulla seems to be Sulla for sure, and in his reign falls the professionalization of the Roman army which then became completely state-funded, and this indeed was a dramatic reform. In German: emperor Augustus seems to be Augustine in English, or not? Or is it simply August? In his reign falls the finalization of the transformation from the old republic to the new empirial order as he founded the first principate. He is also known as Octavian, and he was grandnephew of Gaius Iulius Ceasar.

Dowly

04-05-17, 12:27 PM

but Sulla seems to be Sulla for sure, and in his reign falls the professionalization of the Roman army which then became completely state-funded, and this indeed was a dramatic reform.Yes, Sulla is Sulla. But what does he have got to do with so-called "Marian reforms" of the military? :doh:

In German: emperor Augustus seems to be Augustine in English, or not? Or is it simply August?It's Augustus in English.

August

04-05-17, 02:55 PM

Just in: Steve Bannon looses his NSC seat.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-05/bannon-removed-from-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup

A White House official portrayed the change as a natural progression rather than a demotion for Bannon. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, contended that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting. He’s no longer needed with McMaster in charge of the council, the official said.It isn’t clear why Bannon would be needed on the committee under Flynn but not under McMaster. A second White House official said that Trump was never comfortable with Bannon on the panel, but that his removal didn’t indicate any erosion of his influence within the White House.

Hard to tell how much of this is spin but i guess that'll become evident if Bannon continues on this apparent downward trajectory or not.

Mr Quatro

04-05-17, 03:09 PM

I think he was gone a long time ago ... remember when Trump blew up in the White House when Sessions excused himself from the Russian investigation?

Yep! That was when Trump decided to let him go ... just took a while to finish the job :yep:

vienna

04-06-17, 02:04 AM

The latest in the series of editorials by the Los Angeles Times (BTW, the initial four-part series has been expanded to six parts):

Trump’s War on Journalism:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-trumps-war-on-journalism/

<O>

Skybird

04-06-17, 05:44 AM

Yes, Sulla is Sulla. But what does he have got to do with so-called "Marian reforms" of the military? :doh:

Eh - you are right. I fell victim to my memory. Sulla was initially quaestor under Marius, later he met Marius again when Sulla marched into Rome and demanded to be given a troop command that Marius had intervened for giving it to somebody else, Sulla claimed power and removed his political opponents and Marius had to flee.

Due to this crossing of both men's lives and the temporal closeness, I mixed them up. Can happen easily with Roman history, which in the main consists of nothing but names, more names, and then even more.

And I am not even certain that I do not mix it up again alrady - mistaking Marius with his son marius the younger. :D

Anyhow, you know damn well which military reform I was referring to - at that time and era, there was just this one, and the names Sulla and Marius practically mark the same spot on the timesline.

Bilge_Rat

04-06-17, 05:47 AM

Just in: Steve Bannon loses his NSC seat

seems like much ado about nothing, much like the handwringing when he was appointed on the principals committee.

Apparently, he rarely attended meetings and even though he is no longer on the NSC, he can still attend when he wants.

we'll have to see whether it actually means anything.

Skybird

04-06-17, 05:54 AM

Certainly nobody expects the WH to say "We gave him the boot" even if that would have been what happened. They always weasel on occasions like this. And since most of what Bannon is aiming for, is domestic policy ground, the loss of the NSC seat does not mean he looses influence on Trump. Maybe his sacking is part of a deal Trump had to do with somebody.

vienna

04-06-17, 06:18 AM

Bannon has come under fire from other members of the Trump administration for his heavy handed interference in the activities and decision-making of other departments and sections. When Michael Flynn was fired as National Security Adviser, Trump's first choice of a replacement was Vice Admiral Robert Harward, a retired Navy Seal and a former Deputy Commander of the United States Central Command. When Harward turned down Trump's offer, it was reported a major reason was Bannon's insistance on vetting and approving all of Harward's appointees to the National Security staff; it was reported Bannon even vetoed some individuals he, Harward, specifically wanted on his team; it was also reported Harward referred to the situation in the Trump White House as a 'fertilizer' sandwich (I cleaned it up a bit). I wonder if, perhaps, McMaster put the screws to the Trump team to boot Bannon; Trump can ill-afford to be embarrassed by having yet another National Security Adviser bail on him...

In a related matter, Flynn's son, who was also given the boot by Trump eariler, has lashed out about the removal of Bannon saying Bannon is "more loyal" to Trump than McMaster:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-g-flynn-lashes-out-h-r-mcmaster-bannon-trump

To quote GW Bush, "That was some weird 'fertilizer" (cleaned up a bit, again)...

<O>

Platapus

04-06-17, 06:24 AM

Lets hope that Trump does not borrow tactics from Russia's history. Be a shame if Bannon catches "the flu". :o <gulp>

I guess we will know if suddenly Bannon disappears from past photographs. :03:

vienna

04-06-17, 06:45 AM

Maybe, if Trump asks nicely and with respect, there's a guy who could take care of the 'little annoyance' that is Bannon for him:

http://www.thelittlechimpsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/GODFATHERPUTINsoi1-450x360.jpg

<O>

ikalugin

04-06-17, 08:11 AM

Lets hope that Trump does not borrow tactics from Russia's history. Be a shame if Bannon catches "the flue". :o <gulp>

I guess we will know if suddenly Bannon disappears from past photographs. :03:
I don't think that they would use the 1930s Stalinist methods today.

Political murder in Russia is viewed as a bad practice, much like anywhere else. If you want to destroy your oponent you get him imprisoned and you don't even need to break the word of law - laws in Russia are very strict and complex (and often contradictory) so most people are bound to violate something on the path to greatness.

But I am sure in the future we would adopt even softer, western methods, when you do not need to imprison a man to destroy him, but just initiate a smear campaighn in mass media.

Bilge_Rat

04-06-17, 10:14 AM

well if you keep track of the Trump WH, its not hard to see that the one with the most influence is Jared Kushner.

My guess is that Kushner was behind the move to remove Bannon from the NSC. Whether it means Bannon is on his way out or whether it is part of the ongoing turf war between Bannon and Kushner is hard to say at this point.

Bannon has always been in the background, so it is hard to know what is his real level of influence. His real perceived force seems to be elections/domestic politics, much like Karl Rove. Putting him on the NSC to begin with did not really make sense.

The only one who really seems to have been downgraded is Kellyanne Conway.

Mr Quatro

04-06-17, 12:58 PM

The only one who really seems to have been downgraded is Kellyanne Conway.

Wow! I had not even noticed ... I guess it's because I did not miss her :D

vienna

04-07-17, 02:41 AM

The fifth of the six Los Angeles Times editorial series on Trump:

Conspiracy Theorist in Chief:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-conspiracy-theorist-in-chief/

<O>

Dowly

04-07-17, 10:40 AM

Can happen easily with Roman history, which in the main consists of nothing but names, more names, and then even more.
Not that easily, when we're talking about an era where there were only a handful of "big names", and a mistake such as this (which you have done before also) isn't easy to make if one is even slightly familiar with the subject. Gaius Marius is a big name in both the history of the Late Republic and in Roman Military history in general.

That you decided to add bunch of extra, unneeded information to your reply, such as the rundown of relationship between Sulla and Marius and Marius the Younger who is rarely mentioned when talking of the era due to his unimportancy leads me to believe you had to check this from e.g. Wikipedia (not a bad thing) and to further show your "level of knowledge" you decided to add this extra stuff in.

You also did this with Augustus, adding information such as he was also known as Octavian and was Caesar's grandnephew. That is all extremely basic information about perhaps the most famous Emperor of the Roman Empire. That you added the extra, again, leads me to believe you had to check who the guy is and only added the extra to "show your knowledge".

I've seen this happen many, many times over the years all over the internet. People trying to look smart by saying something, then adding something completely unneeded to further show their "knowledge". To me, it just screams "I just checked it on the wiki!".

My purpose is not to embarrass you Skybird, but to try to make you understand, that your own knowledge of the subject appears to be seriously lacking and therefore you simply cannot assess whether what Engels writes is correct or not. As much as his view supports your dream of seeing the EU come crashing down, surely you understand that blindly believing his views without the needed knowledge to confirm them as true is foolish?

Skybird

04-07-17, 01:02 PM

As a matter of fact I have admitted before repeatedly in past weeks that I am no intimate expert on Roman history. My mistake with Sulla and Marius simply is mental mixing up of two men's names who both were very influential and both lived at the same time and even crossed their live's ways, and played major roles in the Roman government history and internal power struggles of Rome at that time. The background info I took not from Wipipedia, although right now I found that German wikipedia holds this info as well, but I took it from an old history encyclopedia I have from my school years 30 years ago, to check both names quickly after you brought this up.

My recent interest in the fall of the roman republic 1.0 is due to the book I referred to several times in past week. That book currently is not available to me to check back withn it, since my mother lend it and now reads it herself - on the other side of this town. Else I would have quoted from it directly.

Now go on, make a big deal of it and balk at the wind. I stick to my admiration for Engel'S book comparing the fall of the first republic with the status of the EU today, his arguments are damn solid and reasonable and empiracally convincing (his outlook on how the EU might move, or better: why it may move there - towards an authoritative, imperial order - is slightly less convincing, and a bit naive maybe).

Just in case you forgot what that was about:

German LINK (https://www.amazon.de/Auf-dem-Weg-ins-Imperium/dp/3944305450/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491587259&sr=8-1&keywords=David+Engels)
French LINK (https://www.amazon.fr/D%C3%A9clin-europ%C3%A9enne-r%C3%A9publique-analogies-historiques/dp/2810005249/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491587682&sr=8-1&keywords=David+Engels)

And here is the corrected version of what I wrote in this thread here, where you linked up, I print the correction in bold. Tell me, is it that major a thing? Does it change anything in what I said or referred to? The Marian reforms did not end with Marius, btw, the legions and their relation to the field commanders (and thus the latter's political power) kept on changing in the decades to come. And then there is the history of the Pretorians who started to brew their own soup.

Augustine may have brought back stability, law and order to Rome after the collapse of the first republic. But the price was a hefty one: military dictatorship, a massive decline of freedom, an imperial redesign of the political system, an establishing of heritable political power, and a massive loss of former civil liberties and freedoms. But this is what we all head for once again in Europe, once the EU has fallen apart - and it is set to fall apart for sure like the first republic, and for almost the same reasons. The parrallels are breathtaking.

But there is one big difference: the pax romana following was possible last but not least due to the military power of Rome after Marius's reforms and the professionalization of the army. Europea today however has developed a so strong pacifism and demilitarised basic attitude that one can hardly imagine that Europe would project military power to enforce its demands outside its imperial core and periphery in a comparable fashion like Rome was willing - and sometimes, though not always, actually carrying out - to do. An enforced pax europaea for exampel towards the ME or Russia, is hardly imaginable. The substantial willingess to use physical force is much stronger in the orient, than in the modern occident.
Sulla followed more or less on Marius, after he chased him away. We talk about one and the same era, and the similiar timestamp in the history line.

And isn'T it ironic that you accuse me - in parts correctly - to not have a deep knowledge on Roman history so that I could not - so you claim - assess Engel'S description (Engels seems to be seen as an academic heavyweight and is professor for Roman, Greek and Seleukide history, so what does he know...) - but you imply you know that his descriptions are misled although you do not know his book? The book is still not in english. French in 2012, German in 2015 or '16. You only understood that he criticises the EU, sees it way of forming up critical - and that is before anything else what triggered your appearance here, Dowly. ;) Sorry, but to take on Engels, you would need to know what he actually has written, and how he argues and what he bases his statements on. I only gave a very brief glimpse, a brief summary of very few, small parts of it, or better: I described his method of using the Eurobarometer's items to structure his comparison. I did not want to translate the whole book's 500 pages chapter by chapter.

P.S. The part on Augustus I gave by knowledge for sure. It is profound info, and I gave it only to make certain that no further misunderstandings arose regarding which person I meant. Some tiem ago, when I first mentioned Engels'S book, Subsim'S August here in the forum in one reply referred to my post and referred to my mentioning of Augustus (as Augustus, btw) as "Augustine" - and so I thought "Ooops, did not know that, so in English Augustus is Augustine, I learned something new". Like Aristotelis in English is not Aristoteles, but Aristotle. And so I started to use the name Augustine. That profane it was!

vienna

04-08-17, 01:30 AM

I don't know...

...Roman history is all Greek to me... :D

The sixth and last in the Los Angeles Times editorial series on Trump (more California-centric than the others):

California Fights Back:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-california-fights-back/

<O>

Skybird

04-08-17, 05:31 AM

I don't know...

...Roman history is all Greek to me... :D

"My God - its full of names..." (from: Famous Last Words, vol. 2001)

Catfish

04-08-17, 05:41 AM

I don't know...
...Roman history is all Greek to me... :D <O>

And you are right, Rome would not have happened or existed without the earlier historical accomplishments of the Greeks, or Etruscans. Even the artificial 'latin' language was invented and thought out by the Greeks, for Rome. But i guess that is what you meant :)

Bilge_Rat

04-08-17, 07:36 AM

Rockstar

04-08-17, 07:58 AM

Obama strikes Syrian government airbase, reason given: defeat ISIS. ???

Trump strikes Syrian government airbase, reason given : prevent Syrian government chemical attacks.

:doh:

IMO Trumps reason is I think, a bit more truthful in that our real goal has always been nation building and to oust Assad.

vienna

04-08-17, 10:29 AM

seems to me that the Syria strike blows a huge hole in theory that Trump is a Russian stooge and/or that Putin has compromising info he can blackmail him with.

How will the left be able to justify their witchhunt now?

Not necessarily a huge hole; possibilities abound:

- The strike could be a ploy to try to dispel the theory, you know, what the alt-right loves to call a "false flag";

- Trump, desperate for a win and a deflection of public notice of his other troubles in his administration, glommed on to the opportunity for a smoke screen;

- Trump may have finally started to listen to the grownups in his administration, such as McMasters, the generals, and the intelligence agencies he vilified so openly in the past, and let them do what they do best without the in put of wingnuts like Bannon (given that the alt-right is fuming over the strike as a betrayal of their 'principles' and starting to bail on Trump, the strike may have done this nation an even bigger service here at home);

- Trump may have started to realize whatever relationship his administration, if not himself, personally, has with the Kremlin is not worth whatever deference may have been shown up til now towards the Putin regime;

That is just a few of the possibilities I could come up with in just a couple of minutes; there are probably others...

Remember, the investigations into Russian influence or collusion have been aimed not at Trump directly or personally, but, rather at his associates, advisers, or staff members, either in his campaign, transition team, or current members of his staff or cabinet who have engaged in either questionable activities or communications with suspect Russian actors; the fact those who have been highlighted so far seem to share Trump's disdain of or inability to give truthful answers is not helping the situation; there has yet to be any specific connection made to Trump personally; he is not as yet the subject of any of the Russia-related investigations and I doubt that he will be, although the furtive manner in which he couches his business dealings and the possible serious, and potentially illegal, conflicts of interest could be what will get him under the harsh light of investigation...

<O>

Bilge_Rat

04-08-17, 01:08 PM

Not necessarily a huge hole; possibilities abound:

- The strike could be a ploy to try to dispel the theory, you know, what the alt-right loves to call a "false flag";

I have seen that popping up. A new conspiracy theory that this was cooked up between Trump and Putin to deflect the investigation. However, that is even more far fetched than the current theory.

- Trump, desperate for a win and a deflection of public notice of his other troubles in his administration, glommed on to the opportunity for a smoke screen;

That is a possibility. He would not be the first POTUS to use a war to deflect attentionn from domestic issues, but that does nothing to advance the Trump-Putin collusion story.

- Trump may have finally started to listen to the grownups in his administration, such as McMasters, the generals, and the intelligence agencies he vilified so openly in the past, and let them do what they do best without the in put of wingnuts like Bannon (given that the alt-right is fuming over the strike as a betrayal of their 'principles' and starting to bail on Trump, the strike may have done this nation an even bigger service here at home);

Agreed, but again I don't know why the left is so surprised that Trump is acting like a normal President. That is what most on the moderate right presumed.

- Trump may have started to realize whatever relationship his administration, if not himself, personally, has with the Kremlin is not worth whatever deference may have been shown up til now towards the Putin regime;

which would mean that Putin has no compromising info on Trump, such as collusion during the campaign/dodgy transactions/videos with Russian Hookers that he can use to blackmail POTUS.

there has yet to be any specific connection made to Trump personally; he is not as yet the subject of any of the Russia-related investigations and I doubt that he will be,

Many liberals will be upset if Trump is still President on Jan. 20, 2021. :ping:

Buddahaid

04-08-17, 01:19 PM

Agreed, but again I don't know why the left is so surprised that Trump is acting like a normal President. That is what most on the moderate right presumed.

Because he has acted like a spoiled child throwing tantrums because he doesn't get his own way for far longer.

Nippelspanner

04-08-17, 01:36 PM

Many liberals will be upset if Trump is still President on Jan. 20, 2021. :ping:

Yep. Along with many Republicans.
Your point being...?
Oh just the usual "my side vs your side" argumentation that's helping no one, I see...

Platapus

04-09-17, 09:22 AM

I don't know...

...Roman history is all Greek to me... :D

<O>

Graecum est; non legitur :up::D

Platapus

04-09-17, 09:32 AM

In the category of congressional hypocrisy...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/kfile-top-republicans-syria-trump/index.html

Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strike

Many of the congressional Republicans who are praising President Donald Trump's decision to strike a Syrian airfield were opposed to President Obama's request to approve a similar action against Syria in 2013.

...

They were against it when a democrat proposed it, but are now in favor when a republican proposed it.

I am finding it harder and harder to take the GOP seriously these days.

Skybird

04-09-17, 10:39 AM

The first images I saw from Shairat airbase, showed a flattened place. It meanwhile learned that the images did not show Shairat, but something else. Some editors messed it up or intentionally showed wrong images. The real airbase is mostly intact and sorties already were launched from there again within less than 24 hours after the US attack. There have been claims that not a single combatplane or strike helicopter has been destroyed. Maybe it is not so good an idea to give the Russians early warnings of such attacks so that the Syrians have all time they need to save their targetted mobile assets.

Thats is far too little effect for far too much gfx. 450 million dollars fired into the long since gone wind of yesterday. The only one who received serious damage, is the TV audience that got fooled.

I also doubt that there is a lasting effort in US politics indicated by this strike.

I now see this attack as a PR stunt.

The real focus of US foreign politics lies in Asia. North Korea could maybe turn into something exciting. But Syria is just a Trumpian bluff, born by hot temper Trump has no control over.

Therefor I now see the strike on Shairat as an unnecessary attack. I hate it to launch military action for nothing. Don't draw your sword if you do not mean to shed blood. Do not put your sword back withou blood on it.

Conclusion: this Trumpian show is not one bit better than Obama's weaseling three years ago. A bluff. Just that Trump had the better stage show prepared than Obama.

ikalugin

04-09-17, 11:42 AM

In the category of congressional hypocrisy...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/kfile-top-republicans-syria-trump/index.html
Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strike
They were against it when a democrat proposed it, but are now in favor when a republican proposed it.
I am finding it harder and harder to take the GOP seriously these days.
Members of major parties in US are partisan. In the other news - the sky is blue.

That said, such an about turn in the policy, while not unexpected is not really welcome.

MaDef

04-09-17, 11:56 AM

Dowly

04-09-17, 02:47 PM

And isn'T it ironic that you accuse me - in parts correctly - to not have a deep knowledge on Roman history so that I could not - so you claim - assess Engel'S description (Engels seems to be seen as an academic heavyweight and is professor for Roman, Greek and Seleukide history, so what does he know...) - but you imply you know that his descriptions are misled although you do not know his book?

You're correct, I don't own the book, but from what you've explained I can draw some sort of picture of his arguments. And honestly, they don't seem very convincing to me.

(Engels seems to be seen as an academic heavyweight and is professor for Roman, Greek and Seleukide history, so what does he know...)His credentials doesn't interest me, only the content of his arguments.

You only understood that he criticises the EU, sees it way of forming up critical - and that is before anything else what triggered your appearance here, Dowly. ;) You will be hard pressed to find many posts by me about the EU. I am quite indifferent about it.

Skybird

04-09-17, 02:47 PM

This strike did exactly what it was intended to do, and that was to get Assad's attention. Nothing more Nothing less.

To put it another way, it was just a "Gibbs Slap".

Assad's attention expressed itself in having combat strikes sorting out of the airbase just hours after the US strike.

And what exactly is it that should have been taught here for half a billion of bucks? "If you want to kill another 70 people, please bomb them over a period of three days or use a barrel bomb, or shell them for one week, killing ten per day? Just do not kill 70 in one strike again!"...?

Thats a costly lesson taught. Not for Assad - for the US tax payer.

vienna

04-09-17, 02:54 PM

Graecum est; non legitur :up::D

An ancient world version of "TLDR"?... :D

<O>

Platapus

04-09-17, 06:20 PM

An ancient world version of "TLDR"?... :D

<O>

Even the expression "there is nothing new under the sun" is not a new expression. Nihil sub sole novum :D

Rockstar

04-09-17, 09:36 PM

In the category of congressional hypocrisy...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/kfile-top-republicans-syria-trump/index.html

Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strike

They were against it when a democrat proposed it, but are now in favor when a republican proposed it.

I am finding it harder and harder to take the GOP seriously these days.

I think even Trump tweeted on several occasions he too was against hitting Syria.

Dowly

04-10-17, 04:13 AM

I think even Trump tweeted on several occasions he too was against hitting Syria.
Yep!

18 Times Donald Trump Said the U.S. Shouldn't Bomb Syria (http://time.com/4730219/syria-missile-attack-donald-trump-tweets/)

vienna

04-10-17, 06:24 AM

Even the expression "there is nothing new under the sun" is not a new expression. Nihil sub sole novum :D

Thanks a lot, now I'll have nightmares about the Latin I was taught back in Catholic school... :o

The grand irony of learning all that now pretty much forgotten Latin is the very last year I was in Catholic school was the year the Vatican dropped Latin as the language of the Mass; I still feel somewhat betrayed by it all and having to learn all those Gregorian chants didn't help matters any; it kind of reminds me of the old joke about Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling; one day, after laboring for several years and nearing completion, Michelangelo was atop the scaffolding and the Pope came into the chapel and called out:

Pope: Michelangelo!!
Michelangelo (calling down): What do you want?
Pope: Stop your work and come down at once!!
Michelangelo: Why!?
Pope: We decided to go with the wallpaper!!

I have been making a list and I added the Latin language betrayal to it long ago; if there is an after life and there is a Divine Being, I intend to use the list to discuss with him (or her or it) the rather disappointing state of quality control in the Creation...

In keeping with the political nature of the thread, a quote from Seneca I learned a long time ago, but seems to apply to the current situation, particularly with Trump in the White House:

"Periere mores, jus, decus, pietas, fides, et qui redire nescit cum perit, pudor"...

<O>

vienna

04-10-17, 07:59 AM

It appears the US has had Spain arrest and detain for extradition a notorious Russian hacker who may be linked to the 2016 Presidential campaign hacks:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/russian-computer-programmer-held-in-spain-under-us-warrant

https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2017-04-10/alleged-russian-hacker-arrested-in-spain-at-us-request

Pytor has an extensive resume as a hacker:

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/04/alleged-spam-king-pyotr-levashov-arrested/

Curiouser and curiouser...

<O>

MaDef

04-10-17, 09:00 AM

Assad's attention expressed itself in having combat strikes sorting out of the airbase just hours after the US strike.

And what exactly is it that should have been taught here for half a billion of bucks? "If you want to kill another 70 people, please bomb them over a period of three days or use a barrel bomb, or shell them for one week, killing ten per day? Just do not kill 70 in one strike again!"...?

Thats a costly lesson taught. Not for Assad - for the US tax payer.The only "lesson" taught here is that while the U.S. doesn't want to get involved in Syria beyond fighting ISIS, the Syrian government needs to think twice before it uses chemical weapons again.

Bilge_Rat

04-10-17, 09:12 AM

all the statements on Trump flip-flopping ignore the fact that up until last week, we had been assured that Assad had no more chemical weapons which turned out to be a lie.

There was an interesting interview with Kissinger in the Atlantic last November. One point he made was that other powers would try to test POTUS to see how he would react:

JG: So no short-term chance that Russia takes advantage of this situation?

HK: It’s more likely that Putin will wait to see how the situation evolves. Russia and the United States interact in areas in which neither of us controls all the elements, such as Ukraine and Syria. It’s possible that some participants in those conflicts may feel freer to take certain actions. Putin, then, will wait to see what his options are.

JG: So there is some chance of more instability.

HK: I would make a general statement: I think most of the world’s foreign policy has been in suspense for six to nine months, waiting for the outcome of our election. They have just watched us undergo a domestic revolution. They will want to study it for some period. But at some point, events will necessitate decision making once more. The only exception to this rule may be nonstate groups; they may have an incentive to provoke an American reaction that undermines our global position.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/

One question we all have is why would Assad use chemical weapons now? and would he use them without a green light from Putin?

What if the attack was in part a test to see how Trump would react and whether Putin/Assad would have a freer hand in dealing with the civil war?

How exactly should the Trump WH have acted? do nothing and see even more atrocities down the road? or do something and send a message certain things will not be tolerated?

One thing that should be clear is that the strike was a message not just to Assad, but to Putin, the fat north Korean kid and Xi Jinping. I don't think it is a coincidence that the strike occurred on the same night that Trump hosted the Chinese president.

Nippelspanner

04-10-17, 09:22 AM

all the statements on Trump flip-flopping ignore the fact that up until last week, we had been assured that Assad had no more chemical weapons which turned out to be a lie.
No, they just understand that the strike wasn't about chemical weapons in the first place, there's a difference.
I mean what next?
Trump striked because of the "beautiful babies" being killed?

Please...

Bilge_Rat

04-10-17, 09:33 AM

Trump striked because of the "beautiful babies" being killed?

you actually believe that?

interesting...:ping:

Nippelspanner

04-10-17, 10:12 AM

you actually believe that?

interesting...:ping:

No, but many of his supporters believe this, just as all his other blatant and obvious lies.
Interesting indeed.

Bilge_Rat

04-10-17, 10:19 AM

not surprisingly...

Poll: Majority support missile strikes against Syria

A majority of Americans support President Donald Trump’s decision to launch missile strikes last week against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, a new CBS News poll released Monday morning shows.

That same poll showed an uptick in Trump’s approval rating, which climbed to 43 percent in the survey released Monday, since last week’s missile strikes. Forty-nine percent of those polled said they disapprove of the president’s job performance.

On the question of Trump’s order to launch Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian military air base, 57 percent of respondents said they support the move.

(...)

Almost 80 percent of Republicans expressed confidence in Trump’s ability to successfully handle the ongoing situation in Syria, while 84 percent of Democrats did not express confidence in the president’s ability moving forward.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/poll-syria-missile-strikes-237067

...the U.S. public approves the strike. :up:

ikalugin

04-10-17, 10:20 AM

we had been assured that Assad had no more chemical weapons which turned out to be a lie.
But did it?

Was the investigation into the matter complete?

Bilge_Rat

04-10-17, 10:22 AM

But did it?

Was the investigation into the matter complete?

you tell me?

wasn't it the Russians who were overseeing it and assured the world all the chemical stockpiles had been destroyed?

As Nikki Haley asked: are the Russians incompetent, fools or complicit in the attack?

ikalugin

04-10-17, 10:31 AM

you tell me?

wasn't it the Russians who were overseeing it and assured the world all the chemical stockpiles had been destroyed?

As Nikki Haley asked: are the Russians incompetent, fools or complicit in the attack?
I was refering to the investigation into who used the chemical weapons. Who determined that it was Assad that used said chemical weapons?

The destruction of Assad's chemical arsenals was done by the specialist UN agency. We promised that Assad would let said agency do their work and we delivered on that promise. Thus US is more complicit than Russia, because either US failed to ensure than the relevant UN agency destroyed Assad's arsenal or conducted an unjustified act of agression against Syria, as it wasnt Assad who used the weapons.
But I guess if one could buy one republical waving a test tube in UN as a reason to commit acts of agression he would buy another republican claiming all sorts of things to do the same.

Platapus

04-10-17, 04:21 PM

[quote]A majority of Americans support President Donald Trump’s decision to launch missile strikes last week against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, a new CBS News poll released Monday morning shows. [\quote]

That's great....if the majority of Americans really understand what happened and are not just basing their opinions from reading only US viewpoints.

ikalugin

04-10-17, 04:52 PM

A majority of Americans support President Donald Trump’s decision to launch missile strikes last week against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, a new CBS News poll released Monday morning shows.That's great....if the majority of Americans really understand what happened and are not just basing their opinions from reading only US viewpoints.

So what happened? As in, what is your take on this story?

Nippelspanner

04-10-17, 04:54 PM

That's great....if the majority of Americans really understand what happened and are not just basing their opinions from reading only US viewpoints.
This!

August

04-10-17, 07:17 PM

The destruction of Assad's chemical arsenals was done by the specialist UN agency. We promised that Assad would let said agency do their work and we delivered on that promise.

Well apparently Assad didn't let them do their work or these attacks would not still be happening so what does that do to your promises?

ikalugin

04-10-17, 07:29 PM

Well apparently Assad didn't let them do their work or these attacks would not still be happening so what does that do to your promises?
You imply that both the attacks were carried over by Assad and that the UN efforts, supervised by the US ofcourse, have failed. But then we were not asked to disarm Assad ourselves, as we would not be trusted to do such a thing, nor did we promise it. And we delivered on what we did promise, you can read the old testimonies by the UN and US.

Yet did both of those thing happen? Did both UN (and US) fail and Assad carry out the attacks, makes me wonder if the simpler hypothesis would be closer to the truth.

Not that the US failure in this scenario would sadden you, after all it was under Dem administration, wasnt it?

p.s. my personal view is that the whole story is very fishy.

August

04-10-17, 07:56 PM

You imply that both the attacks were carried over by Assad and that the UN efforts, supervised by the US ofcourse, have failed.

One would not necessarily be tied to the other. Assad could easily have had new chemweps provided to them later, perhaps by their close allies Russia and/or Iran. How's that for an implication?

But i'm curious, have you any proof that it was somebody else that did this? I mean absent some compelling evidence to the contrary i'm gonna have to go with the dictator that had them in his arsenal, had used them against civilians before, has the means to deliver them, the motive for doing so and a foreign military power protecting him.

Catfish

04-11-17, 01:42 AM

We have had all kinds of articles posted here that said any other side (from terrorist groups, to UN troops, to aliens ahem) could be as well held responsible for the poison gas attack.
Assad seemed unlikely at first glance, but not when you look closer (see Pournelle's article I posted). If it was Assad, the US strike makes sense.
We can only take the word from the US government that they really know who did it, or better the secret services connected to this. We just have to hope they do not screw up because frankly, what can we really know if we just see the outside view, from the media, and desinformation from all sides.

ikalugin

04-11-17, 05:06 AM

One would not necessarily be tied to the other. Assad could easily have had new chemweps provided to them later, perhaps by their close allies Russia and/or Iran. How's that for an implication?

But i'm curious, have you any proof that it was somebody else that did this? I mean absent some compelling evidence to the contrary i'm gonna have to go with the dictator that had them in his arsenal, had used them against civilians before, has the means to deliver them, the motive for doing so and a foreign military power protecting him.
Ahh, yet is there evidence of such transfer?

I don't need proof that some one else did it, I need proof that some one specific did it, for example Assad.

However, in good faith, to answer your question, if I had to assighn blame I would be more inclined to believe that rebels grossly misreported the attacks if did not carry out the attacks themselves. Not only is this hypothesis simpler and thus passes Okam razor test, but at the same time it is fairly obvious if you look into the rebel reporting that the western narrative is exclusively built around.
I belive I have posted the analasys of that reporting above in the easy to understand meme form.

But I guess more complex hypothesis, with demonised Assad acting against his interests and some how procuring new checmical weapons, are sometimes more convenient if you want to justify acts of agression. Quick question - is the source for Assad acquiring new chemical weapons the same as for Sadam?

ikalugin

04-11-17, 05:19 AM

If it was Assad, the US strike makes sense.
The US strike is weird, because on political level it had the opposite effect - Assad now has more support from his allies and on military level it had little effect even if we go with the US reported strike results.

August

04-11-17, 06:50 AM

The US strike is weird, because on political level it had the opposite effect - Assad now has more support from his allies and on military level it had little effect even if we go with the US reported strike results.

Oh gee now we gone and done it, we made the Russians, Hezbollah and Iranians go from complete support for an evil dictator to beyond complete.

Thing is Assad has had the support of his allies all along and would continue to have it regardless of what he does. I don't think Russia cares one little bit that civilians are being targeted. The only thing that concerns them is keeping their med base and to that end they would happily see the death of every civilian in the rebel held areas. Even help it happen. As for Iran, this is a country that stones people to death in the street. Anyone that those snakes support is probably somebody we should oppose anyways.

ikalugin

04-11-17, 06:52 AM

What did US seek to achieve with the strikes then?

August

04-11-17, 07:00 AM

What did US seek to achieve with the strikes then?

I don't know. I gave up my security clearance when I left the Army. Maybe it was to send a message that there is a new sheriff in town. Maybe it was meant to convince the Chinese they should help reign in Kim Jong. Maybe it was just the natural result of stepping over Obamas red line and the next time it happens we'll hit them even harder.

How do you know that the strike increased support among Syrias allies?

vienna

04-11-17, 07:56 AM

There could be a preview of what the 2018 Mid-Terms could be like coming soon:

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/11/523380705/a-kansas-special-election-could-signal-big-league-problems-for-gop-trump

<O>

August

04-11-17, 08:51 AM

Interesting article. Very partisan but well written. Emphasis added by me.

Is Donald Trump a student of Charles Maurice de Talleyrand? Some of Trump’s recent actions suggest that he is, at least intuitively. I am thinking in particular of Talleyrand’s observation that “non-intervention is a metaphysical idea, indistinguishable in practice from intervention.” The question is not whether a state like America is part of the process. It is, by definition. The question is how effective a role it will play. Thursday night, Donald Trump demonstrated his grasp of that truth.

In August 2012, Barack Obama had some stern words for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime,” Obama said, “that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”
A year later, Assad launched a gas attack against parts of a suburb of Damascus. It killed some 1,500 civilians, including more than 400 children. As Politico reported, “Horrific video footage showing people with twisted bodies sprawled on hospital floors, some twitching and foaming at the mouth after being exposed to sarin gas” went viral on the internet.
The “red line” had certainly been crossed. Outrage. Consternation. Calls for action.

Obama did . . . nothing.

John Kerry and Susan Rice later took credit for removing “100 percent” of Syria’s chemical weapons without firing a shot.

Except that they left some of the toxic stuff behind.

Earlier last week, Assad’s forces conducted another sarin gas attack against rebel forces in Syria. This left some 70 people dead, “including children, . . . some writhing, choking, gasping or foaming at the mouth.”
Sixty-three hours later, around the time that Donald Trump was having dinner with President Xi Jinping of China at Mar-a-Lago, two US destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean fired fifty-nine Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria’s Shayrat air base, from where the deadly gas attack originated. The carefully targeted attack destroyed aircraft, air defense control systems, fuel and ammunition storage facilities, and workshops. Barracks and facilities suspected of housing more chemical weapons were deliberately spared.

Naturally, the chattering class erupted like a flock of grackles.

Much of the bird song was familiar. Holding down the paranoid conspiracy corner, MSNBC Lawrence O’Donnell wondered whether Vladimir Putin had masterminded the chemical attack so that Trump could “look good by striking Syria.” Am I alone in thinking that the strange sound you hear above O’Donnell’s insane chirping is the theme from the Twilight Zone? (Confession: I do not watch MSNBC and have only recently become aware of O’Donnell’s existence. He clearly needs help.)

There were all the usual questions that arise when the US President unexpectedly uses military force. Chief among those questions: Was Trump’s authorized to order the strike without first obtaining the approval of Congress? Ted Cruz summed up the answer: Yes. In our system, the power to declare war is vested in Congress. But it is the Commander in Chief’s prerogative to take action to defend the country and to respond to exigent circumstances that threaten national security. The deployment and use of weapons of mass destructive constitutes such a threat. Ergo, etc.
There was a good dealing of novel chirping, too. My unofficial poll suggests that Trump’s action against Syria met with wide approval among the American people. It even earned plaudits from many anti-Trump Republicans, especially in the neo-conservative fraternity. Ralph Peters, for example, formerly a foaming critic of Trump, sang his praises. “The United States is back. There are, indeed, red lines. And the enemies of humanity cross those lines at their peril.”

There was a lot more where that came from.

I hesitate to intrude upon the novel warm glow of good feeling from that corridor of previously implacable disgruntlement. Nevertheless, that particular chirping chorus is bound to be disappointed. Trump’s attack on Syria was not the answer to that fabled call for the 1980s to send back its foreign policy. It was a carefully calculated response—to an atrocity, first of all, but also to a number of surrounding contingencies, some of which I’ll come to in a moment.

If the neo-conservative jubilation ought to be tempered, so should the alarm that coruscated through some precincts of the Trump faithful. Donald Trump campaigned on an America First platform that made avoiding foreign entanglements its centerpiece. Indeed he did. But as Chris Buskirk has noted on this site (and as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has corroborated), the strike against Syria did not in any way gainsay that ambition. There are no signs that the nation-building moral imperialism of the Bush era is making a comeback.

What is making a comeback, however, is the peace-through-strength realism that Trump repeatedly championed during his candidacy and first weeks of his presidency. And this brings me to those surrounding contingencies I mentioned.

As many observers have noted, the attack on Shayrat air base was directed not only at Bashar al-Assad. We can say with high confidence that it was intended to garner the attention of several other people. President Xi Jinping, for example. There he was, the guest of President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, tucking into the Dover sole and New York strip steak. By the time he got to the chocolate cake, the attack was over. As the dinner broke up, Trump took President Xi aside and quickly informed him about the strike. Response? Our talks were productive and cordial.

Then there is Vladimir Putin. The Trump-colluded-with-the-Russians-to-win-the-election meme was never anything but preposterous. I think Democratic lawmakers have always known that, even if it has escaped the ken of hysterical fantasists like Lawrence O’Donnell. They persisted, I conjecture, because they thought it a useful distraction. The Susan Rice implosion pretty much put paid to that, I’d wager, and the strike against Syria rendered it utterly surreal. The result? Bluster from Russia followed by . . . crickets. “Russia Warns of Serious Consequences from U.S. Strike in Syria,” screamed a Reuters headline. You betcha. But Rex Tillerson is still scheduled to go to Moscow next week. Good timing. For one very serious consequence is that Russia now knows that this President of the United States is not planning to “lead from behind” as did his predecessor. Look for a marked adjustment in their posture.

Then there is the wide, wide world beyond Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. That clickety-clack-clack-clack sound you hear are the beads of the great foreign policy abacus recalculating its estimation of Donald Trump. He is not one of them, not part of the international administrative nomenklatura. But he is the most powerful man in the world and he means business. Who knew?

An interesting question is whether the bulbous Kim Jong-un has absorbed the memo. Since Kim inhabits a paranoid empyrean almost as surreal as the one occupied by Lawrence O’Donnell, it is hard to say with certainty. I hope so. The Carl Vinson Strike Group is steaming toward the Korean peninsula as I write and will be able to repeat the message in capital letters if necessary. Perhaps, if all goes well, President Xi will take a moment to whisper it in Kim’s ear as well.

https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/10/trumps-realism-america-first-not-america-alone/

ikalugin

04-11-17, 08:54 AM

The bit about the Chinese reminds me about the time when Truman told Stalin about the bomb.

But yea, I see the core points of their narrative:
- democrats are idiots who failed to disarm Assad.
- Assad eats babies.
- Trump looks strong for using force, both at home and abroad.

Inconsistency can be viewed a sighn of weakness.

vienna

04-11-17, 09:03 AM

[QUOTE...Response? Our talks were productive and cordial. ...[/QUOTE]

In the realms of diplomacy and politics, the phrase "productive and cordial" means nothing was done or decided upon, something along the lines of "frank and honest" being code talk for neither side conceding on an issue...

<O>

Rockstar

04-11-17, 09:21 AM

August

04-11-17, 09:27 AM

Bilge_Rat

04-11-17, 09:58 AM

But yea, I see the core points of their narrative:
- democrats are idiots who failed to disarm Assad.
- Assad eats babies.
- Trump looks strong for using force, both at home and abroad.

:sign_yeah:

Platapus

04-11-17, 03:55 PM

So what happened? As in, what is your take on this story?

I think someone put together a poll asking Americans what their subjective opinion is on a news story.

Asking the average American about what happened in Syria is like asking me what my opinions are concerning brain surgery techniques.

What you will get will be a totally uniformed, subjective, perhaps emotional, opinion from a position of ignorance about the topic.

Such opinions may be entertaining perhaps to read, but not at all useful.

We need facts and we need logical analysis. That will take time and an intention to discover the truth. Is there such a motivation to find out the truth?

I am sure there was a poll that indicated that the majority of Americans supported the Gulf of Tonkin story, just as there were polls that showed Americans believing "nurse" Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ, in 1990.

Since I am in an annoyingly pompous mood to quote Latin, an argumentum ad populum concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.

When that "most people" includes a population that has no or limited insight into the issue, it becomes an egregious logical fallacy.

Whether 100% of Americans believe something or only 50% believe it does not reduce the uncertainty whether it is or is not true.

Until we have the facts and the appropriate analysis on those facts, we may never know what happened at that Syrian village.

Unfortunately, there may be parties that would rather that the facts/evidence not be discoverable.

mapuc

04-11-17, 04:20 PM

Rockstar

04-11-17, 06:00 PM

For all we know as Trump knocks on the front door. Xi Jinping could be just sending troops to North Korea's border to keep them from spilling out the back door into China.

Maybe we are working togther to finally put an end to the Korean war.

Then again... If we end the war and unite the Korean peninsula we really dont have a reason to be over there anymore and be a thorn in China's side. Its better to have two Koreas.

Bilge_Rat

04-12-17, 08:37 AM

another poll:

Voters support the initial U.S. airstrikes in Syria ordered last week by President Donald Trump, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll — but there is less backing for an escalation of hostilities that includes ground forces.

Nearly two-thirds of voters, 66 percent, support last week’s airstrikes on a Syrian air field, the poll shows. That includes 35 percent who strongly support the strikes, and another 31 percent who somewhat support them. Only 24 percent oppose the strikes, and 10 percent don’t have an opinion.

Support for the strikes is fairly bipartisan, the poll shows. While 82 percent of Republicans back the strikes, so do 57 percent of Democratic voters and 59 percent of independents.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/poll-syria-airstrikes-237133

ikalugin

04-12-17, 09:55 AM

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sean-spicer-assad-hitler-holocaust-offence-gas-his-own-people-donald-trump-doesnt-know-his-history-a7679641.html

Bilge_Rat

04-12-17, 10:23 AM

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sean-spicer-assad-hitler-holocaust-offence-gas-his-own-people-donald-trump-doesnt-know-his-history-a7679641.html

mountain out of a mole hill. 24 hour news cycle at work.

what he meant and was pretty obvious from his answers is that unlike WW1, where all sides used gas as a weapon, in WW2, none of the belligerents dropped gas on military or civilian targets, even though all belligerents had stockpiles ready and waiting.

Platapus

04-12-17, 02:06 PM

... in WW2, none of the belligerents dropped gas on military or civilian targets, even though all belligerents had stockpiles ready and waiting.

Not entirely accurate

There are reports that the Germans used asphyxiating gas to clear out heavily embedded troops in the 1942 Battle of the Kerch Peninsula. This is still debatable.

However, the Japanese used various types of chemical weapons quite regularly in 1937-9 against Chinese troops. Mostly Mustard and Lewsite were used during the Battle of Wuhan and the Battle of Changde.

If one wants to push the limits of WWII, in 1935-6 the Italians used Mustard gas in Ethiopia. But traditionally that is not considered WWII, but pretty close!

Platapus

04-12-17, 02:16 PM

Still though "cordial and productive", "frank and honest" may not say much but it keeps everyone guessing and it's certainly better than making ultimatums then tucking tail when someone crosses that red line you laid out for the world to see.

President Obama (although he is by far not the only one) evidently forgot his quotes by famous dead guys

One should never forbid what one lacks the power to prevent - Napoleon Bonaparte

Platapus

04-12-17, 02:28 PM

Don't want to start a new thread, It's about American foreign politics

If everything should go really bad-USA could be involved in two wars

In Syria(against Assad/Iran and if it goes really really bad Russia
And
Against North Korea.

Markus

Just in time to justify increasing military spending necessitating the cutting of non war projects. This sounds like 1990 all over again.

ikalugin

04-13-17, 02:07 AM

Allies used napalm and other incindiery substances to kill infantry in underground structures not through fire but through asphyxiation.

For example petrol would be poured through ventilation and set on fire.

Catfish

04-13-17, 02:25 AM

^ But it was the Allies who did it, so all is good and fair :shucks:

Catfish

04-13-17, 03:09 AM

Now i read some news about how Trump ordered the TLAM strike during dinner with Xi, and that they discussed the North Korea situation.
Trump has used some harsh words, and China now has threatened N. Korea not to cross the bottom line.
So of course what we read in the media is not reality, but it looks like we the onlooking customers are being prepared for a war :hmmm:

Jimbuna

04-13-17, 04:55 AM

MaDef

04-13-17, 07:17 AM

I'm not sure the UN is anything other than 'disfunctional'.
You're just now coming to that conclusion? It's been my feeling that any "good" that has been done by that organization is accidental.

August

04-13-17, 07:22 AM

You're just now coming to that conclusion? It's been my feeling that any "good" that has been done by that organization is accidental.

Well it did manage to keep 50 million south Koreans out of the clutches of the Kim family. I guess that's something.

ikalugin

04-13-17, 07:38 AM

Bilge_Rat

04-13-17, 08:11 AM

I'm not sure the UN is anything other than 'disfunctional'.

agreed, but what is the alternative? better to keep talking than risk WW3.

I am always reminded of 1914 and the rush to war. So many missed signals and miscommunication.

One terrorist act spins out into a world war. Would WW1 have happened if the UN had been in place in 1914?

Jimbuna

04-13-17, 08:21 AM

agreed, but what is the alternative? better to keep talking than risk WW3.

I am always reminded of 1914 and the rush to war. So many missed signals and miscommunication.

One terrorist act spins out into a world war. Would WW1 have happened if the UN had been in place in 1914?

I wonder what would happen if the rule about any one veto stopping a resolution as opposed to a majority vote (5 members) was implemented.

I should imagine Russia and China would veto any move in that direction of course.

As for WWI.....I suspect a UN in being would have little chance because too many parties were intent on settling a variety of old scores.

ikalugin

04-13-17, 08:41 AM

Pre-WW1 global security system differed from the post-WW1 global security system, from Cold War system and from the present day system. All of them are different. UN existing pre-WW1 would imply that the system is different from the historic one.

There is a reason why permanent UNSC members get a veto.

Rockstar

04-13-17, 08:48 AM

Agree or disagree the rules are in place and so far everyone seems to be abidiing by them and as long as we continue to do so we have order.

ikalugin

04-13-17, 09:01 AM

Agree or disagree the rules are in place and so far everyone seems to be abidiing by them and as long as we continue to do so we have order.
People do not abide by them which is why we have (relative) chaos.

For all the good reasons ofcourse.

Rockstar

04-13-17, 12:23 PM

I wasnt trying to imply there is world peace and order in the universe. It was just in reference to Russia having veto power in UN. Those are the rules.

vienna

04-14-17, 02:09 AM

Interesting developments in the Russian election interference cases:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/599d2e14-c2b6-3f1f-96d7-6572d9bb45e3/sources%3A-uk-intel-uncovers.html

<O>

Rockstar

04-14-17, 07:59 AM

ummm, thats a headline an accusation or called beating a dead horse and a really old one at that. An interesting development will be when someone is actually charged with a crime.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.riffsy.com%2Fimages%2Fd3b150 54f8c58ca290e4b11fea7a1578%2Ftenor.gif&f=1

MaDef

04-14-17, 08:51 AM

ummm, thats a headline an accusation or called beating a dead horse and a really old one at that. An interesting development will be when someone is actually charged with a crime. There needs to be an actual crime committed before that happens.

vienna

04-14-17, 10:53 AM

Oh, I think it is interesting in that the original sources of the intel regarding possible Russian influence and interference with US elections came from outside the US, was a situation where those sources recognized a situation potentially detrimental to US security, and occurred several months before the whole matter became an issue; and it is interesting that there is not even one mention of Obama, Clinton, or any of the other 'straw men' Trump, his associates or their 'deflection team' at Fox, Breitbart, etc., as being in any way responsible for any of the inception of the investigations. Also interesting, and alarming, is how the US intel establishment failed to pick up on the problem until several months after the sources reported their findings and concerns to those US agencies who should be most concerned with suspect interaction between foreign operatives and US citizens...

The insistence that there is no proof or a crime and therefore there should be no investigation is senseless; it is akin to police investigators entering a scene, finding bloodstains, signs of a struggle, or other such indicators, but since the scene had no body present, there is no cause to continue investigating. Or maybe like your home being burglarized, but since the burglars are not on the scene, there is no reason to investigate even though your door is busted in, the home has been ransacked, and you claim items are missing, because, really, its all 'circumstantial', isn't it? You don't conduct investigations because you know for a certainty a crime has been committed, you do investigations because there are indicators a crime may have been committed and you need to determine the actual circumstances and facts: you need to find the truth. This concept of actually finding the truth about something may be a foreign concept to some of the Trump followers, but it is the cornerstone of the US justice system...

Again, as I have pointed out before, none of the investigations or allegations based on those investigations to date have directly asserted Trump was either complicit or knowledgeable of any of the actions of his associates, and I seriously doubt the trail will lead to the door of the Oval Office. However, Trump is doing himself and his administration a serious disservice by trying to derail or obstruct the course of the investigations. If he is truly serious about "draining the swamp", he might appreciate any actions that get any 'gators' out of his administration; his bellicosity on the matter does little more than just give the unnecessary impression of being someone with something he wants to keep hidden and fears it may be divulged; oddly, Trump could take a lesson from his fellow philanderer, Bill Clinton: when the whole GOP 'masterminded' impeachment/Lewinski/etc. turmoil was going on, Clinton basically ignored it and just carried on with his duties; by not acting furtive or guilty, he came out of the whole ill-fated (for the GOP) situation looking a hell of a lot better then he would have had he angrily and frequently made public comments and denials. Even with the scandals, Clinton came out of it all as one of the most popular Presidents in the last 50 years. Trump should just let the investigations go on and let them take their course; it is very highly doubtful any of the findings will lead to him and he should act in like manner; ignore it and just do his job, something the US voters will appreciate more than any of his bellowing and/or tweeting...

<O>

Platapus

04-14-17, 01:39 PM

So Russia once more exercise their veto in favour of Assad over an investigation as to who is responsible for the recent alleged chemical attack which took the lives of over eighty people (many of whom were children).

I'm not sure the UN is anything other than 'disfunctional'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39585071

As long as you feel the same way every time the US vetoes measures against Israel.

I understand and agree with having permanent members on the UNSC, but I really wish the veto rule would go away. But there is no way any of the P5 will allow that.

It was an unfortunate but necessary compromise in the forming of the UNSC.

In any case The US is still pretty close to the Russians in the vetoing department

https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/55423/width754/rfnrgg5y-1406805104.png

vienna

04-15-17, 07:23 AM

http://image.cleveland.com/home/cleve-media/width620/img/darcy/photo/22483109-mmmain.jpg

<O>

Jimbuna

04-15-17, 09:58 AM

As long as you feel the same way every time the US vetoes measures against Israel.

I understand and agree with having permanent members on the UNSC, but I really wish the veto rule would go away. But there is no way any of the P5 will allow that.

It was an unfortunate but necessary compromise in the forming of the UNSC.

In any case The US is still pretty close to the Russians in the vetoing department

https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/55423/width754/rfnrgg5y-1406805104.png

Well in all fairness I did post...

I wonder what would happen if the rule about any one veto stopping a resolution as opposed to a majority vote (5 members) was implemented.

I should imagine Russia and China would veto any move in that direction of course.

five posts after the quoted post.

Platapus

04-15-17, 11:13 AM

I noticed that post, I also noticed that the US and UK were not on that list.

I don't think any of the P5 would vote in favour of getting rid of the veto.

Makes me wonder if UNGA resolution 733 "United for Peace" would ever be invoked. I can just imagine what the US would say about that!

Bleiente

04-15-17, 08:49 PM

:har:

vienna

04-17-17, 01:14 PM

You would think, with control of Congress and the White House, voters would view the GOP as a united party...

...think again:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/04/17/control-of-congress-aside-americans-view-the-gop-as-the-more-divided-party/

<O>

August

04-19-17, 08:14 AM

Interesting article. I'd say it's a pretty accurate take on Trump supporters.

Trump Has All the Right Enemies

But in an attempt to split Trump from his political base, the press will continue to create stories about how his flip-flops are costing him his most fervent supporters. And while you can always find a crank or two to quote in any article, the truth is that Trump’s base is as solid today as it was on Election Day.

Why? Because Donald Trump continues to have all the right enemies, and no flip-flops or stories of White House infighting are going to change that.
Trump’s base supporters are too busy living their lives to obsess over the outrage of the minute in Washington, D.C. They don’t follow 50 Beltway reporters on Twitter, hanging on their every snarky comment. They aren’t particularly concerned with which Trump advisers are up or down in the morning political tip sheets.

But they do follow politics closely enough to know that the press still hates Trump, as do the liberal political elites. As far as the average Trump supporter in middle America is concerned, Trump must be doing just fine.

And to make matters better for Trump, his political opposition, the hapless Democrat Party, has taken its participation-ribbon view of society to laughable lengths, celebrating the loss in a recent Kansas special election like it had won the lottery. Democrats continuously relitigate the sideshow issue of Trump’s tax returns (newsflash: This was settled by the Electoral College). And today’s battle whine? Mitch McConnell was mean to Elizabeth Warren in the hallway!

The policy news flying out Washington is head-spinning, but Trump’s political enemies are the same old collection of media properties and out-of-touch liberals. That tells Trump’s core supporters all they need to know – that the antiestablishment president they sent to Washington is doing exactly what they asked him to do. In the first 100 days, Trump has turned Washington upside down, pissing off all the right people along the way.

vienna

04-19-17, 08:46 AM

Source?...

<O>

ValoWay

04-19-17, 09:07 AM

But surely, Trump supporters are still eagerly waiting for their promised landmark, right? At least I can't wait to visit the upcoming Great Wall of America!! :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

Jimbuna

04-19-17, 09:51 AM

Source?...

<O>

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/19/trump_has_all_the_right_enemies_133637.html

Possibly this one? :hmmm:

mapuc

04-19-17, 11:09 AM

Regarding August post about Trump supporters

I have some Danish and Swedish friends on FB, who are more or less rightwing and they are somehow supporting Trump going from medium to very strong support.

Markus

Bilge_Rat

04-19-17, 11:18 AM

no sign of any weakening support among Trump's base.

Two polls out this week show his approval rating among Republicans is at 83% (Reuters) or 88% (Pew):

http://www.people-press.org/2017/04/17/presidential-approval-detailed-tables-april-2017/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/Ipsos_April_13-17_2017.pdf

Bilge_Rat

04-19-17, 11:24 AM

vienna

04-19-17, 08:44 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/19/trump_has_all_the_right_enemies_133637.html

Possibly this one? :hmmm:

Thanks, Jim... :up:

<O>

Buddahaid

04-19-17, 09:12 PM

Well I'd say he's doing better than I expected, but I didn't expect much either. :arrgh!:

vienna

04-20-17, 04:10 AM

and then you have this from pew Research which shows that most Republicans think Trump is doing better than they expected:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/04/17101722/1_5.png

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/17/the-myth-of-the-disillusioned-trump-voter/?utm_term=.0c6a9e6ed484

so there is no sign of any wavering support for Trump among his base.

In the Rep/Lean Rep and Conserv, the "Better than" is not above 40%, which just about correlates to Trump's overall approval ratings in general polling of all voters and is actually a few points higher than the approval ratings. So, once again, proof is presented that Trump is widely popular among Republicans; there's just that nagging problem that over 6 out of ten voters don't approve of Trump. I mean, its nice all those GOP party members really, really like their guy and don't mind being stuck with him, but its all a bit like saying the majority of New Yorkers like New York, even if for the greater majority of the US, they don't "♥ New York". Unfortunately for the GOP, they need more than just their own party's voters to win offices or keep seats they already hold. The total voter turnout for Tuesday's Special Congressional Election was 43% and the counties in question are very heavily Republican, yet the top vote-getter, a Democrat was able to accrue a whopging 48.1% of the total vote (which beats Trump's 46.1% in the Presidential Election, or as Stephen Colbert suggested, makes the DEM candidate eligible to be President :haha:). The nearest GOP candidate, who will face off against the DEM candidate got only 19.78% of the total votes in a GOP field of about 11 candidates; in the runoff election in June, the DEM candidate will only have persuade a few more percent of the voters to get over the 50% and win; the GOP candidate will have to convince the 32.2% of the GOP voters who voted for any other GOP candidate who isn't her to switch their votes, or, if they really don't like her, even bother to show up in the runoff in June, plus the GOP candidate has to sway a substantial percentage of non-GOP voters to cast their votes for her; whatever 'influence' Trump seems to believe his office as President and his endorsements gives to fellow GOP candidates, the actual reality, as in so many of Trump's beliefs, strongly suggest differently...

So, its very nice the GOP really, really likes Trump, but, like the 2016 Popular Election results have shown, the rest of us, the majority of the US voters, are a long way from jumping for joy...

<O>

Onkel Neal

04-20-17, 05:31 AM

Well I'd say he's doing better than I expected, but I didn't expect much either. :arrgh!:

:haha: Same here, and even doing better than expected, he's not doing much except changing his position 3 times a day.

Bilge_Rat

04-20-17, 08:12 AM

So, once again, proof is presented that Trump is widely popular among Republicans;

(..)

So, its very nice the GOP really, really likes Trump, but, like the 2016 Popular Election results have shown, the rest of us, the majority of the US voters, are a long way from jumping for joy...

<O>

interesting analysis, but you are answering a question which was not asked.

I was following up on August's post of the article and the current Democratic/Liberal media attack line that Trump's base is turning against him.

The facts don't bear that out, Trump is as popular among his "base" as he has ever been.

Now as to his overall aproval rating, the "40%" number really does not mean anything.

First, depending on the poll, his overall approval is actually between 40 and 50%.

second, even in a Poll where his overall approval rating is in the low 40%, the numbers vary depending on the groups and the issues.

for example, you look at the Pew poll, his overall approval rating is 39%, but among white voters, it is 50%. White voters make up the largest bloc of voters in the States he won in 2016, which puts him in a good position in 2020:

http://www.people-press.org/2017/04/17/presidential-approval-detailed-tables-april-2017/

another example, you look at the Reuters Poll where his overall rating is 43%, but you ask voters on how they rate him on specific issues and his approval numbers go up:

-handling U.S. economy : 49%
-employment and jobs : 51%
-dealing with ISIS: 53%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/Ipsos_April_13-17_2017.pdf

so "40%" support makes a good slogan for anti-Trumpers, but it does not really reflect reality.

The numbers are still soft, but as long as he keeps up his GOP support and can get a good chunk of independent support, Trump is in good shape for 2020.

vienna

04-23-17, 01:28 AM

Interesting polls from The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/04/23/National-Politics/Polling/release_466.xml

I found this most interesting:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ +V+1ZAAATwUlEQVR4nO3dP4/jxhnHcTV5DXkN3JczwL6FdIHd2CkIeDv7baQ4NgvDaVzZgBEE1 52JS3EHN1sGBze+BRZI5DvbuykokvPnmSE1HOrRit8PrtBJHHI 0I/40GnE1uz0AQNtOuwIAALIYAM4AWQwA+shiANBHFgOAPrIYAPSR xQCgjywGAH1CFv8HAHBachav/x4AABiRxQCgjywGAH1kMQDoI4sBQB9ZDAD6yGIA0EcWA4A+shg A9JHFAKCPLAYAfWQxAOgjiwFAH1kMAPqWZHFbV7tRVbdzD+oWP Kbkmhqz2+12pvFvn4lYlU5W1cacT1+dwqLXQ2OGrbtXu1h25m4 Xd/F4wp15/7nP9NlUu4zcLPbidH6TyQXPIfaeaRaftgKbOCk6+a8HKVGWdNz Srld/6czm1PT5VLuMvCzuA9Vqp67h+nM11oxhwf4e6yS349raRf+aPh zJ33+yVGWMdZhxD/aBxXPPPZFiceS8wQwHz6vwnOodippGvD92xOGAppkbrGMdDzuN dJO0p1TTRcp6sZVu7shm6b4Qi5R8PbhjDdOMh7bbch8eItF3sa 6P99ZYq8SH17IdJJ1ocl/4+w9SZGjn+MtL7rLUEafLasvK4kOze8/CvjeSxWLBtq6sLZ2GSryq3NaeW6qq23Bb4f1jvG2/+iLZENuhVOG+dLzC09UTziH3RJWayGuHSupBsbfm1j/W22HTxcsuz+J0XxxVJO/1EMti8fnO7LtY1zsirZoKtaIdNP9Em3zxT2ZxussSBWduoyMri yNJO/2ZYnILP6ztvj90j9Ps3X9mlIocNPY51Lo97ixyIsjvTEGF+xfB uCe5wlPVa+vKOZpwPkebyAvm9KswUcQvbx8p2IPXdKmyi7N4oi 8m91zi9RCZ9XSHj2Hcx/su2vXB84v0SPS0K9lBwYkW64vUiz9jjiLomiOy9bxmQVSz2HmL sj5w+8TzzHodHFHKq4p16Oh5OJwBjUmdet7e9uG5OlYlVeF09b oBrfixbkYTeR8/0q/aRJGgp1NvU17TpcoWHxfPm6NINXjG60HMYqlTZvZdtOujh9wnE i5syTIdFJ5okb5IvfiPyuJYl4W9P6esvgJzFI3pno417ptXMCu LpdfBUVksfBZMn3v9C7aZHJWkKzwviyeqF76AwvM53kSnzmKp6 dbN4pl9EQyli74epCxOvHNM9d2ciMnM4oIdJA16xL5YnsXRLov 1/ryy2kp8dzdnvtwrGPsOIfUpI+OTqfCY83/nY3j03LOe4PTnn+Aj05w5ikh1I9UL3wqnz2eVOQqx6aY/Aosf2qM1SzyXsC/CImu8HtbJ4uQLJ2+OQnwumR00MUEw4zn4NY1VO95l8X0dWVZF2 WvaxICYVTD1CcZpOXk0NFUqmF8Vjh0/9+S3kMQzEt6jxAYSHjq6ejPPZ7cyznd36df87Pqnz/U5PZDqR0d0s/iop1yDT70e7F2O2VMmixNn1mSrRiKnVAfN/wCa2Mm8cXGsfnPGvIvOr3WV+1sPobWjT8BtEH8z51F5jn/vvlgnS8lTg1XdWjtNdcDE/IvTEt6nZesqJffUjVR4TvXsZz/zfLZ3bJroqR59YlVdew1uP+nECFtsunhZO8cSEynxzeS+SBVZ8 fVQ1W3hLE5NL8VaNX02FuqgyTmK6PR88BKdDpFIl6WOOFX2eWd xqDHnM+IvKjYfWr7QaXiTCm1dTc++ZDrjVsh3SU/qkp7Ls8bvUcyR93I9qxd54tN/Y2bMg+c6q0Yo5ZKe1CU9l+eNLJ4wfOg5/tV6Zq/yGd/Gl7Wg6c7XJT2pS3ouF4AsBgB9ZDEA6COLAUAfWQwA+shiANBHF gOAPrIYAPSRxQCgjywGAH1kMQDoI4sBQB9ZDAD6yGKchXuLdl0 ABTlZ/Ld//Hvmv3XqjMtxn6RdO+B0MrP4+59+fkr6/qefyWKkdYH77t27u7u7V5a7u7t3794Rx9iUzCx+enp6THp6eiK LO99++612Fc5RF7V3d3d3d3f39/f2G7l9P3GMjcjP4j+SolncOiuZj/9rTPib1tJ9kmDhvTLLVNiHb+sq9we3p7PYr//UkdKVGao9t/nCDcNfwe9XNpu9zzQ7iGMfrYhjbEp+Fv+edHQWS47K4pn7PMJ4 +EUJNDOL3SXR52TtlAUb+pUo1qYHw9REeqZrmKwodVzgbOVn8W 9JS8bF/TDRGDsj7CWJ29Q+/fFsUMoehtpLzlprtNsJbG1e1a1YPOnILE7XP1UZe9Vgf1ycage 3naUqyR9fxLrFVjh2O60bFNtTE3/+6uWfv3rpZfGw2XQrA89cfhZ//PjxT1/8S/z38ePH/Cz27urOZ6uUMNpz9znmqljKv3M8VCSL9+EbhV886egsHv4rP2u vMn4CC1k80Q7iquNOnRoTlJf2Od53iGm/FzrdtMOrV6+85A3jeP/09OrVK6YpsAX5Wfzhw4dYFn/48CGdxS4ni4PBlXfixz9RW4TxmLsvP3qOzOKjJiyOzmJnQB4+6 +D5j4uKuu9qUpOm2zmo1Jj+3qaJtj0cujKmGqrhvGPFsliMY7I YG5Gfxb8mZY+L7ceHUzsMcOfkjgzxoqWcFZHHfJuVxWLxpOxxc aT+8huDN8YPstjfj9jOYa38ME3ucxiot3XVvZccbgcTFEMWexc Ud1k8/JcsxnbkZ3F6myJZLI+L0/uUJzYS5bwkm5HFYfGkvCz2x54jcbolNUch7mdyXDzUwwnT5D4P j9sj4sqYIOdjWewF8f39PXMU2I78LP5f0nrzxUIKCNch+DOV3l 7jYW8dVMxisXjSsVksZm18yteqYWRcLO9nYr64r1dljD2uTe9z qIj7xWK4a/tLuWgQu5sBly0niz/7+sfuu7v/RnTf3X329Y9C4ezrKKyZAXFq08sLOzr9UtadbgK6B/UT2M09t3jCouuLpfpblRlLjvUWr6OQ9pO6jsLZIpzKju5Tan1h z/Y1bfvIX0JzTRs2JSeLP33x8ru379JXhn739t2nL16uU+dnhr+7 C3l/67EPfhvoib/1wMbkZPHn37z+5MXLv/79n4l/n7x4+fk3r9ep8zNDFovsOL7nb6CxeTlZnB4RO9eHAnFd1PLbQM A+L4sfHx8fHh7eJz08PDw+Pq5TZ1wOcabYnqwANiInix8eHvZT o+NhM2AOIhgbl5PF79+/f5rxm5nv379fp84AcGlYYwkA9JHFAKCPLAYAfWQxAOgjiwFAH1 kMAPrIYgDQRxYDgD6yGAD0kcUAoI8sBgB9ZDEA6COLAUAfWQwA +shiANBHFgOAPrIYAPSRxQCgjywGAH1kMUr6y/On3YTYKLIYJWkHaQHaTYiNIotRknaQFqDdhNgoshglaQdpAdpN iI0ii1GSdpAWoN2E2CiyGCVpB2kB2k2IjcrK4raudg7TrFK5o7 V1dTZ1OUNWv1V1Gz4SNN2hQL9xYyYbVztICyjY4MB82Vlsn5WN OZM4JosTxrz1krcxkbfUrl8b04VxW1fTbasdpAWs0PTAtCJZvN +3dTWOtMJzu62rqq7NOCRrTDA8ExNhuLNPg8qYIUesYZ5pYntA qK2roemHRpOzuKrbwzttY7yxtEg7SAtYpcmBKYWyeN8Pnqxb1l ZtXfVnuj0ms7YQyocPW7uxtxs3ZFw8rTHOe2AXsfIchT0unhfF ZDGQqVQWDwNjKyL3jRlDd7jTvj1sPGxp3SmOvuWo7YuTxfM0xk veqfnipq5McxhDJzNZO0gLWKXFgSnFx8X2Z97hxJ3KYmeH/QbOvId8XOtgZPEx/DCOZLH1sGnauupSOdXE2kFaQOGmBuYplMXOFEN4qq4xLra+MGS O4ljHZfE4j9EncnRkrB2kBRRvbGCO8tdRRGZ+01k8NV885kB/HP92JL4xsCaK585R9AWHxmVcDKxkjeuL3YsfDgUmsnjudRTWo2 MtKmOsgTHXUcT4F574j4jtZl3KxnwxsBr+7g4laQdpAdpNiI0i i1GSdpAWoN2E2CiyGCVpB2kB2k2IjSKLUZJ2kBag3YTYKLIYJW kHaQHaTYiNIosBQB9ZDAD6yGIA0EcWA4A+shglaX/xJtNuFWAaWYyStFNXpt0qwDSyGCVpp65Mu1WAaWQxStJOXZl2q wDTyGKUpJ26Mu1WAaaRxShJO3Vl2q0CTCvz+8UFfzJYWBeEZTt K8dek8h+atbxoknbqyhY+KeAEyqyxNLHwzjFSWYwl2rqy1h90g 3dYZJQsBnQUWu8uWInOHXs1Zmfqw2C6P98jCyY1ZmeMccrL4+J g9ZBw1Yq2rqq6ltYL2Tp3kaW2rnZVVZHFgJ7y4+Jh3SQ3YO2l1 oJg9Tb1ygtZ7Bao6tZersnZPlxGD+64eFzHjiwG1BSaLx5PYm8 Juy4w7cVJ+/XuEuNiezjdpENZ1O8jtlbpxnWfKKwPHTvThNMWebRTV7a8zYC1 LR4Xj+PY8f9BSDuDUj9h914Wx7e0b0ix4X81RRaHuvdRZ15neG skiwE1BeYo+pFVR/juzc3i+ePi/t5Z42Jr6C1uRhbv98HVEsIFMQsbSTt1ZQVaDlhZkfliJ43H3HV u9RtID9vlx0ydOV/c3fRjNxX3W+UOiaUHGRcDWgpeR2F/e+fNIjdmVxnjXkdhjcqqujb2uPhwHYX4XVz0OopxjFcZ4w2oxT pvjTd75I2AyWJA1Wn+7o6LGLZCO3Vl2q0CTCOLUZJ26sq0WwWY xu9RoCTt1JVptwowjSxGSdqpK9NuFWAaWYyStFNXpt0qwDSyGA D0kcUAoI8sBgB9ZDEA6COLUZL2t3Sr025gXCyyGCVpR+XqtBsY F4ssRknaUbk67QbGxSKLUZJ2VK5Ou4FxschilKQdlavTbmBcLL IYJWlH5eq0GxgXq9DvF5fYdJnjD7S9XzS2lvGQl8W61N8vLmhh +wAxZPFmdEnc/8a+vXpKd9NbfymPdlSurkRPAIJlWdzWVVXXJlwnoh9qDUts2He 6i+PVtb/eh7DlwgMJxcPKbIe1hoe7WOFy2lG5umItBbgWZ/EuXL5uYqE7d6FRa6lo615/y4UHEotvbVx84A5/G7PbVVVV7H1JOypXt7SBgIjlWRwuKGcvBT3cay/tMWxgBfCwPrS45cIDicU3msX7vfXOZS9HyhzFHGU6AAiskMVux vVx6K18GcZucsuFByKLPUMYW58nnNu5tKNydSVaHxCcclwcnuZ 2Ftvj4mDLhQciiz3uwJgsnq9E6wOCNbJ4Yhp36mFpy4UHIov3w eS8fB3F0gbRjsrVLe8HQLRKFo9XssqXN9jzuZUxieso+jsXHkg ubl/atQnW9cX2sw77JZ92VK5uaQMBEbp/d+fMF+MCaEfl6rQbGBeLLEZJ2lG5Ou0GxsXi9yhQknZUrk67gX GxyGKUpB2Vq9NuYFwsshglaUfl6rQbGBeLLAYAfWQxAOgjiwFA H1kMAPrIYpTE119AHrIYJZHFQB6yGCWRxUAeshglkcVAHrIYJZ HFQB6yGCWRxUCe/Cy2fgzX+jXcor/U3tZVVTf+joYFQIQKuUeMbQnHuCrV8tYii4E8mVnc1pW7Ul3/v4JZ3Cepl6jRgJWOSBpP8db1OMXao2UqDlyWvCwO1pQ75OAwwj JNW1c7Y0y4jETj39fW1WFxD2ef4zGcQLWXxQv2Iy+pt6GVO45m r3dXAlkM5MnKYuEn4PsgdMbF4QJ30hJ0chx464paqyVVdTu5qF 1kR/A1Zrerqip8y8xEFgN5crM4lp3TS0Tbi93FZzPcyYXhf1YUD0X6 fUaymGmKhG7S3/qgwRwFoKNUFovjYjGLbfEM9Ybeh0C1ppDDUTNZnMFe/LnEQtBkMZCn7HzxnCyWhsBT4+L9vq0r04x3Mi4uxJ4gIosBPQu uo3DSMHkdhXV79jyvn9ptXRlj7AkO5otL8K6jWNpUZDGQZ8Hfe ljzDdYZ3M1AHq6jkK5wGIpZX8fNyVD3MrrUdRT+4YjitKBHFiC LgTxn/Hd3JSYXmKA4MbIYyHPGWbw8SUnikyOLgTxnncV4dshiIA9ZjJL IYiAPWYySyGIgD1kMAPrIYgDQRxYDgD6yGAD0kcUoie/rgDxkMUoii4E8ZDFKIouBPGQxSiKLgTxkMUoii4E8chY/AVliWaxdL+DcZWXxm5ur3e761rvHuWOp9A6LHw6317vd7urmzc LdkMVAnvwsdtKYcHzeDj1KFgNasrP4+vb2eoxfJ4tvrw/rRIjpHD56e727vunCYEiDYYdvbq6ubm68MunDiUUQ9+bmand1d UUWA3oWZHEXokE43l73p/R4ayQ9an08vr3eDRE83giKpA8nFkHMm5ur3dXN7Q1ZDChalMVP T7fXfjjao+UwCMVHhwB+Ooxp33hZbD3o3yntUCwCWT/3/4YsBjQtzOI+O8XoHIJVKmg96kT2IVxnZrG4Q7J4tjGByWJA1dI sPiTg7cJx8bAZ4+JTOnxl51jWWmQxkGd5FvuXVWTOFw/R6k16TGRxbL6YLD4S42JAVYks9i84zriO4ur6On4dRTKL5esoy OJjkcWAqnP4uzuudbgcZDGQhyxGSWQxkOccshiXgywG8pDFKIk sBvKQxSiJLAbykMUAoI8sBgB9ZDEA6COLAUAfWQwA+shiANBHF gOAPrIYAPSRxRi9fq1dA2Cr5Cx+xPb88MPjbvf05Zfa9QA2Sc7 iP7A9v/zyxxdfPL59q10PYJPIYgDQJ2fx7wCAE5Kz+DcAwAmRxQCgT87i jwCAE5Kz+AMA4ITkLP4VAHBCZDEA6Ps/fckQguBmLWQAAAAASUVORK5CYII=http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ XAfTJAAATtUlEQVR4nO3dP2/kxhnH8a3yJvweqLczgN5CusBu7BQErM5+GSnMQjCcxpUNBAmuO xOXQnCjMpAbnwAByd7ZllJwSc6fZ4bc4XCf1fL7wRW6XQ45O0P +dnaW0uz2AABVO+0KAMDWEcQAoIwgBgBlBDEAKCOIAUAZQQwAy ghiAFBGEAOAMiGI/wMAOCE5iNd/AwAAHBDEAKCMIAYAZQQxACgjiAFAGUEMAMoIYgBQRhADgDKCGA CUEcQAoIwgBgBlBDEAKCOIAUAZQQwAypYEcVtXu1FVt3MP6hY8 puSaGrPb7Xam8X8+E7EqnayqjTmfvjqFRedDY4atu7NdLDtzt4 u7eLzgzrz/3Ff6aqpdQG4Qe1k6v73kgueQea80iE9bgcu/Igb554MUJ0s6bmnXq586szk1fT3VLiAviPs0tRqpa7X+Qo21YV iwf8S6wu2stnbRn9CHI/n7T5aqjLEOM+7BPrB44blXUSyLnHeX4eB5FZ5TvUNR04iPx444 HNA0c1N1rONhp5FukvaUarpIWS+z0s0d2SzdF2KRkueDO9AwzX houy334SESfRfr+nhvjbVKfGwt20HShSb3hb//IEWGdo6fXnKXpY44XVZVVhAf2tx7CfajkSAWC7Z1ZW3ptFLilH Kbem6pqm7DbYU3j/Fn+9SLBENsh1KF+9LxCk9XT7iA3KtUaiKvHSqpB8Xemlv/WG+HTRcvuzyI031xVJG88yEWxOLrndl3sa53RFo1lWhFO2j+hT Z58k8GcbrLEgVnbqMgK4gjMTv9UWJyCz+p7Y4/9I3T5t1/ZpSKHDT28dP6edxZ5CqQ35aCCvdnwLgnucJT1WvryjmacDFHm8 hL5fQpmCjil7ePFOzBa7pU2cVBPNEXk3sucT5EZjrdgWOY9fG+ i3Z98PoiPRK97Ep2UHChxfoidfJnTE0EXXNEsJ7R5IdqEDtvTt bnbJ94kVknwRGlvKpYh45ehMPp35jUdeftbR9eqGNVUhVOV68b yoqf5mY0kffBI33KJooEPZ16j/KaLlW2+Ih43tREqsEzzgcxiKVOmdl30a6PHnKfiLewJct0UHih RfoidfIfFcSxLgt7f05ZZQWmJhrTvRZrxDevYFYQSyfBUUEsfA RMX3j92dpMjkfSFZ4XxBPVC8+e8GKON9Gpg1hqunWDeGZfBIPo oueDFMSJt42pvpuTL5lBXLCDpBGP2BfLgzjaZbHen1dWVYkv6+ ZMkHsFY18apD5cZHwgFZ5z/u98+o5eeNYLnP7YE3xSmjM1EalupHrh++D0xawyNSE23fQnX/GzerRmidcS9kVYZI3zYZ0gTp44eVMT4mvJ7KCJeYEZr8Gvaaza 8S6L7+vIsqdX9vY1MR1mFUx9cHGaTR4HTZUK5lSFY8cvPPn9I/GKhDcosYGEp46u3syL2a2M82Vd+oSfXf/0hT6nB1L96IhuFh/vlGvwqfPB3uUYPGWCOHFlTbZqJG9KddD8j56JncwbEcfqN2e0u +j6WlG5X+gQmjpae7c1/M2cZ+VJ/b17pk6WkqcDq7q1dppq/YlpF6clvA/J1g1J7nUbqfCc6tmvfubFbO/YNNHrPPrCqrr2Gtx+0Ymxtdh08bJ2iCXmT+KbyX2RKrLi+VDVb eEgTs0qxVo1fTUW6qDJqYnolHxwik6HSKTLUkecKvuKgzjUmDM Z6JcWmwMtX+g0vLmEtq6mJ10ynXEr5LukF3VJr+X14m9NzJF3r p7VGZ740N+YGXPfuc6qEUq5pBd1Sa/lFSOIJwyfdY4/Vc/sFJ/x3XtZC5rufF3Si7qk1/LaEcQAoIwgBgBlBDEAKCOIAUAZQQwAyghiAFBGEAOAMoIYAJQR xACgjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBjLPwaNGuC3BqOUH817//e+a/deqMy/GYpF074EQyg/jHn395Sfrx518IYqR1afvw8HB/f//Wcn9///DwQBZjOzKD+OXl5Tnp5eWFIO58//332lU4R13O3t/f39/fPz4+2u/i9uNkMbYgP4j/SIoGcessQj7+rzHhH6iWHpMEi+eVWXDCPnxbV7l/PXs6iP36Tx0pXZmh2nObL9ww/JP2/epks/eZZqdw7EMVWYztyA/i35OODmLJUUE8c59HGA+/KH5mBrG7mvmcoJ2yYEO/EsXa9GCYkUhPcA1zFKWOC5yn/CD+LWnJiLgfIBpjB4S9oHCb2qc/kg1K2QNQe8FYa3l1O36tzau6FYsnHRnE6fqnKmOv+euPiFPt4L azVCX5g4tYt9j6xG6ndcNhe0bik6/ffPL1Gy+Ih82mWxl4zfKD+OPHj3/68l/iv48fP+YHsfdQdzFbpYRxnrvPMVTFUv6D46EiQbwP3yX84klHB/HwX/lVe5Xx41cI4ol2EBcMd+rUmKC8tM/xsUNG+73Q6WYb3r5968VumMX7l5e3b98yO4GLlx/EHz58iAXxhw8f0kHscoI4GFZ5V338g7RFGIm5+/Jz58ggPmqe4uggdobi4asOXv+4Kqj7liY1abqdg0qN0e9tmmjb w6ErY6qhGs7bVSyIxSwmiLEF+UGc3iZ7RGw/P1zXYXo7V3ZkcBct5axnPIbbrCAWiydlj4gj9ZffFbzRfRDE/n7Edg5r5Sdpcp/DEL2tq+6N5PBzMC8xBLF343AXxMN/CWJsxFkHsTwiTu9Tns9IlPNibEYQh8WT8oLYH3WOxFmW1NSEuJ/JEfFQDydJk/s8PG+PhStjgpCPBbGXwo+Pj0xNYCPyg/h/SevNEQsRINx14M9OenuNJ711UDGIxeJJxwaxGLTxaV6rhpERsb yfiTnivl6VMfaINr3PoSLuN4nhru1v4aIp7G4GXLCcIP7825+6 L+v+G9F9Wff5tz8JhbPvmrAmBMTpTC8s7Nz0S1kPuvHnHtSPXz f03OIJi+4jlupvVWYsOdZbvGtC2k/qrglni3D6OrpPqfWFPdu3r+0jv+jM7WvYjpwg/uybNz/cPaTvAP3h7uGzb96sU+dXht+sC3m/0LEP/ujPC7/QgS3JCeIvvnv36Tdv/vK3fyb+ffrNmy++e7dOnV8ZglhkZ/Ejv+KMbcsJ4vRY2LkPFIjrcpY/+gPkBPHz8/PT09P7pKenp+fn53XqjMshzg7bcxTAFuQE8dPT035qXDxsBsxB/mLLcoL4/fv3LzP+DOb79+/XqTMAXBSWSgIAZQQxACgjiAFAGUEMAMoIYgBQRhADgDKCGACUE cQAoIwgBgBlBDEAKCOIAUAZQQwAyghiAFBGEAOAMoIYAJQRxAC gjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBjJL+/PppNyG2iCBGSdopWoB2E2KLCGKUpJ2iBWg3IbaIIEZJ2ilagHY TYosIYpSknaIFaDchtoggRknaKVqAdhNii7KCuK2rncM0q1Tua G1dnU1dzpDVb1Xdhs8ETXco0G/cmMnG1U7RAgo2ODBTdhDbl2RjziSLCeKEMWy92G1M5P2069fGd Enc1tV022qnaAErND0woUgQ7/dtXY1jrPDCbuuqqmszDsYaEwzMxDgYHuyjoDJmCBFrgGea2B4Q autqaPqh0eQgrur28DbbGG8ULdJO0QJWaXIgqVAQ7/thk/WTtVVbV/1lbo/GrC2E8uHT1m7s7cYNGRFPa4zzBtjlqzw1YY+I5+UwQQzkKBXEw 5DYysd9Y8bEHR60fx42Hra0HhTH3XLO9sUJ4nka48Xu1BxxU1e mOYyek4GsnaIFrNLiQFLxEbH9UXe4aqeC2Nlhv4Ez3SEf1zoYQ XwMP4kjQWw9bZq2rrpITjWxdooWULipgRkKBbEzsxBep2uMiK1 vCJmaONZxQTxOX/RxHB0Ta6doAcUbG5hU/q6JyGxvOoin5ojHEOiP4/8cyW4MrMnhuVMTfcGhcRkRA2tY4z5i91aHQ4GJIJ5714T17FiL yhhrSMxdEzH+bSb+M2K7WXetMUcMrIPfrENJ2ilagHYTYosIYp SknaIFaDchtoggRknaKVqAdhNiiwhilKSdogVoNyG2iCBGSdop WoB2E2KLCGIAUEYQA4AyghgAlBHEAKCMIEZJ2t+0ybRbBZhAEK Mk7ciVabcKMIEgRknakSvTbhVgAkGMkrQjV6bdKsAEghglaUeu TLtVgAkEMUrSjlyZdqsAE8r8PeKCfwJYWOGDBThK8ZeW8p+atT 5oknbkyha+KGBtZZZKmlg/5xipIMYSbV1Zawi6qTusEkoQAwoKrVkXrCbnjroaszP1YRjdX+ yRdY8aszPGOOXlEXGwDki4/kRbV1VdSyt/bJ27VlJbV7uqqghiQEn5EfGw/JGbrvZyaUGqept65YUgdgtUdWuvuuRsHy6FB3dEPK5FRxADOgr NEY9XsLcMXZeW9uqi/Zp1iRGxPZBu0oks6vcRW2x047rPEtbHjZ1pwtmKPNqRK1veZsC qFo+IxxHs+P8goZ3hqB+vey+I41vaP0iZ4X8XRRCHujdRZzpne F8kiAEdBaYm+jFVR/iyzQ3i+SPi/tFZI2Jr0C1uRhDv98G9EcLtLwsbSTtyZQVaDlhTkTliJ4rH0HV +6jeQnrbLj4E6c464+9HP3FTWb5U7GJaeZEQMqCh414T9dZ03c 9yYXWWMe9eENR6r6trYI+LDXRPil2/RuybG0V1ljDeUFuu8Nd6kkTf2JYgBPaf5zTpuWdgK7ciVabcKM IEgRknakSvTbhVgAn9rAiVpR65Mu1WACQQxStKOXJl2qwATCGK UpB25Mu1WASYQxACgjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBjJK0v5ZbnXYD4 zIRxChJOydXp93AuEwEMUrSzsnVaTcwLhNBjJK0c3J12g2My0Q QoyTtnFyddgPjMhHEKEk7J1en3cC4TIX+HnGJTZc5/kDb+wvF1oIc8upWl/r3iAta2D6AiCDejC6G+z+Yb6+D0v3oLaOURzsnV1eiJwDfsiBu 66qqaxOu+NAPsobFMuwH3QXu6tpfuUPYcuGBhOJhZbbDWo3DXX BwOe2cXF2xlgIsi4N4Fy5BN7FYnbtSqLXQs/Wov+XCA4nFtzYiPnAHvo3Z7aqqKvampJ2Tq1vaQIBkeRCHi8LZ CzkPj9qLdAwbWOk7rO4sbrnwQGLxjQbxfm+9bdnriTI1MUeZDg BcKwSxG3B9FnpLV4aZm9xy4YEIYs+QxNYnCefnXNo5uboSrQ/4TjkiDq9xO4jtEXGw5cIDEcQed0hMEM9XovUB3xpBPDF1O/W0tOXCAxHE+2BCXr5rYmmDaOfk6pb3AxBaJYjHO1blmxnsOdzK mMRdE/2DCw8kF7fv4toE6z5i+1WH/ZJPOydXt7SBAInub9Y5c8S4ANo5uTrtBsZlIohRknZOrk67gXG Z+FsTKEk7J1en3cC4TAQxStLOydVpNzAuE0GMkrRzcnXaDYzLR BADgDKCGACUEcQAoIwgBgBlBDFK4vsuIANBjJIIYiADQYySCGI gA0GMkghiIANBjJIIYiADQYySCGIgQ34QW3/c1vrrtkX/7HpbV1Xd+DsalvIQKuQeMbYlHOPiUstbiyAGMmQGcVtX7mpz/f8KBnEfo16cRtNVOiJRPMVboeMUi4eWqThwQfKCOFgX7hCCw9j KNG1d7Ywx4YIQjf9YW1eHZTqcfY7HcNLUXtou2I+8LN6G1uA4m r1mXQkEMZAhK4iFv+fep6AzIg4XqZOWkZOzwFsY1Fr0qKrbyYX pIjuCrzG7XVVV4ftlJoIYyJAbxLHgnF7g2V6wLj6J4c4pDP+zc ngo0u8zEsTMTiR0E/3WRwymJgAFpYJYHBGLQWyLB6g36D6kqTVtHI6XCeIM9tLNJZZx JoiBDGXniOcEsTT4nRoR7/dtXZlmfJARcSH2vBBBDChZcNeEE4XJuyasn2fP7fqR3daVMcae 12COuATvromlTUUQAxkW/EKHNc1gXb7drOPhrgnpfoahmPX925wAde+YS9014R+OHE4LemQ BghjIcMa/WVdiToF5iRMjiIEMZxzEy2OUGD45ghjIcNZBjFeHIAYyEMQoiS AGMhDEKIkgBjIQxACgjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBjJL4gg7IQBCj JIIYyEAQoySCGMhAEKMkghjIQBCjJIIYyCAH8QuQJRbE2vUCzl pWEN/dXO1217feI84DS6V3WPxwuL3e7XZXN3cLd0MQAxnyg9iJYpLxd Tv0KEEMqMgO4uvb2+sxe50gvr0+rPggRnP47O317vqmS4IhCoY d3t1cXd3ceGXShxOLIO7u5mp3dXVFEANKFgRxl6BBMt5e99fz+ NNIetb6VHx7vRvyd/whKJI+nFgEMXc3V7urm9sbghjQsiiIX15ur/1ktMfJYQqKzw7p+3IYzd55QWw96T8o7VAsAlk/339HEANqFgZxH5xibg6pKhW0nnXy+pCsM4NY3CFBPNsYvwQxoG dpEB/i73bhiHjYjBHxKR2+o3Msay2CGMiwPIj9mygy54iHXPXmOiaCO DZHTBAfiRExoKdEEPs3FmfcNXF1fR2/ayIZxPJdEwTxsQhiQM85/GYddzZcDoIYyEAQoySCGMhwDkGMy0EQAxkIYpREEAMZCGKURBA DGQhiAFBGEAOAMoIYAJQRxACgjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBDADKC GKM3r3TrgGwSXIQP2N7/vGP593u5auvtOsBbI8cxH9ge3799Y8vv3y+u9OuB7A9BDEAKJO D+HcAwKnIQfwbAOBUCGIAUCYH8UcAwKnIQfwBAHAqchCHDwIAV vJ/T8yq0lnCP08AAAAASUVORK5CYII=
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ +V+1ZAAAToElEQVR4nO3dvY7jzJWHcSV7Db4G9uUU0Lew2cJOb AcEtkPfxgYvk4bhTd7ITgxjsjHhDcZw0uFi4GgGGGBXnrE97UA iWR+nilTxUEctPj9MoJFYZKlK/KtUYqsORwCAtYN1BQAAZDEA3ACyGADskcUAYI8sBgB7ZDEA2CO LAcAeWQwA9oQs/l8AwHXJWbz9ewAAYEIWA4A9shgA7JHFAGCPLAYAe2QxANgjiwH AHlkMAPbIYgCwRxYDgD2yGADskcUAYI8sBgB7ZDEA2FuTxX3bH CZN2y89aFjwkpJb6tzhcDi4Lr59I3JVulpVO3c7fXUNq14PnRu 3Pr3axbILd7u6i6cT7sb7L3ymb6baOmqzOIrT5U0mF7yF2HujW XzdCuzipDipfz1IibKm49Z2vflLZ7Ggpm+n2jrqsngIVK+dTg0 3nKu5ZkwLDvd4J7kf194uhtf0+Ujx/oulGue8w0x78A8snnvhiZSLo+ANZjx4XYWXVO9c1HXi/bkjjgd03dJgnep43mmmm6Q9lZouUzaKrXJzZzYr94VYRPP1EI4 1XDcd2m/LY3qIQt/luj7fW1OtCh9edTtIOtHkvoj3n6TI2M75l5fcZaUjzpe1VpXF5 2aPnoV/byaLxYJ923hbBg1VeFWFrb20VNP26bbC+8d023/1ZbIht0OpwkPpfIXnqyecQ+GJKjVR1A6N1INiby2tf66306bLl 12fxeW+uKhI3eshl8Xi813Yd7muD2RatRRqqh20/ESbffHPZnG5ywoFF25joyqLM0k7/5lidos4rP2+P3dP0Oyn/ywolTlo7nOod3vaWeZEkN+ZkgoPL4JpT3KF56rXt01wNOF8zjZ RFMzlV2GhSFzeP1Kyh6jpSmVXZ/FMX8zuWeP1kJn1DIePadzn+y7b9cnzy/RI9rTT7KDkRMv1RenFXzFHkXTNBdl6W7MgplkcvEV5H7hj4nnm vQ4uKBVVxTt09jwcz4DOlU69aG/H9FydqlKqcLl6pwGt+LFuQRNFHz/Kr9pCkaSnS29TUdOVyqqPi5fNUZQavOL1IGax1CkL+y7b9dlDH gsJl7akTgelJ1qmL0ov/ouyONdlae8vKWtPYY6ic6en4437lhWsymLpdXBRFgufBcvn3vC C7WZHJeUKL8vimeqlL6D0fM430bWzWGq6bbN4YV8kQ2nV14OUx YV3jrm+WxIxlVms2EHSoEfsi/VZnO2yXO8vK2tN47u7JfPlUcHcdwilTxkVn0yFx4L/Bx/Ds+ee9wTnP/8kH5mWzFFkqpupXvpWOH8+m8xRiE03/xFY/NCerVnhuaR9kRbZ4vWwTRYXXzh1cxTic6nsoJkJggXPIa5prtr 5Lsvv68KyJnSvaRMDYlHB0ieYoOXk0dBcqWR+VTh2/tyT30IKz0h4jxIbSHjo4uotPJ/DygTf3ZVf84vrXz7Xl/RAqR8D2c3yox69Bp97Pfi7nLJHJ4sLZ9Zsq2YiR6uDln8ALexk 2bg4V78lY95V59e29P7WQ2jt7BMIGyTeLHhUnuM/hi/W2VLy1GDT9t5OSx0wM/8StET0adm7Sik8dTMVXlI9/9kvPJ/9Hbsue6pnn1jTtlGD+0+6MMIWmy5f1s+xwkRKfjO5L0pFNnw9N G2vnMWl6aVcq5bPRqUOmp2jyE7PJy/R+RDJdFnpiHNl33YWpzp3OyN+Vbn5UP1C1xFNKvRtMz/7UumGW6HePT2pe3oubxq/R7FE3cv1pl7khU//nVswD17rphpByz09qXt6Lm8bWTxj/NBz+av1xl7lC76N17Wi6W7XPT2pe3oud4AsBgB7ZDEA2COLAcA eWQwA9shiALBHFgOAPbIYAOyRxQBgjywGAHtkMQDYI4sBwB5ZD AD2yGLchM8e67oABmqy+Jf//T8L/21TZ9yPz0XWtQOupzKLf/eXv74W/e4vfyWLUXYK3I8fP768vLz3vLy8fPz4kTjGrlRm8evr6/ei19dXsvjkxx9/tK7CLTpF7cvLy8vLy+fPn/03cv9+4hg7UZ/F/yzKZnEfrGQ+/a9z6W9aS/dJkoX3dJap8A/ft03tD27PZ3Fc/7kjlSszVntp86Ubpr+CP6xstnifZX4Q5z5aEcfYlfos/kfRxVksuSiLF+7zAtPhVyXQwiwOl0RfkrVzVmwYV0KtTc/GqYnyTNc4WaF1XOBm1Wfx34vWjIuHYaJzfkb4SxL3pX3G49mkl D8M9Zec9dZo9xPY27xpe7F40YVZXK5/qTL+qsHxuLjUDmE7S1WSP76IdcutcBx22mlQ7E9N/ORX737yq3dRFo+bzbcy8MbVZ/G3b9/+7T//IP779u1bfRZHd53OZ6+UMNoL9znlqlgqvnM6VCaLj+kbRVy86O IsHv8rP+uoMnECC1k80w7iquNBnTqXlJf2Od13jum4F05O0w7v 37+PkjeN4+Pr6/v375mmwB7UZ/HXr19zWfz169dyFoeCLE4GV9GJn/9E7RHGY+G+4ui5MIsvmrC4OIuDAXn6rJPnPy0qGr6rSU1abuek UlP6R5sW2vZ86Ma5ZqxG8I6Vy2Ixjsli7ER9Fv+tqHpc7D8+nt ppgAcnd2aIly0VrIg85duiLBaLF1WPizP1l98YojF+ksXxfsR2 TmsVh2lxn+NAvW+b03vJ+XYyQTFmcXRB8SmLx/+SxdiP+iwub6OSxfK4uLxPeWKjUC5KsgVZnBYvqsvieOw5Eadb SnMU4n5mx8VjPYIwLe7z/Lg/Im6cS3I+l8VREH/+/Jk5CuxHfRb/f9F288VCCgjXIcQzldFe82HvHVTMYrF40aVZLGZtfsrXq2FmXC zvZ2a+eKhX45w/ri3vc6xI+MViumv/S7lsEIebAfetJot//us/nr67+7+M03d3P//1H4XC1ddReDMD4tRmlBd+dMalvDvDBAwPGidwmHth8YJV1xdL9 fcqM5Wc6i1eRyHtp3QdRbBFOpWd3afU+sKe/Wvajpm/hOaaNuxKTRb/7Id3v/3zx/KVob/988ef/fBumzq/MfzdXSr6W49j8ttAr/ytB3amJot/8Zs//fSHd//xX78v/PvpD+9+8Zs/bVPnN4YsFvlx/Jm/gcbu1WRxeUQcXB8K5J2ilt8GAo51Wfz9+/cvX758Kvry5cv379+3qTPuhzhT7E9WADtRk8Vfvnw5zo2Ox82A JYhg7FxNFn/69Ol1wW9mfvr0aZs6A8C9YY0lALBHFgOAPbIYAOyRxQBgjywGA HtkMQDYI4sBwB5ZDAD2yGIAsEcWA4A9shgA7JHFAGCPLAYAe2Q xANgjiwHAHlkMAPbIYgCwRxYDgD2yGADskcXQ9O9vn3UTYqfIY miyDlIF1k2InSKLock6SBVYNyF2iiyGJusgVWDdhNgpshiarIN UgXUTYqfIYmiyDlIF1k2InarK4r5tDgHXbVK5i/VtczN1uUFevzVtnz6SNN25wLBx52Yb1zpIFSg2OLBcdRb7Z2Xn biSOyeKCKW+j5O1c5i311K+dO4Vx3zbzbWsdpAo2aHpgnkoWH4 9920wjrfTc7tumaVs3Dck6lwzPxEQY7xzSoHFuzBFvmOe63B6Q 6ttmbPqx0eQsbtr+/E7buWgsLbIOUgWbNDkwRymLj8PgybvlbdW3zXCm+2MybwuhfPq wtxt/u2lDxsXzOhe8B54iVp6j8MfFy6KYLAYqaWXxODD2IvLYuSl0xz v92+PG45beneLoW47aoThZvEznouSdmy/u2sZ15zF0MZOtg1TBJi0OzFEfF/ufeccTdy6Lgx0OGwTzHvJxvYORxZeIwziTxd7Druvb5pTKpSa2 DlIFyk0NLKOUxcEUQ3qqbjEu9r4wZI7iUpdl8TSPMSRydmRsHa QK1BsbWEL/OorMzG85i+fmi6ccGI4T387EN0beRPHSOYqh4Ni4jIuBjWxxfX F48cO5wEwWL72Ownt0qkXjnDcw5jqKnPjCk/gRsd28S9mYLwY2w9/dQZN1kCqwbkLsFFkMTdZBqsC6CbFTZDE0WQepAusmxE6RxdBkH aQKrJsQO0UWQ5N1kCqwbkLsFFkMAPbIYgCwRxYDgD2yGADskcX QZP3Fm8y6VYB5ZDE0WaeuzLpVgHlkMTRZp67MulWAeWQxNFmnr sy6VYB5ZDE0WaeuzLpVgHlkMTRZp67MulWAeTq/X6z4k8HCuiAs26ElXpMqfmjR8qJF1qkrW/mkgCvQWWNpZuGdS5SyGGv0beOtPxgG77jIKFkM2FBa7y5ZiS4c e3Xu4NrzYHo43zMLJnXu4JwLysvj4mT1kHTVir5tmraV1gvZu3 CRpb5tDk3TkMWAHf1x8bhuUhiw/lJrSbBGm0blhSwOCzRt7y/XFGyfLqOHcFw8rWNHFgNmlOaLp5M4WsLuFJj+4qTDeneFcbE/nO7KoSwa9pFbq3TnTp8ovA8dB9el0xZ1rFNXtr7NgK2tHhdP49 jp/0lIB4PSOGGPURbnt/RvSLERfzVFFqdO76PBvM741kgWA2YU5iiGkdWJ8N1bmMXLx8XD vYvGxd7QW9yMLD4ek6slhAtiVjaSderKFFoO2JjKfHGQxlPuBr eGDaSH/fJTpi6cLz7djGO3FPd7FQ6JpQcZFwNWFK+j8L+9i2aRO3donAu vo/BGZU3bOn9cfL6OQvwuLnsdxTTGa5yLBtRinfcmmj2KRsBkMWDq On93x0UMe2GdujLrVgHmkcXQZJ26MutWAebxexTQZJ26MutWAe aRxdBknboy61YB5pHF0GSdujLrVgHmkcUAYI8sBgB7ZDEA2COL AcAeWQxN1t/Sbc66gXG3yGJoso7KzVk3MO4WWQxN1lG5OesGxt0ii6HJOio3Z 93AuFtkMTRZR+XmrBsYd4sshibrqNycdQPjbin9frHGputcfqD 9/aKxt4yHvCzWvf5+saKV7QPkkMW7cUri4Tf2/dVTTjej9ZfqWEfl5jR6AhCsy+K+bZq2dek6EcNQa1xiw78zXBy vbeP1PoQtVx5IKJ5WZj+8NTzCxQrXs47Kzam1FBBancWHdPm6m YXuwoVGvaWivXvjLVceSCy+t3HxWTj87dzh0DSN2vuSdVRubm0 DARnrszhdUM5fCnq811/aY9zAC+BxfWhxy5UHEovvNIuPR++dy1+OlDmKJXQ6AEhskMVhx g1xGK18mcZuccuVByKLI2MYe58ngtu1rKNycxqtDwiuOS5OT3M/i/1xcbLlygORxZFwYEwWL6fR+oBgiyyemcade1jacuWByOJjMjkv X0extkGso3Jz6/sBEG2SxdOVrPLlDf58buNc4TqK4c6VB5KL+5d27YJ3fbH/rNN+qWcdlZtb20BAhu3f3QXzxbgD1lG5OesGxt0ii6HJOio3Z9 3AuFv8HgU0WUfl5qwbGHeLLIYm66jcnHUD426RxdBkHZWbs25g 3C2yGADskcUAYI8sBgB7ZDEA2COLoYmvv4A6ZDE0kcVAHbIYms hioA5ZDE1kMVCHLIYmshioQxZDE1kM1KnPYu/HcL1fw1X9pfa+bZq2i3c0LgAiVCg8Ym5LBKZVqda3FlkM1KnM4 r5twpXqhv8pZvGQpFGiZgNWOiJpPCda1+Maa4/qVBy4L3VZnKwpd87BcYTlur5tDs65dBmJLr6vb5vz4h7BPqdjB IHqL4uX7EdeUm9HK3dczF/vTgNZDNSpymLhJ+CHIAzGxekCd9ISdHIcROuKeqslNW0/u6hdZkeIde5waJomfcusRBYDdWqzOJed80tE+4vd5WczwsmF8X 9eFI9Fhn1msphpioLTpL/3QYM5CsCGVhaL42Ixi335DI2G3udA9aaQ01EzWVzBX/xZYyFoshiooztfvCSLpSHw3Lj4eOzbxnXTnYyLlfgTRGQxYGfF dRRBGhavo/BuL57njVO7bxvnnD/BwXyxhug6irVNRRYDdVb8rYc33+CdwacZyPN1FNIVDmMx7+u4J RkaXkZXuo4iPhxRXJb0yApkMVDnhv/uTmNygQmKKyOLgTo3nMXrk5QkvjqyGKhz01mMN4csBuqQxdBEF gN1yGJoIouBOmQxANgjiwHAHlkMAPbIYgCwRxZDE9/XAXXIYmgii4E6ZDE0kcVAHbIYmshioA5ZDE1kMVBHzuJXoEoui 63rBdy6qiz+8PRwODw+R/cEd6xV3qH64fD8eDgcHp4+rNwNWQzUqc/iII0Jx7ft3KNkMWClOosfn58fp/gNsvj58bxOhJjO6aPPj4fHp1MYjGkw7vDD08PD01NUpnw4sQjy Pjw9HB4eHshiwM6KLD6FaBKOz4/DKT3dmkiPeh+Pnx8PYwRPN5Ii5cOJRZDz4enh8PD0/EQWA4ZWZfHr6/NjHI7+aDkNQvHRMYBfz2PaD1EWew/Gd0o7FItANsz9fyCLAUsrs3jITjE6x2CVCnqPBpF9DteFWSzuk CxebEpgshgwtTaLzwn4vHJcPG7GuPiazl/ZBda1FlkM1FmfxfFlFZXzxWO0RpMeM1mcmy8miy/EuBgwpZHF8QXHFddRPDw+5q+jKGaxfB0FWXwpshgwdQt/d8e1DveDLAbqkMXQRBYDdW4hi3E/yGKgDlkMTWQxUIcshiayGKhDFgOAPbIYAOyRxQBgjywGAHtkMQ DYI4sBwB5ZDAD2yGIAsEcWA4A9OYu/AwCuSM7ifwIArogsBgB7chb/AwBwRXIW/x0AcEVkMQDYk7P4GwDgiuQs/goAuCI5i/8GALgishgA7P0LdmMVujGik54AAAAASUVORK5CYII=http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ XAfTJAAATtUlEQVR4nO3dP2/kxhnH8a3yJvweqLczgN5CusBu7BQErM5+GSnMQjCcxpUNBAmuO xOXQnCjMpAbnwAByd7ZllJwSc6fZ4bc4XCf1fL7wRW6XQ45O0P +dnaW0uz2AABVO+0KAMDWEcQAoIwgBgBlBDEAKCOIAUAZQQwAy ghiAFBGEAOAMiGI/wMAOCE5iNd/AwAAHBDEAKCMIAYAZQQxACgjiAFAGUEMAMoIYgBQRhADgDKCGA CUEcQAoIwgBgBlBDEAKCOIAUAZQQwAypYEcVtXu1FVt3MP6hY8 puSaGrPb7Xam8X8+E7EqnayqjTmfvjqFRedDY4atu7NdLDtzt4 u7eLzgzrz/3Ff6aqpdQG4Qe1k6v73kgueQea80iE9bgcu/Igb554MUJ0s6bmnXq586szk1fT3VLiAviPs0tRqpa7X+Qo21YV iwf8S6wu2stnbRn9CHI/n7T5aqjLEOM+7BPrB44blXUSyLnHeX4eB5FZ5TvUNR04iPx444 HNA0c1N1rONhp5FukvaUarpIWS+z0s0d2SzdF2KRkueDO9AwzX houy334SESfRfr+nhvjbVKfGwt20HShSb3hb//IEWGdo6fXnKXpY44XVZVVhAf2tx7CfajkSAWC7Z1ZW3ptFLilH Kbem6pqm7DbYU3j/Fn+9SLBENsh1KF+9LxCk9XT7iA3KtUaiKvHSqpB8Xemlv/WG+HTRcvuzyI031xVJG88yEWxOLrndl3sa53RFo1lWhFO2j+hT Z58k8GcbrLEgVnbqMgK4gjMTv9UWJyCz+p7Y4/9I3T5t1/ZpSKHDT28dP6edxZ5CqQ35aCCvdnwLgnucJT1WvryjmacDFHm8 hL5fQpmCjil7ePFOzBa7pU2cVBPNEXk3sucT5EZjrdgWOY9fG+ i3Z98PoiPRK97Ep2UHChxfoidfJnTE0EXXNEsJ7R5IdqEDtvTt bnbJ94kVknwRGlvKpYh45ehMPp35jUdeftbR9eqGNVUhVOV68b yoqf5mY0kffBI33KJooEPZ16j/KaLlW2+Ih43tREqsEzzgcxiKVOmdl30a6PHnKfiLewJct0UHih RfoidfIfFcSxLgt7f05ZZQWmJhrTvRZrxDevYFYQSyfBUUEsfA RMX3j92dpMjkfSFZ4XxBPVC8+e8GKON9Gpg1hqunWDeGZfBIPo oueDFMSJt42pvpuTL5lBXLCDpBGP2BfLgzjaZbHen1dWVYkv6+ ZMkHsFY18apD5cZHwgFZ5z/u98+o5eeNYLnP7YE3xSmjM1EalupHrh++D0xawyNSE23fQnX/GzerRmidcS9kVYZI3zYZ0gTp44eVMT4mvJ7KCJeYEZr8Gvaaza 8S6L7+vIsqdX9vY1MR1mFUx9cHGaTR4HTZUK5lSFY8cvPPn9I/GKhDcosYGEp46u3syL2a2M82Vd+oSfXf/0hT6nB1L96IhuFh/vlGvwqfPB3uUYPGWCOHFlTbZqJG9KddD8j56JncwbEcfqN2e0u +j6WlG5X+gQmjpae7c1/M2cZ+VJ/b17pk6WkqcDq7q1dppq/YlpF6clvA/J1g1J7nUbqfCc6tmvfubFbO/YNNHrPPrCqrr2Gtx+0Ymxtdh08bJ2iCXmT+KbyX2RKrLi+VDVb eEgTs0qxVo1fTUW6qDJqYnolHxwik6HSKTLUkecKvuKgzjUmDM Z6JcWmwMtX+g0vLmEtq6mJ10ynXEr5LukF3VJr+X14m9NzJF3r p7VGZ740N+YGXPfuc6qEUq5pBd1Sa/lFSOIJwyfdY4/Vc/sFJ/x3XtZC5rufF3Si7qk1/LaEcQAoIwgBgBlBDEAKCOIAUAZQQwAyghiAFBGEAOAMoIYAJQR xACgjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBjLPwaNGuC3BqOUH817//e+a/deqMy/GYpF074EQyg/jHn395Sfrx518IYqR1afvw8HB/f//Wcn9///DwQBZjOzKD+OXl5Tnp5eWFIO58//332lU4R13O3t/f39/fPz4+2u/i9uNkMbYgP4j/SIoGcessQj7+rzHhH6iWHpMEi+eVWXDCPnxbV7l/PXs6iP36Tx0pXZmh2nObL9ww/JP2/epks/eZZqdw7EMVWYztyA/i35OODmLJUUE8c59HGA+/KH5mBrG7mvmcoJ2yYEO/EsXa9GCYkUhPcA1zFKWOC5yn/CD+LWnJiLgfIBpjB4S9oHCb2qc/kg1K2QNQe8FYa3l1O36tzau6FYsnHRnE6fqnKmOv+euPiFPt4L azVCX5g4tYt9j6xG6ndcNhe0bik6/ffPL1Gy+Ih82mWxl4zfKD+OPHj3/68l/iv48fP+YHsfdQdzFbpYRxnrvPMVTFUv6D46EiQbwP3yX84klHB/HwX/lVe5Xx41cI4ol2EBcMd+rUmKC8tM/xsUNG+73Q6WYb3r5968VumMX7l5e3b98yO4GLlx/EHz58iAXxhw8f0kHscoI4GFZ5V338g7RFGIm5+/Jz58ggPmqe4uggdobi4asOXv+4Kqj7liY1abqdg0qN0e9tmmjb w6ErY6qhGs7bVSyIxSwmiLEF+UGc3iZ7RGw/P1zXYXo7V3ZkcBct5axnPIbbrCAWiydlj4gj9ZffFbzRfRDE/n7Edg5r5Sdpcp/DEL2tq+6N5PBzMC8xBLF343AXxMN/CWJsxFkHsTwiTu9Tns9IlPNibEYQh8WT8oLYH3WOxFmW1NSEuJ/JEfFQDydJk/s8PG+PhStjgpCPBbGXwo+Pj0xNYCPyg/h/SevNEQsRINx14M9OenuNJ711UDGIxeJJxwaxGLTxaV6rhpERsb yfiTnivl6VMfaINr3PoSLuN4nhru1v4aIp7G4GXLCcIP7825+6 L+v+G9F9Wff5tz8JhbPvmrAmBMTpTC8s7Nz0S1kPuvHnHtSPXz f03OIJi+4jlupvVWYsOdZbvGtC2k/qrglni3D6OrpPqfWFPdu3r+0jv+jM7WvYjpwg/uybNz/cPaTvAP3h7uGzb96sU+dXht+sC3m/0LEP/ujPC7/QgS3JCeIvvnv36Tdv/vK3fyb+ffrNmy++e7dOnV8ZglhkZ/Ejv+KMbcsJ4vRY2LkPFIjrcpY/+gPkBPHz8/PT09P7pKenp+fn53XqjMshzg7bcxTAFuQE8dPT035qXDxsBsxB/mLLcoL4/fv3LzP+DOb79+/XqTMAXBSWSgIAZQQxACgjiAFAGUEMAMoIYgBQRhADgDKCGACUE cQAoIwgBgBlBDEAKCOIAUAZQQwAyghiAFBGEAOAMoIYAJQRxAC gjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBjJL+/PppNyG2iCBGSdopWoB2E2KLCGKUpJ2iBWg3IbaIIEZJ2ilagHY TYosIYpSknaIFaDchtoggRknaKVqAdhNii7KCuK2rncM0q1Tua G1dnU1dzpDVb1Xdhs8ETXco0G/cmMnG1U7RAgo2ODBTdhDbl2RjziSLCeKEMWy92G1M5P2069fGd Enc1tV022qnaAErND0woUgQ7/dtXY1jrPDCbuuqqmszDsYaEwzMxDgYHuyjoDJmCBFrgGea2B4Q autqaPqh0eQgrur28DbbGG8ULdJO0QJWaXIgqVAQ7/thk/WTtVVbV/1lbo/GrC2E8uHT1m7s7cYNGRFPa4zzBtjlqzw1YY+I5+UwQQzkKBXEw 5DYysd9Y8bEHR60fx42Hra0HhTH3XLO9sUJ4nka48Xu1BxxU1e mOYyek4GsnaIFrNLiQFLxEbH9UXe4aqeC2Nlhv4Ez3SEf1zoYQ XwMP4kjQWw9bZq2rrpITjWxdooWULipgRkKBbEzsxBep2uMiK1 vCJmaONZxQTxOX/RxHB0Ta6doAcUbG5hU/q6JyGxvOoin5ojHEOiP4/8cyW4MrMnhuVMTfcGhcRkRA2tY4z5i91aHQ4GJIJ5714T17FiL yhhrSMxdEzH+bSb+M2K7WXetMUcMrIPfrENJ2ilagHYTYosIYp SknaIFaDchtoggRknaKVqAdhNiiwhilKSdogVoNyG2iCBGSdop WoB2E2KLCGIAUEYQA4AyghgAlBHEAKCMIEZJ2t+0ybRbBZhAEK Mk7ciVabcKMIEgRknakSvTbhVgAkGMkrQjV6bdKsAEghglaUeu TLtVgAkEMUrSjlyZdqsAE8r8PeKCfwJYWOGDBThK8ZeW8p+atT 5oknbkyha+KGBtZZZKmlg/5xipIMYSbV1Zawi6qTusEkoQAwoKrVkXrCbnjroaszP1YRjdX+ yRdY8aszPGOOXlEXGwDki4/kRbV1VdSyt/bJ27VlJbV7uqqghiQEn5EfGw/JGbrvZyaUGqept65YUgdgtUdWuvuuRsHy6FB3dEPK5FRxADOgr NEY9XsLcMXZeW9uqi/Zp1iRGxPZBu0oks6vcRW2x047rPEtbHjZ1pwtmKPNqRK1veZsC qFo+IxxHs+P8goZ3hqB+vey+I41vaP0iZ4X8XRRCHujdRZzpne F8kiAEdBaYm+jFVR/iyzQ3i+SPi/tFZI2Jr0C1uRhDv98G9EcLtLwsbSTtyZQVaDlhTkTliJ4rH0HV +6jeQnrbLj4E6c464+9HP3FTWb5U7GJaeZEQMqCh414T9dZ03c 9yYXWWMe9eENR6r6trYI+LDXRPil2/RuybG0V1ljDeUFuu8Nd6kkTf2JYgBPaf5zTpuWdgK7ciVabcKM IEgRknakSvTbhVgAn9rAiVpR65Mu1WACQQxStKOXJl2qwATCGK UpB25Mu1WASYQxACgjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBjJK0v5ZbnXYD4 zIRxChJOydXp93AuEwEMUrSzsnVaTcwLhNBjJK0c3J12g2My0Q QoyTtnFyddgPjMhHEKEk7J1en3cC4TIX+HnGJTZc5/kDb+wvF1oIc8upWl/r3iAta2D6AiCDejC6G+z+Yb6+D0v3oLaOURzsnV1eiJwDfsiBu 66qqaxOu+NAPsobFMuwH3QXu6tpfuUPYcuGBhOJhZbbDWo3DXX BwOe2cXF2xlgIsi4N4Fy5BN7FYnbtSqLXQs/Wov+XCA4nFtzYiPnAHvo3Z7aqqKvampJ2Tq1vaQIBkeRCHi8LZ CzkPj9qLdAwbWOk7rO4sbrnwQGLxjQbxfm+9bdnriTI1MUeZDg BcKwSxG3B9FnpLV4aZm9xy4YEIYs+QxNYnCefnXNo5uboSrQ/4TjkiDq9xO4jtEXGw5cIDEcQed0hMEM9XovUB3xpBPDF1O/W0tOXCAxHE+2BCXr5rYmmDaOfk6pb3AxBaJYjHO1blmxnsOdzK mMRdE/2DCw8kF7fv4toE6z5i+1WH/ZJPOydXt7SBAInub9Y5c8S4ANo5uTrtBsZlIohRknZOrk67gXG Z+FsTKEk7J1en3cC4TAQxStLOydVpNzAuE0GMkrRzcnXaDYzLR BADgDKCGACUEcQAoIwgBgBlBDFK4vsuIANBjJIIYiADQYySCGI gA0GMkghiIANBjJIIYiADQYySCGIgQ34QW3/c1vrrtkX/7HpbV1Xd+DsalvIQKuQeMbYlHOPiUstbiyAGMmQGcVtX7mpz/f8KBnEfo16cRtNVOiJRPMVboeMUi4eWqThwQfKCOFgX7hCCw9j KNG1d7Ywx4YIQjf9YW1eHZTqcfY7HcNLUXtou2I+8LN6G1uA4m r1mXQkEMZAhK4iFv+fep6AzIg4XqZOWkZOzwFsY1Fr0qKrbyYX pIjuCrzG7XVVV4ftlJoIYyJAbxLHgnF7g2V6wLj6J4c4pDP+zc ngo0u8zEsTMTiR0E/3WRwymJgAFpYJYHBGLQWyLB6g36D6kqTVtHI6XCeIM9tLNJZZx JoiBDGXniOcEsTT4nRoR7/dtXZlmfJARcSH2vBBBDChZcNeEE4XJuyasn2fP7fqR3daVMcae 12COuATvromlTUUQAxkW/EKHNc1gXb7drOPhrgnpfoahmPX925wAde+YS9014R+OHE4LemQ BghjIcMa/WVdiToF5iRMjiIEMZxzEy2OUGD45ghjIcNZBjFeHIAYyEMQoiS AGMhDEKIkgBjIQxACgjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBjJL4gg7IQBCj JIIYyEAQoySCGMhAEKMkghjIQBCjJIIYyCAH8QuQJRbE2vUCzl pWEN/dXO1217feI84DS6V3WPxwuL3e7XZXN3cLd0MQAxnyg9iJYpLxd Tv0KEEMqMgO4uvb2+sxe50gvr0+rPggRnP47O317vqmS4IhCoY d3t1cXd3ceGXShxOLIO7u5mp3dXVFEANKFgRxl6BBMt5e99fz+ NNIetb6VHx7vRvyd/whKJI+nFgEMXc3V7urm9sbghjQsiiIX15ur/1ktMfJYQqKzw7p+3IYzd55QWw96T8o7VAsAlk/339HEANqFgZxH5xibg6pKhW0nnXy+pCsM4NY3CFBPNsYvwQxoG dpEB/i73bhiHjYjBHxKR2+o3Msay2CGMiwPIj9mygy54iHXPXmOiaCO DZHTBAfiRExoKdEEPs3FmfcNXF1fR2/ayIZxPJdEwTxsQhiQM85/GYddzZcDoIYyEAQoySCGMhwDkGMy0EQAxkIYpREEAMZCGKURBA DGQhiAFBGEAOAMoIYAJQRxACgjCAGAGUEMQAoI4gBQBlBDADKC GKM3r3TrgGwSXIQP2N7/vGP593u5auvtOsBbI8cxH9ge3799Y8vv3y+u9OuB7A9BDEAKJO D+HcAwKnIQfwbAOBUCGIAUCYH8UcAwKnIQfwBAHAqchCHDwIAV vJ/T8yq0lnCP08AAAAASUVORK5CYII=

Q: Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a...

Democrat 31%

Republican 24%

Independent 36%

Other (Vol.) 6%

No opinion 4%

For the first time I am aware of, the number of voters calling themselves Independent exceeds the number calling themselves Democrats and is now the largest block (Independents have exceeded the number of Republicans for several years now). Both parties have been losing members to the ranks of the Independents for a long time and it appears the trend is only growing; not good news for the two main parties...

<O>

Platapus

04-23-17, 12:28 PM

Polls, not matter how many decimal places are reported, are intended to only represent general trends. Decimal point poll reports are an example of false precision.

When I look at poll reports, I only look at the first significant digit. Anything after that is probably false precision unless you have a real good understanding of the data, and pollsters often don't.. and the people who use the results probably don't care... and the people who read the results get spun up.

So 49% and 41% to me are equal for practical purposes. Unless there is a 10 point spread, I don't worry too much about the results of a political poll... especially political polls.

That people will be honest when replying to polls is one of the biggest assumptions in polling. It may or may not be a good or valid assumption, but it sure ain't a fact. :03:

August

04-25-17, 10:13 AM

Very interesting article from Politico.

The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think

We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it’s changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer (http://www.politico.com/staff/jack-shafer) and Tucker Doherty (http://www.politico.com/staff/tucker-doherty)
May/June 2017

How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell? News organizations old and new, large and small, print and online, broadcast and cable assigned phalanxes of reporters armed with the most sophisticated polling data and analysis to cover the presidential campaign. The overwhelming assumption was that the race was Hillary Clinton’s for the taking, and the real question wasn’t how sweeping her November victory would be, but how far out to sea her wave would send political parvenu Trump. Today, it’s Trump who occupies the White House and Clinton who’s drifting out to sea—an outcome that arrived not just as an embarrassment for the press but as an indictment. In some profound way, the election made clear, the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers.
What went so wrong? What’s still wrong? To some conservatives, Trump’s surprise win on November 8 simply bore out what they had suspected, that the Democrat-infested press was knowingly in the tank for Clinton all along. The media, in this view, was guilty not just of confirmation bias but of complicity. But the knowing-bias charge never added up: No news organization ignored the Clinton emails story, and everybody feasted on the damaging John Podesta email cache that WikiLeaks served up buffet-style. Practically speaking, you’re not pushing Clinton to victory if you’re pantsing her and her party to voters almost daily.

The answer to the press’ myopia lies elsewhere, and nobody has produced a better argument for how the national media missed the Trump story than FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, who pointed out that the ideological clustering in top newsrooms led to groupthink.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048

Dowly

04-28-17, 07:05 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo3fT0xPeHs

STEED

05-01-17, 01:32 PM

Donald Trump: I would be honoured to meet Kim Jong-unhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39773337

Really. :hmmm:

Jimbuna

05-01-17, 02:10 PM

Everyone would like to meet a "pretty smart cookie" b ut I suspect it would be with the intention of slapping him across the back of his head.

I believe Trumpis relying on China to do some remedial work behind the scenes and should that fail then there is a possibility military action may ensue.

Either way, Trump/the USA cannot and will not allow NK to develop a means of delivering a nuclear strike on the American mainland.

Bilge_Rat

05-01-17, 02:15 PM

Trump is probably keeping the meeting on the back burner as a carrot. The fat NK kid really wants international respect and Trump buttering him up wont hurt with the negotiations. We have to assume everything said about the "Great Leader" in the western press is relayed to him by his minions.

Catfish

05-01-17, 02:36 PM

Problem is Trump sends out contradicting messages. You cannot rely on anything he says. As long as it's with Kim i am fine with it though :03:

Platapus

05-01-17, 03:17 PM

Either way, Trump/the USA cannot and will not allow NK to develop a means of delivering a nuclear strike on the American mainland.

One should never forbid what one lacks the power to prevent. - Napoleon Bonaparte

Bilge_Rat

05-01-17, 03:43 PM

A Kim - Trump summit may not be as impossible as everyone thinks.

In 1971, everyone thought this was impossible...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/wysiwyg_images/nixon_mao.png

...and the opening to China turned out to be one of the smartest move in U.S. foreign policy.

vienna

05-02-17, 05:16 AM

Hmm...

Comparing Mao to Kim? IIRC, Mao was not a 'mad dog', unpredictable dictator who was not given to volatile, irrational threats to the outside world in general and the US in particular; not a very good comparison...

...and comparing Trump to Nixon? Sir, that is a insult to Tricky Dick...

<O>

ikalugin

05-02-17, 06:01 AM

Wasn't that during the cultural revolution?

Bilge_Rat

05-02-17, 07:45 AM

IIRC, Mao was not a 'mad dog', unpredictable dictator who was not given to volatile, irrational threats to the outside world in general and the US in particular;

read your history sir.

Third biggest mass murderer in the history of Mankind, after Hitler and Stalin.

or first according to this site, with an estimated 50-70 million deaths under his rule:

http://www.popten.net/2010/05/top-ten-most-evil-dictators-of-all-time-in-order-of-kill-count/

vienna

05-02-17, 07:54 AM

Well, then it is obvious Trump would be very honored to meet with him...

...and, one thing to keep in mind, Trump most likely doesn't even know Mao is dead...

...no mention of the Trump/Nixon comparison, so I can only presume you agree Nixon would have been insulted...

<O>

GT182

05-02-17, 11:07 AM

A long long time ago......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/GT182/Americans.jpg

And today, it's now you see em.... and now you don't. Think about it thru technology. With the same results. ;)

em2nought

05-02-17, 12:28 PM

One should never forbid what one lacks the power to prevent. - Napoleon Bonaparte

Maybe we should give Kim the technology to reach California. :03:

Buddahaid

05-02-17, 01:14 PM

Gee thanks. :Kaleun_Applaud:

Platapus

05-02-17, 02:53 PM

Schroeder

05-03-17, 09:29 AM

If this meeting between Trump and Un result in the establishment of diplomatic relations, I would be in favour of it.
Trump and diplomatic...good one.:haha:

vienna

05-03-17, 09:34 AM

Trump is the greatest diplomat the world has ever known as he will tell you so himself and, you know, he never, ever exaggerates or lies... :D

<O>

Bilge_Rat

05-03-17, 09:56 AM

interesting results in the new economist poll.

approval of direct negotiations between the USA and North korea to end NK's nuclear program (p. 51)

-60% of all those surveyed;
-63% of democrats;
-65% of republicans;

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/blvmt31w4l/econTabReport.pdf

..but I guess it is a lot more comforting to do what the Democrats did for the past 8 years, i.e., be scared of your own shadow, been afraid to offend anyone, be afraid of doing something which is not politically correct and generally do nothing...yah, that worked out really well...:arrgh!:

case in point #1:

Obama refused to meet with President Sisi because he is a dictator. Effect on human rights in Egypt? zero. Meanwhile an american citizen was sitting in an Egyptian jail for three years.

Trump meets with President Sisi. The looney left is horrified that the USA is "coddling" a dictator. Effect on human rights in Egypt? same as under Obama, but after direct intervention by Trump, Aya Hiyazi is released from jail and re-united with her family.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/04/21/ap_17111559985081_custom-d338b857cd6be7f44e297f07af484c0989c9e76a-s800-c85.jpg

yup, I like a President that gets results. :yep:

Bilge_Rat

05-03-17, 10:08 AM

case in point #2.

Sabrina de Sousa was a ex-CIA employee who was sentenced to 4 years in prison by Italy in a trial "in absentia" over the kidnapping of a suspected terrorist in 2003.

She was arrested in Portugal in October 2015 at the request of Italy which wanted her extradited to serve her sentence.

Normally, U.S. authorities protect ex-CIA personnel who are caught in these legal issues arising from CIA operations, but in this case the Obama administration either did nothing or was spectacularly incompetent. Either way, mrs. de Sousa lost all her appeals in Portugal and was due to be extradited to Italy.

enter Trump.

Inside of a month after becoming President, he negotiates a deal which allows mrs. de Sousa to avoid italian jail:

Sabrina de Sousa, a dual U.S.-Portuguese citizen, was waiting at Lisbon airport to be flown to Italy early on Wednesday when word came she was to be released, after Italy's president granted her a partial pardon.

De Sousa said the Trump administration did “an excellent job” of negotiating her partial pardon with Italy. But she noted that she still spent 10 days in a Portuguese prison, the only current or former CIA officer to be jailed in connection with the agency’s now defunct rendition and interrogation program.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-us-cia-pardon-idUSKBN1683ZC

yup, I like a President that can actually get things done. :yep:

Buddahaid

05-03-17, 02:15 PM

No mention of what was given away for these deals.

And you really, really, need to stop insulting people with your posts. I'll start reporting your posts form now on, but not to worry, it's just getting things done.

Platapus

05-03-17, 02:35 PM

Trump and diplomatic...good one.:haha:

Yeah, that was kinda silly of me wasn't it. :oops:

Bilge_Rat

05-03-17, 02:47 PM

And you really, really, need to stop insulting people with your posts. I'll start reporting your posts form now on, but not to worry, it's just getting things done.

The "looney left"?

That is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. :haha:

p.s. - Just to be clear, when I use the term "looney left", I am not referring to every democrat, liberal, left leaning activist/politician, just the more extreme fringe element and I was not referring to anyone here.

vienna

05-03-17, 03:01 PM

At this moment, given the ineptitude and disarray of the Far Right, the Left is looking pretty good by comparison; if you consider what the GOP had to give up and what the DEMs got in the new spending bill package, it appears the only ones "getting things done" on matters affecting the greater population is the DEM Left. Aside from getting Gorsuch onto SCOTUS, which the GOP Right could only do by changing the Senate rules to avoid an embarrassing defeat in an honest vote, the GOP keeps swinging for the fences and ends up dribbling a few feet down the infield baseline into foul territory. If the GOP keeps this up, 2018 could be a very interesting year for what's left of the GOP Congress; there has been a goodly number of GOP incumbents who either have declared they won't stand for reelection or appear to be leaning towards such a decision...

<O>

Buddahaid

05-03-17, 03:40 PM

The "looney left"?

That is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. :haha:

p.s. - Just to be clear, when I use the term "looney left", I am not referring to every democrat, liberal, left leaning activist/politician, just the more extreme fringe element and I was not referring to anyone here.

Understood, but the adjectives aren't needed to make your point and how is anyone supposed to know where the "looney" line starts in your thinking? I feel the same way in referring to the right with derogatory labels. They only serve to further divide us as a people, and for me, make it less likely I'll continue reading, or worse take a good point seriously. :salute:

em2nought

05-03-17, 03:57 PM

No mention of what was given away for these deals.

Already told ya, we give them rocket boosters capable of reaching California in exchange for their pinky swear to not use them. Seems about as good for us as all the deals made in the last sixteen years, maybe better. We may lose a Buddahaid, but think of how many snowflakes will get melted if he reneges. :03: Which of course we would never ever consider needling him into doing.

Buddahaid

05-03-17, 04:43 PM

I believe the US needs California more than California needs the US.:Kaleun_Cheers:

vienna

05-03-17, 09:10 PM

Considering the US Government receives a huge amount of revenue from California each year, not just in personal and business income taxes, but also in the form of fees, tariffs, assessments, etc. It has been estimated CA gets back just over one (1) dollar for every two (2) dollars generated for the Federal coffers. CA is actually the sixth largest world economy, behind U.S. economy at No. 1, followed by Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom, and ahead of France, by India, Italy, and Brazil to round out the Top Ten economies.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article83780667.html

If CA were to, somehow, 'turn off the tap', the rest of the nation would be hard pressed to maintain a stable economy at all. CA, just in tax revenue, is the biggest contributor to the national economy, contributing more, by almost 45%, than oil-rich Texas, the second place state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

What is surprising is how the disparity of revenue generated vs. benefit received results in "Red States" existing as 'welfare drains' on the net US economy:

[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers. ...
As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8?_escaped_fragment_=IpqnG#!IpqnG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

It looks like Bubba and his boys are hangin' in there mainly because of "them damn lib'ruls". So, basically, CA is not to blame for losing Trump the popular vote (a "ridiculous" claim by the Far Right, to borrow a favorite Trump adjective), CA is responsible for maintaining the Trump "core"...

...California deeply apologizes to the rest of the USA... :D

<O>

Bilge_Rat

05-04-17, 01:32 PM

well that was a bit anticlimactic,

the Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill has been adopted by the House 217-213...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/obamacare-repeal-house-vote-decision-237972

..now it becomes McConnell's problem.

Rockstar

05-04-17, 04:41 PM

Not counting North Korea, California also produces the majority some of the highest quality hyperbole in the world,

vienna

05-04-17, 06:22 PM

^"Sad, weak"...

<O>

Catfish

05-05-17, 01:10 AM

Not counting North Korea, California also produces the majority some of the highest quality hyperbole in the world,

And the most advanced hight-tech :03:

ikalugin

05-05-17, 11:02 AM

http://www.rbc.ru/politics/05/05/2017/590c3e229a794750d1f2c29e
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/242/631/382.gifhttps://media.giphy.com/media/rl0FOxdz7CcxO/giphy.gif

p.s. background and explanation:
Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State

Russian officials claim that the new US law - bill 419-1 would be enforced via searches of ships entering and leaving Russian ports (specifically Vladivostok) which would constitute a naval blockade of said ports and thus an act of agression against Russia.

More on the western view on the ports issue:
http://www.reuters.com/article/northkorea-usa-russia-idUSL4N1HX1SQ

Rockstar

05-05-17, 12:10 PM

Been looking around for information on this. Only thing I found is a bill to extend sanctions against Iran passed by a 419-1 vote. Also found that anyone involved in trading with NK or slave trade would be blocked from entering U.S. ports.

Only from Russian websites have I read claims about the U.S blockading Russian eastern ports or declarations of war.

Put the potato juice down ;)

ikalugin

05-05-17, 12:27 PM

Well the text of the bill would be nice to see, is there any place where they publish those?

I think the claim made by the russian official in question was regarding the DPRK measures.

em2nought

05-05-17, 02:30 PM

Well the text of the bill would be nice to see, is there any place where they publish those?

They don't even know what's in their bills, do they really want us to know? LMAO :D

August

05-05-17, 02:35 PM

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6297

Google search is your friend...

MaDef

05-05-17, 02:39 PM

http://www.rbc.ru/politics/05/05/2017/590c3e229a794750d1f2c29e
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/242/631/382.gifhttps://media.giphy.com/media/rl0FOxdz7CcxO/giphy.gif

p.s. background and explanation:

Russian officials claim that the new US law - bill 419-1 would be enforced via searches of ships entering and leaving Russian ports (specifically Vladivostok) which would constitute a naval blockade of said ports and thus an act of agression against Russia.

More on the western view on the ports issue:
http://www.reuters.com/article/northkorea-usa-russia-idUSL4N1HX1SQ
HR bill 419 deals with the IRS and Taxes, not North Korean sanctions.

August

05-05-17, 02:46 PM

House of Cards

During a Capitol Hill hearing this week over his investigation into allegations President Trump worked with the Kremlin to steal the election, FBI Director James Comey showed his hand, and he’s not holding any aces. In fact, he’s got a whole lot of nothing.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Comey revealed the assumptions undergirding his investigation, which started in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, despite any specific evidence of a crime.
“What is your assessment of why the Russian government had a clear preference for President Trump?” Franken asked.
“One is he wasn’t Hillary Clinton,” Comey replied, “who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin hated and wanted to harm in any possible way; and so he was her opponent, so necessarily they supported him.”
Also, “Putin believed he would be more able to make deals . . . with someone with a business background,” the FBI chief added. But, a disappointed Franken pressed, wasn’t it also because Trump was “ensnared in their web of patronage?” No, said Comey.
So there you have it. The conclusion that Russia tried to steal the election for Trump is based on pure speculation about how Putin thinks. The notion Trump was in Putin’s back pocket doesn’t even factor into it.
There’s more bad news for Franken and other tin-foil-hat-wearing Democrats peddling the theory Trump is Putin’s Manchurian candidate. It turns out the FBI probe doesn’t even focus on Trump or his key campaign aides. It centers almost exclusively on a former Merrill Lynch executive who was based in Moscow a decade ago.
His name is Carter Page, and he never formally worked for the Trump campaign. In fact, he first showed up on the FBI’s radar three years before Trump announced his candidacy.
Page is the main investigative target and apparently the only one remotely tied to the Trump campaign to have his communications targeted with a FISA warrant. To obtain that surveillance warrant, the FBI relied on a discredited dossier, which will make it hard to prosecute Page.
The opposition research firm behind the dossier, which alleges nefarious collusion between Trump and Putin, is Fusion GPS, which conducts “political disinformation campaigns” — sometimes for Moscow. “The relationship casts further doubt on an already highly dubious dossier,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote the Justice Department in a recent letter.

http://nypost.com/2017/05/04/bad-news-for-the-trump-russia-tinfoil-hat-brigade/

ikalugin

05-05-17, 03:16 PM

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6297

Google search is your friend...
Are you sure that it is the right bill?

Rockstar

05-05-17, 03:45 PM

"US law - bill 419-1" :hmmm:

As I mentioned earlier '419-1' was the number in the House who passed the bill August linked too, 419 'yeas' - 1 'nay'. It was then forwarded to the Senate which passed it 90-0 and they forwarded it the President for approvaL.

H.R 1644 (amongst others) prohibits designated persons entry into U.S. ports.

Its quite possible the information wasn't translated from English to Russian very well.

ikalugin

05-05-17, 03:46 PM

Ok, just to confirm, there is nothing in it regarding searches of third party vessels going in and out third party ports?

Rockstar

05-05-17, 03:59 PM

Not sure if this is the Bill that got Russian news media panties in a wad https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1644?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22north+korea+sanctio ns%22%5D%7D&r=14. I think its the latest one but has only made it as far as the House, the Senate still has to vote on it. Doesnt mention anything about blockades just enhanced inspections of suspect vessels bound for U.S. ports. But thats nothing new.

H.R.1644 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)All Bill Information (Except Text)

Introduced in House (03/21/2017)

Korean Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act

This bill amends the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 to modify and increase the President's authority to impose sanctions on persons in violation of certain U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea.

The President shall report to Congress regarding: (1) measures to deny specialized financial messaging services to U.N.-designated North Korean financial institutions, (2) foreign countries whose seaports and airports fail to inspect or seize the cargo of North Korean ships or aircraft as required by Security Council resolutions, (3) North Korea-Iran weapons and nuclear cooperation, (4) foreign government implementation of Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea, and (5) whether North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism.

The bill requires U.S. financial institutions to ensure that no correspondent accounts are being used by foreign financial institutions to provide financial services indirectly to North Korea.

A foreign government that provides defense articles or services to, or receives from, North Korea is prohibited from receiving certain types of U.S. foreign assistance.

The Department of State shall report to Congress regarding foreign compliance with curtailing North Korea's arms trade.

The Department of Homeland Security may implement enhanced screening of cargo bound for or landed in the United States that: (1) has been transported through a sea port or airport that has repeatedly failed to comply with applicable Security Council resolutions; (2) is aboard a vessel, aircraft, or conveyance that has entered North Korean territory, waters, or airspace, or landed in any of its seaports or airports, within the last 365 days; or (3) is registered by a country whose inspection compliance is deficient.

The Ports and Waterways Safety Act is amended to prohibit any foreign vessel from entering or operating in U.S. waters or transferring cargo in any port under U.S. jurisdiction if such vessel is owned by North Korea or owned or operated on behalf of any country not complying with Security Council resolutions.

Goods produced in whole or part by North Korean labor are prohibited from entering the United States unless U.S. Customs and Border Protection finds that they were not produced with convict, forced, or indentured labor.

The President shall impose U.S. property-based sanctions on foreign persons that employ North Korean forced laborers.

The bill amends the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to authorize the State Department to offer cash rewards for information on violations of North Korean sanctions.

Congress.gov

ikalugin

05-05-17, 05:46 PM

(2) foreign countries whose seaports and airports fail to inspect or seize the cargo of North Korean ships or aircraft as required by Security Council resolutionsOk I am looking at the text of the third version of the law and it appears to be very confusing to me (understandable as the law appears to be still in the works?). So what I see:

Section 104 a) which describes that US executive branch must report regarding any perceived violations of the resolution and then:
Specific findings.—Each report required under subsection (a) shall include specific findings with respect to the following ports and airports:
(3) The ports of Nakhodka, Vanino, and Vladivostok, in the Russian Federation.Where we see the Russian ports being mentioned specifically and then:
Seizure and Forfeiture.—A vessel, aircraft, or conveyance used to facilitate any of the activities described in section 104(a) under the jurisdiction of the United States may be seized and forfeited, or subject to forfeiture, under—
“(2) part V of title IV of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581 (http://uscode.house.gov/quicksearch/get.plx?title=19&section=1581) et seq.).”.
which states:
Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States....... or at any other authorized place, without as well as within his district
I aint a lawyer or even a knowledgeable US citizen but it appears to be at this moment that it may be possible or even required to for the US authorities to stop and search vessels going in and out of select Russian ports which would constitute a naval blockade. Please do clarify those matters.

vienna

05-06-17, 02:08 AM

"Na na na na, na na na na,
Hey hey hey, goodbye..."

The non-partisan political analysis site, The Cook Report, has just revised its projections for the November 2018 Mid-Term Elections, shifting twenty (20) House seats out of the GOP column:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/332062-cook-report-weakens-forecast-for-20-gop-districts-after

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10342

The GOP Senate may be able to save the GOP House's bacon by either 'fixing' the flawed GOP House ACA bill or by just voting the bill down. This loss is the result of a poorly drafted, poorly managed, poorly vetted piece of legislation whose sole purpose seems to be trying to give a 'win' to the "sad, weak" occupant of the White House. The currently enacted ACA does need to be repaired or replaced, but the ridiculous Keystone Kops fire drill that passes for GOP House leadership and their 'solutions' is not the way to do it; it will be interesting when the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) releases its report on the GOP House's just recently passed version of the ACA; the very fact the GOP House leadership desperately wanted to pass the bill without a final CBO report on the financial ramifications (an extremely irregular and ill-conceived action) makes one wonder what they were trying to hide or avoid...

The GOP: playing right into the hands of the DEMs, and no one to blame but themselves...

<O>

Bilge_Rat

05-06-17, 06:13 AM

The GOP: playing right into the hands of the DEMs, and no one to blame but themselves...

<O>

That is just political spin. If Dems are so good at predicting the future, why is the Party in the worst shape it has been in 90 years...:ping:

The truth is that Dems got caught with their pants down because they did not think the GOP would pass the AHCA and now they are ramping up their rhetoric to near-apocalyptic tones to try to stop it in the Senate.

The whole thing is a political circus. The ACA had some good points and some bad points and is nowhere near as bad as the GOP says. OTOH, the AHCA has some good points and some bad points and is nowhere near as bad as the Dems say.

MaDef

05-06-17, 07:32 AM

Rockstar

05-06-17, 07:57 AM

"Seizure and Forfeiture.—A vessel, aircraft, or conveyance used to facilitate any of the activities described in section 104(a) under the jurisdiction of the United States may be seized and forfeited, or subject to forfeiture, under—
“(2) part V of title IV of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581 et seq.).”.

The key to the whole thing is "jurisdiction". Our customs waters jurisdiction extends 24 miles from our shores. We also claim a 200 miles exclusive economic zone. We dont have jursidiction in foreign waters or ports and if a vessel is operating in international waters we need the flag state's permission to board it and only to enforce international law not U.S. law, unless we can prove the vessel is bound for the U.S.

Cant count the number of times we sighted a foreign flagged boat in international waters and we would follow it and as soon as it crossed into our waters we were on like white on rice.

vienna

05-06-17, 08:02 AM

That is just political spin. If Dems are so good at predicting the future, why is the Party in the worst shape it has been in 90 years...:ping:

The truth is that Dems got caught with their pants down because they did not think the GOP would pass the AHCA and now they are ramping up their rhetoric to near-apocalyptic tones to try to stop it in the Senate.

Oh, its more than just political spin and the DEMs are in far better shape than you think; they really haven't had to do anything but stand by the sidelines and watch the GOP and its Congressional leadership keep fumbling the ball, each time its had possession. The main GOP party leadership is very aware of the danger of losing their hold on the House, and less likely, the Senate and are taking what you, and the Trump apologists, refer to as "spin" in mind; they see the problems and are taking them seriously. The GOP Far Right has been virtually writing the campaign literature for the DEMs for the 2018 Mid-Terms. Every time Trump makes an ineptly inane (if not actually insane) action or spouts some absurd gibberish or tweet, the DEMs are just banking it for the Mid-Terms; the GOP Congress is amply assisting in the effort by acting like they have no concept of how the government even actually works (we all know Trump is clueless on the subject). They passed their version of the AHCA without even waiting for the CBO to make public its findings on the House bill. It could be said this very highly irregular action was taken in order to give both the GOP House and Trump some semblance of a 'victory' before Congress went into recess, after having failed twice with their previous efforts; it could also be said the GOP House was extremely concerned, after a previous CBO report on the prior version of the bill showed some very serious detrimental financial, social, and political ramifications, the 'new!! improved!!' version would fare even less well under the CBO's scrutiny and sink the bill yet again. The fact the House GOP leadership was only able to pass the bill by the minimal margin of one (1) vote and, in the process, had twenty (20) of its own party members vote against passage is a strong indicator all is not well in the Congressional GOP, particularly the GOP House. Compounding this is the fact several senior and influential Senate GOP members have expressed grave reservations of the abbreviated, abortive, GOP House actions and have publicly indicated there will be extreme scrutiny and vetting of the GOP House bill, something of which the GOP House leadership is very afraid. The Senate, unlike the House, has far less wriggle room when it comes to any party assembling a sufficient majority to pass/approve House bills in their own chambers; the number of Senate members being even less than a quarter of the total House membership means every single vote does count in a much more important manner than a single vote normally counts in the House. There is also the added nature of the difference in the constituencies between a Senator and a Congressman; House members are elected by a relatively small pool of voters and they tend to pander to whatever are the needs of that pool; Senate members, since each state is only allowed two (2) Senators each, and the Senators are elected, at large, from a pool of all the voters in their state, have to find a means of addressing the need to give the greatest benefit to the largest number of voters in the pool, regardless of whether all the districts lean towards or against their party, not just a smaller fraction like a Congressman. When a Senator looks at what he needs to keep his seat, and/or achieve his goals, the narrowness of strict party adherence is less of an influence...

The GOP finds itself between a rock and a hard place and all the DEMs have to do is watch the pressure grow. The pressure seems to be getting to not a few of the GOP House members; some faced with a very strong backlash from their districts, have indicated they will not seek reelection and a couple, notably Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, have actually announced they will not stand for reelection; Chaffetz is notable because he has come under fire, from all sides, over his 'handling' of investigations into the Trump conflicts of interest and the allegations of Russian influence in the 2016 Presidential election. I guess he doesn't want to be anywhere on the bridge when the House ship hits the iceberg...

Some may have noticed or heard the GOP House AHCA bill exempted Congress from having to abide by the provisions of the Act, unlike the rest of the citizens of the US. This is widely acknowledged as a very risky move on the part of the GOP House, but the reason was not self-serving in the sense of being above the law to be followed by the rest of the nation: it appears the GOP is seeking to avoid a situation where they will need a majority of sixty-one (61) out of one hundred (100) votes, rather than a simple majority of fifty-one (51) votes in order to pass the AHCA through the Senate; just as the GOP Senate was willing to use the politically unpopular "nuclear option" to eke out the votes to confirm Gorsuch to the SCOTUS, the GOP House is willing to take a political hit, in desperation, just to try to ensure any chance of passage in the Senate:

http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-exempt-from-ahca-trumpcare-explained-2017-5

So, the GOP's rush to put a "W" in the win column is very much premature:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/04/msnbc-s-greta-van-susteren-rips-apart-gop-s-premature-trumpcare-celebration

If this is a political circus, it seems the GOP are both the 'Elephants' and the clowns...

The whole thing is a political circus. The ACA had some good points and some bad points and is nowhere near as bad as the GOP says. OTOH, the AHCA has some good points and some bad points and is nowhere near as bad as the Dems say.

I do agree with your comments on the ACA/AHCA (surprised, eh?). Something has to be done about the state of health care in the US and the rising costs of medical services and products; the ACA is/was not the best solution, but it was, for the first time in a very long (and long overdue) time, a step in the right direction; the AHCA, in its present GOP House form, is/will not be a perfect solution; somewhere in the middle is a solution meeting the best interests of providers and patients; whichever party fnally realizes that simple fact will have much to gain, but as long as each of the parties is more intent on scoring 'brownie points' against each other than actually doing the work of government, we are probably doomed to more gridlock and misery; a very big reason I don't adhere to any party...

<O>

ikalugin

05-06-17, 09:09 AM

The key to the whole thing is "jurisdiction". Our customs waters jurisdiction extends 24 miles from our shores. We also claim a 200 miles exclusive economic zone. We dont have jursidiction in foreign waters or ports and if a vessel is operating in international waters we need the flag state's permission to board it and only to enforce international law not U.S. law, unless we can prove the vessel is bound for the U.S.

Cant count the number of times we sighted a foreign flagged boat in international waters and we would follow it and as soon as it crossed into our waters we were on like white on rice.
Ok, just to clarify, so there is nothing in the bill that implies searches outside of the U.S. territorian waters/EEZ?

Would gathering information for the reports (on ships going in and out of the specified ports) imply such searches?

vienna

05-06-17, 09:53 AM

Found this article on the possible AHCA minefield facing the GOP:

Fundraising surged nationwide as new recruits stepped up to challenge vulnerable Republicans who backed the plan. Among the vulnerable: two-term Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., who helped revive the bill by authoring a key amendment on pre-existing conditions.

"We have an opportunity to take down the person who was the author of Trumpcare 2.0," said Democrat Andrew Kim, an Obama White House national security adviser, who said he's now more likely to challenge MacArthur next year. Kim raised more than $43,000 online over the last week for a possible run.

"He owns every part of this," Kim said of MacArthur.

Democrats need to flip 24 seats between now and the 2018 elections to take control of the House. Of the 217 Republicans who backed the bill, 14 come from districts carried by Democrat Hillary Clinton last fall, and 24 serve in districts where Trump did not win more than 50 percent of the vote.

Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is not seeking re-election next year, warned that the bill "has the potential to severely harm the health and lives of people in south Florida." Her open seat in Miami is considered a prime pick-up opportunity for Democrats.
(Bolding mine)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumpcare-gop-faces-political-fallout-063712749.html (https://www.google.com/search?q=Dems+convinced+health+bill+jeopardizes+GO P%27s+monopoly+in+DC&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Dems+convinced+health+bill+jeopardizes+GOP%27s +monopoly+in+DC&tbm=nws)

Trump really likes to trot out that map of the US and boast about all the counties he won; the big problem is, in an awful lot of those counties he just scraped by, and, in many, he won (as in the general election tallies) with less than 50% of the vote: again, it is important to remember the majority of individual US voters did not vote for Trump and, in the Congressional elections, there is no 'Electoral College' mechanism to overrule the will of the voters; there, in the Congressional districts, when the voters speak, they have spoken...

<O>

Bilge_Rat

05-06-17, 10:37 AM

If we step away from pure politics for a moment, the problem with health care is that it is a ticking time bomb.

The biggest consumers of medical care are older people. When a lot of these programs were put in place in the 60s-70s, you had 8-10 persons of working age for each retiree. Now the ratio is 2-3 workers for 1 retiree and over the next 20-30 years, it is expected to go down to 1-2 workers for 1 retiree.

so costs are exploding, since the over 60 population keeps increasing while you have less and less taxpayers at the other end to pay for it.

So there is no magic formula, either you increase taxes or cut back on medical care.

Many on the left are extolling the single payer program or governement run and funded healthcare, but it also does not solve the basic problem.

Canada has had a single payer system for almost 50 years and you have the same issues. Around 1/3 of all taxes goes to fund health care and it is still not enough to keep up with costs.

In theory, everyone has access to "free" healthcare, but you have many informal barriers to access.

First, there is a lack of general practioners. It can be hard to find one and can take weeks to get an appointment. That is a barrier, since you need a note from a doctor to have access to a specialist.

second, if you need a specialist, after step #1, it can again take weeks or months to get an appointment.

Third, after step #2, if you need surgery in a Hospital, it can take months or years to get a date, if it is minor or non- urgent.

Of course, if you have cancer or something major, then there is a fast track system to get care, but for a lot of minor issues, people just go straight to a private clinic and pay for it out of their pocket/private health insurance.

So there is no perfect program, unless everyone is wiling to pay a lot more, it is impossible to provide excellent service to everyone.

The best cost/benefit compromise is to provide government funded coverage for major, expensive issues, basically catastrophic health insurance and let consumers buy their own insurance, if they wish, for minor issues.

Rockstar

05-06-17, 10:57 AM

Ok, just to clarify, so there is nothing in the bill that implies searches outside of the U.S. territorian waters/EEZ?

Would gathering information for the reports (on ships going in and out of the specified ports) imply such searches?

I couldnt find anything.

Based on my experiences any nation with a sea going service can enforce international laws in international waters. However as far as we're concerned the nation under which the suspect vessel is flagged needs to be consulted before we could step aboard to and take action. No flag? Then we consider it a stateless vessel and would most likely board it. Might be too if we dont recognize the flag as legitimate we might board it.

Unless it is a case of force majeure we do not enter into someone else's territorial seas without their permission beforehand. To do so would violate their sovereignty and all hell would break loose as the offending nation would most likely have their ship seized and subject to the foreign powers internal laws.

It may be possible to patrol the area between the boundaries of sovereign nations (international waters) and gather intelligence on shipping traffic last port next port of call etc. etc. If we believed violations occured and could not get permission to board. I imagine the best we could do is file a complaint or sanction the offending nation. Which as one of the bills suggested may include preventing their ships from entering U.S. ports. Or shoot their planes out of the sky like we did when we challenged Libya's clear violation of international law when Kaddafi established the "line of death".

edit: boundary definitions and what kind of law enforcement within those boundaries can be done is found in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of which the U.S. abides by.

Von Due

05-10-17, 01:47 PM

vienna

05-10-17, 02:25 PM

Hell, here in the US, even we don't know what the hell is going on in regards to Trump v. the press. I can only imagine what all this looks like to other nations. There has been a troubling number of such cases lately and they have raised more than a few eyebrows...

In the meantime, the official spokesperson for Trump seems to be losing it:

Sean Spicer literally hid in the bushes to avoid answering questions about James Comey's firing --

http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spicer-literally-hid-in-bushes-to-avoid-media-questions-on-comeys-firing-2017-5

Yeah, the Trump administration really has things under control and is running like a finely tuned Trabant...

<O>

Nippelspanner

05-10-17, 02:28 PM

Hey, nothing against the glorious Rennpappe!

Skybird

05-10-17, 02:55 PM

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/33149538/2-format1007.jpg (https://www.pic-upload.de)
"You are not to stick your pesky nose into my dirty laundry!"

by Stuttman, Der Tagesspiegel

Von Due

05-10-17, 02:56 PM

Hell, here in the US, even we don't know what the hell is going on in regards to Trump v. the press.

Interesting times ahead. Washington Post and Breibart duelling it out and noone can tell what's goin on.

Yeah, the Trump administration really has things under control and is running like a finely tuned Trabant...

Could be worse, could be a Lada.

Skybird

05-10-17, 03:00 PM

The US has a new heraldic animal: the Yellow-Head Seahawk :D

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/33149554/2-format1007.jpg (https://www.pic-upload.de)

by Stuttman, Der Tagesspiegel

Bilge_Rat

05-10-17, 03:14 PM

the real reason Trump fired Comey...

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/05/10/gettyimages-681529300_wide-0242147ade9d8cd2832393d9d1a656c86b6b7762-s800-c85.jpg

...to cover up the "secret" meeting with ambassador Kislyak... :haha:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/10/527755991/trump-meets-with-russias-lavrov-at-the-white-house-today

Rockstar

05-10-17, 03:39 PM

So... what's goin on?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866412

Anyone having the full story? Not a fan of Trump in the slightest but I find it hard to believe they are going full Turkey now. Something not coming through in the reports?

I think the story says it all.

A reporter was arrested on Tuesday night at the West Virginia Capitol for allegedly causing a disturbance by shouting questions to two Trump aides.

Enter the police.

Dan Heyman had asked Health Secretary Tom Price and White House adviser Kellyanne Conway about coverage under the Republican healthcare plan.

"He didn't say anything," Mr Heyman told reporters about Mr Price's refusal to answer his question.

Apparently Mr. Heyman didnt get the memo that...

Mr Price and Ms Conway were in West Virginia for a conference on the opioid epidemic, and its effect on West Virginia, which has seen more overdoses than any other US state.

Imagine that the speakers thought it best to remain on topic and not become distracted by an immature little brat trying to get attention for himself.

"This is my job, this is what I'm supposed to do," he said. "I think it's a question that deserves to be answered. I think it's my job to ask questions and I think it's my job to try to get answers."

You know the saying there is a time and a place for everything. Maybe his questions would be better suited during a press conference about the Republican or Democratic plan for the ACA. Instead of throwing tantrums and making a spectacle of himself here's another idea. Maybe just maybe he could have done his fekking job and investigated the Republican plan for the ACA and reported his findings on the six o'clock news like reputable journalists and reporters used to do. But its evident what's truely important is ratings, drama, headlines, spectacle, fluff.

According to a criminal complaint, Mr Heyman was "aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol.
"The defendant was causing a disturbance at Ms Conway and Secretary Price."
He was charged with wilful disruption of government processes.

Contrary to popular belief the 1st amendment doesnt protect anyone from behaving like a complete jackass.

Mr Heyman retorted that he was in a public space, and had not been warned to step away.

The American Civil Liberties Union has defended Mr Heyman's actions, saying his "arrest is a blatant attempt to chill an independent, free press. The charges against him are outrageous, and they must be dropped immediately".

In the end it really wasnt about the Republican plan but how to generate more the same Trump doenst care Headlines! blah blah blah Trump derp and more derp and Trump.

em2nought

05-10-17, 04:14 PM

Deep state resisting the will of the "sane" people pretty much sums up what's going on in the USA. Russians? Seriously? ROTFLMFAO

If Trump has a successful presidency it's going to make what we've had for the previous thirty years from both rotten stinking parties look like a big bag of crap, and that's the last thing "they" want. :03:

vienna

05-10-17, 04:35 PM

Let's see...

FBI and Federal prosecutors issue Federal Grand Jury subpoenas in the Flynn investigation: Federal Grand Jury involvement indicating the investigation has gone beyond just preliminary and has substance:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

Comey makes request for more resources for the FBI probe into Flynn and Trump associates:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/10/comey-sought-more-money-for-russia-probe-days-before-he-was-fired-officials-say/

But, right after reports of these developments became public, Comey was fired because of his handling of the Clinton emails?...

...Yeah,... right..., sure...

It must be difficult for Trump to sit down as many times as he's shot himself in the rump...

<O>

Mr Quatro

05-10-17, 05:35 PM

But, right after reports of these developments became public, Comey was fired because of his handling of the Clinton emails?...

...Yeah,... right..., sure...

It must be difficult for Trump to sit down as many times as he's shot himself in the rump...

<O>

I know you were just making a pun, but ...

Probably more like inside tipsters on what Comey was really up to, great timing, uh?

This doesn't sound like China is against North Korea to me:http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/05/10/China-tests-new-missile-in-waters-near-North-Korea/8811494422116/

May 10 (UPI) -- China tested a new missile in an area close to the Korean peninsula after warning South Korea against the deployment the U.S. missile defense system THAAD.

vienna

05-10-17, 07:02 PM

...and yet another Flynn subpoena:

The Senate Intelligence Committee has issued a subpoena to former national security adviser Michael Flynn for documents related to its investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election, committee leaders announced Wednesday.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/332853-senate-intel-panel-subpoenas-flynn

<O>

Skybird

05-11-17, 05:02 AM

Comey is just the last in a already longer line of names of investigators who got sacked after they got too close to Trump's wolfpack. And the cleansing wave in the bureaucracy is said to be much, much more intense than it usually is when one administration hands over to the next and party-colours change in the WH as well.

ikalugin

05-11-17, 07:55 AM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866412
to know if domestic violence
How likely is that the person in question was an SJW trying to disrupt the event?

Rockstar

05-11-17, 09:08 AM

Von Due

05-11-17, 09:38 AM

Headline - "Comey sought more resources for Russia probe days before he was fired by President Trump, officials say"

According to the headline it was anomonyous officials which say Comey sought additional funds. Not Comey himself.

Now if I were like those who just read the headlines it would appear Comey was fired because, as some here have implied he was getting close. But I have one request, please read the actual story under the headline. Because it goes on to say nobody in the Justice Department or or Senate Intelligence Comittee knew of such request.

Anyone know who these 'officials are'? Anyone care? Of course not.

This is why this whole thing gives me a headache. It is perfectly possible that a request for funds was made but the request never made it through the corridors before it was killed off. It is also perfectly possible that no request was made and a story was planted for political reasons.

As for the 2 officials:
If someone did request the money then it's not likely we will get to know the names of the 2 if they were out of place speaking out loud about classified matters.
If noone asked for funds then well, the 2 officials are as real as unicorns and obviously no real names will emerge.

The news, and the public, can only know what was told but to say something is easy, all you need is to open the mouth and make sounds. Words are cheap and effective but they don't have to be true, they just can be, and all involved in this fully comprehend that. Journalists don't always realise it and they become useful tools. Some do realise it and join the merry band of speakers.

Rockstar

05-11-17, 10:07 AM

Von Due

05-11-17, 10:21 AM

Today in politics evidence is not required, the accused never gets a right to face his accuser. accusations just have to be shouted long enough by mysterious officials and anonymous sources that it becomes percieved as truth.

The public should be afraid of whats going in but instead they salivate over it.

Remember though that in this particular case, there is information that you and I are cut off from. This information is necessary to form any serious opinion.

As for evidence in politics, that is nothing new. You can trace that back to the most ancient of ancient times. What complicates the matter is when genuine security, personal interests and the "need" for evidence collide. "Need" as in, you and I don't need evidence. The courtrooms and investigating bodies need it.

EDIT
To highlight the ignorance-leading-to-confusion outside the "circle"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39886496
To say it doesn't add up is an understatement. There is info not available to the public.

vienna

05-11-17, 03:41 PM

Another point to consider is how the 'sources' issue cuts both ways. The use of 'unidentified' or 'undisclosed' citations is a tool used by all facets and levels of the political landscape. It goes to even the highest levels; when Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State, he used to speak to reporters, particularly while on diplomatic trips, and give them extensive background information on the condition the reporters would report they got the information from 'an unspecified source' or 'an anonymous high-level source in the State Department' 'speaking on condition of anonymity"; the whole arrangement is just a big game, of sorts: the reporters get the news from a trusted, albeit anonymous, source, and the source gets out information to the public without either jeopardizing their career, going officially on the record and, perhaps, adversely affecting some a current situation, or prematurely giving an official imprimatur to the information...

Remember, when a 'source' is cited, the effect is limited to the court of public opinion; when Trump, someone who is widely, and verifiably, known to lie for his own convenience, pulls a 'fact' out of his particular orifice and offers it up as absolute truth, the effect is far more serious...

<O>

vienna

05-11-17, 03:49 PM

Case in point on Trump's orifice pulling:

Key portions of the White House’s explanation of how President Trump decided to fire FBI Director James Comey came into question on Thursday, underlining a growing credibility crisis for the administration.

Remarkably, it was Trump himself who undercut statements from White House officials about the firing.

In an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, the president said he had made up his mind about getting rid of Comey even before receiving a recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions (http://thehill.com/people/jeff-sessions).

“I was going to fire regardless of the recommendation,” Trump said.

On Tuesday night, the White House had stressed that Trump decision to fire Comey came in response to a memo from Rosenstein that criticized the FBI director's handling of the probe into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (http://walter.thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton)'s use of a private email server while secretary of State. That memo was sent to Trump on Tuesday and stated that Comey had done “substantial damage” to the FBI’s credibility.

Since then, White House aides and Vice President Pence repeatedly said the president had acted on the recommendation of the Justice Department.

Trump’s comments Thursday sent aides scrambling to reconcile the conflicting storylines.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333008-white-houses-fbi-story-unravels

Say, is that Sean Spicer I see hiding 'in/among' the bushes, again?...

<O>

Bilge_Rat

05-11-17, 04:35 PM

finally, the Times gets it right...

For Trump Supporters, the Real Outrage Is the Left’s Uproar Over Comey

WASHINGTON — The script should be familiar by now. President Trump takes action that stuns the country, eliciting indignation and disbelief from Democrats and leading them to conclude that the vitality of American democracy is under assault.

Yet among those who are sympathetic to the president — a minority, to be sure, but somewhere around 40 percent of the country, according to recent polls — the outrage is that Mr. Trump is again being held to an unfair standard set by the very people and institutions that tried to stop his election in the first place: Democrats, resentful Republicans and, perhaps most of all, the news media.

That has certainly been the divide as the country absorbed the news that Mr. Trump had fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director. The move was widely hailed by conservatives online, on talk radio, on Fox News and among the president’s allies in Washington: the universe in which views of Mr. Trump quickly harden in the right’s collective consciousness.

More clearly than other recent Trump-induced uproars, the reaction to the Comey firing illustrated how many conservatives now justify their defense of the president as part of a fight against a rising tide of overreaction and manufactured hysteria by the left. Mr. Trump, who has long understood the political power of demonizing his opponents as crazed and irrational, has helped stoke those resentments.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/for-trump-supporters-the-real-outrage-is-the-lefts-uproar-over-comey.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

vienna

05-11-17, 05:08 PM

...and, it seems, the pool of 'core' supporters is dwindling:

Trump's favorability ratings slipped among some demographics that carried him to victory in the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton), including white voters without college degrees, white men and independent voters.

Trump's approval rating is near its lowest mark since he took office, which was 35 points in early April, according to Quinnipiac.

...

According to Quinnipiac's poll, Trump's biggest drop in support this month was from white voters who didn't go to college. Just 47 percent now approve of Trump's administration, compared with 57 percent in April.
Other findings in the survey centered on Trump's treatment of the media and vice versa. The poll found that 58 percent of the voters polled do not approve of the job the news media has done covering Trump's White House. But a majority, 65 percent, also disapproved of Trump's treatment of the press.http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/332787-poll-trumps-approval-ratings-among-voters-near-record-lows

A link to the actual survey page:

American voters disapprove 58 - 37 percent of the way the news media covers Trump. Voters disapprove 65 - 31 percent of the way Trump talks about the media. And voters trust the media more than Trump 57 - 31 percent to tell the truth about important issues.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2456

Note: this survey was taken before the firing of Comey...

Not a ringing endorsement for Trump...

A little bit of a laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDdKT9UiYKU

<O>

em2nought

05-11-17, 07:47 PM

...and, it seems, the pool of 'core' supporters is dwindling:

I wouldn't be too sure about that, the whole dog and pony show may just be cementing what his supporters believed all along in regard to the deep state. If Trump was somehow forced out it will probably be all of them in the streets instead of the little communists from their momma's basements, and Trumps supporters are much better armed. ...But then that's why Obama bought so much extra hollow point ammo for departments like the SSA in the first place. :hmmm:

eddie

05-11-17, 09:27 PM

I wouldn't be too sure about that, the whole dog and pony show may just be cementing what his supporters believed all along in regard to the deep state. If Trump was somehow forced out it will probably be all of them in the streets instead of the little communists from their momma's basements, and Trumps supporters are much better armed. ...But then that's why Obama bought so much extra hollow point ammo for departments like the SSA in the first place. :hmmm:

Oh wow, Trump supporters have guns!! Everyone run and hide, they are breaking out of the zoo!!:haha::haha:

em2nought

05-11-17, 10:20 PM

Oh wow, Trump supporters have guns!! Everyone run and hide, they are breaking out of the zoo!!:haha::haha:
http://www.davidstuff.com/historical/bost-mass-revere.jpg

vienna

05-11-17, 11:25 PM

Watching Trump's interviews, it seems we're getting closer to this:

https://i2.wp.com/editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BrancJ/2017/BrancJ20170126_low.jpg

Oh, and about an 'armed revolt' by Trump loyalists, they seemed more inclined to do mischief to themselves than anyone else, much like their 'hero':

https://www.christianforums.com/data/attachment-files/2016/08/233750_17bc276e1cc14059e5d82523149c284a.jpg

<O>

Catfish

05-12-17, 05:54 AM

Trump contradicts himself again today, regarding the firing of Comey.

"I was going to fire regardless of (their) recommendation," said Trump,calling Comey a "showboat" and "grandstander."

But Trump said this week that he fired Comey because he was "not doing a good job," and that "the FBI has been in turmoil." "You know that, I know that. Everybody knows that". "You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil, less than a year ago, it hasn't recovered from that." Trump said.

Except everyone does not know that, including Andrew McCabe, the FBI's new acting director.
The White House said this week that Comey had lost the confidence of the bureau, which is a lie.
“The vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to Director Comey,” McCabe said, which continues "to this day."
The firing of Comey, McCabe said, would not deter the FBI's investigation into Trump's campaign and Russia: "Simply put, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing."
In the link Vienna provided it already was clear that the reason for firing him was made up, and that Rosenstein was urged to invent an official reason.
So the FBI will not stop its examinations regarding ties between Trump and Russia, unless the new FBI director will be a total yes-man. Even then there will at the latest now exist some.. animosities, between the FBI and Trump. :hmmm:

August

05-12-17, 06:51 AM

Good explanation of why Comey had to go:

Which leads us to Mr. Comey’s most recent and obvious conflict of all—likely a primary reason he was fired: the leaks investigation (or rather non-investigation). So far the only crime that has come to light from this Russia probe is the rampant and felonious leaking of classified information to the press. Mr. Trump and the GOP rightly see this as a major risk to national security. While the National Security Agency has been cooperating with the House Intelligence Committee and allowing lawmakers to review documents that might show the source of the leaks, Mr. Comey’s FBI has resolutely refused to do the same.
Why? The press reports that the FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor Carter Page. It’s still unclear exactly under what circumstances the government was listening in on former Trump adviser Mike Flynn and the Russian ambassador, but the FBI was likely involved there, too. Meaning Mr. Comey’s agency is a prime possible source of the leaks.
In last week’s Senate hearing, Chairman Chuck Grassley pointed out the obvious: The entire top leadership of the FBI is suspect. “So how,” Mr. Grassley asked, “can the Justice Department guarantee the integrity of the investigations without designating an agency, other than the FBI, to gather the facts and eliminate senior FBI officials as suspects?” Mr. Comey didn’t provide much of an answer.
All this—the Russia probe, the unmasking, the leaks, the fraught question of whether the government was inappropriately monitoring campaigns, the allegations of interference in a presidential campaign—is wrapped together, with Mr. Comey at the center. The White House and House Republicans couldn’t have faith that the FBI would be an honest broker of the truth. Mr. Comey should have realized this, recused himself from ongoing probes, and set up a process to restore trust. He didn’t. So the White House did it for him.
Colleagues describe Mr. Comey as an honorable man. The problem seems to be that his sense of perfect virtue made him blind to his own conflicts and the mess he had made. New leadership at the FBI is a chance for a fresh start.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-james-comey-had-to-go-1494542297

Catfish

05-12-17, 06:57 AM

"In last week’s Senate hearing, Chairman Chuck Grassley pointed out the obvious: The entire top leadership of the FBI is suspect. “

What else can it be.

August

05-12-17, 07:05 AM

Another interesting article on the subject:

There are of course many reasons why one might oppose Trump’s decision to fire Comey, but none of them remotely deserve the hyperbolic responses that Comey’s termination has elicited. There are two sides to every story, and in this case the other side has, at least for the moment, the better of the argument.

The first point to note is that Comey deserved to be fired, long ago, for the offenses that were set out in the memorandum (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767) of May 9, 2017 (subject line: “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI”), that Rod Rosenstein prepared, which outlined Comey’s breaches of his duties as FBI head. Rosenstein, the newly appointed deputy attorney general, cogently described several significant errors of judgment, mainly having to do with Comey’s public statements about his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state.

But, if anything, he understated the case against Comey. First, he treated the initial investigation of Hillary Clinton back in March 2015 with kid gloves (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-treated-clinton-with-kid-gloves-1475709394). There were the inexcusable decisions to grant immunities to key Clinton backers without first serving them with a subpoena that would have allowed the FBI to extract a quid pro quo for any immunity that thereafter might be granted. Second, the FBI allowed Clinton’s key aide Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, to act as her legal counsel, even though she herself was a legitimate target of investigation who could have faced charges. And they did not conduct any of the ambush interviews that are commonly given in cases where criminal prosecution is warranted. The obvious inference is that Comey was kowtowing to his superiors in the Obama White House.

Next, of course, was his public statement (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system) on July 5, 2016, in which he gave a thoroughly unsatisfactory explanation as to why he chose not to prosecute Clinton for her use of an unauthorized server that, in a case involving lesser persons, would have resulted in serious criminal charges, wholly without regard as to whether unauthorized persons hacked into the site (which they surely did).

Once Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as Judge Laurence Silberman wrote (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-notorious-2016-for-ginsburg-and-comey-1487978570), “sort of half-recused herself” from the case, any charging decision should have been made by or at the direction of Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general. As Rosenstein rightly said in his memo, no experienced law enforcement figure thought that Comey acted correctly in issuing a public statement that explained his point of view.

Finally, his late October surprise, rightly castigated by none other than the New Yorker’s Cassidy (http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/james-comeys-october-surprise), that he was conducting another investigation of Clinton, one that went nowhere, was likewise a breach of his duties.

The common response to this line of attack is that criticisms of Comey’s conduct in the Clinton investigation had nothing to do with the president’s decision, which was made, we are confidently told (on the basis of no firm evidence), because Comey was hot on the trail of information about possible ties between Trump, his supporters, and the Russians during the campaign. But it is also the case that Comey has made no effort to distance himself from this earlier conduct, and indeed affirmed in his Senate testimony (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/03/read-the-full-testimony-of-fbi-director-james-comey-in-which-he-discusses-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.1abd6496b5eb) of May 3, 2017, that with respect to his October 28 letter on Clinton, even though the episode had made him “mildly nauseous,” he would do it all over again.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/11/15625990/comey-deserved-fired-no-constitutional-crisis-liberals-hyperventilate

Bilge_Rat

05-12-17, 08:30 AM

...and, it seems, the pool of 'core' supporters is dwindling:

A poll discussion? goody. :ping:

Actually Trump's support is as strong as on election day.

1st, Rasmussen still has his approval rating at 48%:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

2nd, according to a recent poll, only 2% of Trump voters regret their vote vs 15% for Hillary:

Moreover, while Democrats find solace in this national poll's results, the fact remains that ABC/WaPo find no evidence of buyer's remorse among Trump supporters.

Among those who report having voted for him in November, 96 percent today say it was the right thing to do; a mere 2 percent regret it.

And if a rerun of the election were held today, the poll indicates even the possibility of a Trump victory in the popular vote among 2016 voters.

Among Americans who say they voted in the 2016 election, 46 percent say they voted for Hillary Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, very close to the 2-point margin in the actual popular vote results. However, while Trump would retain almost all of his support if the election were held again today (96 percent), fewer of Clinton's supporters say they’d stick with her (85 percent), producing a 40-43 percent Clinton-Trump result in this hypothetical re-do among self-reported 2016 voters.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-23/despite-historically-low-approval-ratings-only-2-trump-voters-regret-their-decision

3rd, Trump support among Republicans is still at 83%(see p.8)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/Ipsos_Core_Political-Topline-2017-05-10.pdf

so there has been no erosion of Trump's support among his voters.

Comey's firing will not change that since most voters agree with it:

overall 35% approve-33% against:

Just over a third of voters, 35 percent, say Trump was right to remove Comey as FBI director this week, the poll shows. But roughly the same share, 33 percent, say Trump should have allowed Comey to continue as FBI director. Another 32 percent said they didn’t know or had no opinion.

Republicans: 62% for-10% against:

Republican voters mostly back Trump’s decision: 62 percent say he was right to fire Comey, while only 10 percent think Comey should have stayed on.

Independents: 30% for-28% against:

Independents are evenly divided: 30 percent think Trump made the right decision, 28 percent say Comey should have stayed and 42 percent are undecided.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/11/poll-james-comey-firing-approval-238279

so no, Trump's support remains as strong as ever.

What we are seeing now is yet another total meltdown by Democrats and the anti-Trump media, but none of that will have any impact since none of them would ever support Trump.

What is different from previous meltdowns is that Republicans in Congress are no longer even pretending to be "concerned" by the issues raised by their Democratic colleagues, they are just ignoring them.

But that is not surprising, the Democrats and the liberal media have been in total meltdown mode over every action taken by Trump since the election. Just like the Boy that cried Wolf, at a certain point, it just becomes so much white noise...:ping:

Nippelspanner

05-12-17, 09:06 AM

so no, Trump's support remains as strong as ever.
http://i.imgur.com/XUbu2W0.png

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Yes, tremendously strong.
Also, why does it only matter if Republicans support him (not saying they do or don't)?
Wouldn't it matter most what the country as a whole thinks?

Core beliefs, anyone?

Bilge_Rat

05-12-17, 09:23 AM

Also, why does it only matter if Republicans support him (not saying they do or don't)?
Wouldn't it matter most what the country as a whole thinks?

Because elections are won by coalitions.

Democrats will never support him so you can ignore what they think.

If he has solid Republican support, then GOP congressmen will support his agenda, the fundraising will roll in, volunteers will show up, etc., all crucial elements to winning in 2020.

Independents are by nature fickle, if Trump goes into 2020 with strong GOP support and depending who the Democrats put up, he gets a good chunk of independents, the he has a good shot at re-election.

So yes, where we are now in the election cycle, the most important number is GOP support.

If that number goes down, then yes, he is in trouble.

vienna

05-12-17, 10:28 AM

...yes, and GOP support only garnered Trump a second place finish at barely over 46% of the vote and 3 million votes less than the DEM candidate. No matter how you slice it, the GOP was/is a minority party and Trump is a minority president; 54% of us voters voted for any one else but Trump and no matter how many times you crow about how 'popular' Trump is with GOP voters, the fact remains the rest of us, the majority of voters, have no use for him or his 'politics'. Trump won, not by the will of the voters, but, rather by a machination of the Electoral College process, something the Clinton camp took for granted; do not assume the same mistake will be repeated...

Basing your conclusion Trump still has a shot at reelection (if he doesn't manage to get himself removed) on his high numbers within the GOP is specious; taking a selected sample of the whole and saying it represents the whole is a questionable tactic. Here in Los Angeles, there are a large number of former New Yorkers and a large number of them have formed a NY Yankees booster club; if I were to ask them what they think of their team, I am fairly confident I would get an overwhelmingly positive answer regarding the Yankees; does this prove the Yankees are the overwhelming favorite baseball team in the city of LA? Well, the Yankees are that group's overwhelming favorite, and those fans are a 'core' group, and they are very vocal about their stance, but I think, realistically, the very much larger group of LA Dodger fans have more of a say as to who the majority of LA thinks is the better team. So, Trump is popular among the GOP: so what? It's a minority of the voters, and, at the rate some of the non-"core" elements are wavering, if not actually bailing, the very small "core" may be all the GOP will have left. Look at the graph Nipplespanner posted: what does it say about Trump that the two lines, Approve and Disapprove, are moving steadily apart? And what does it say that Trump is the first president to have his ratings at or below the ratings when he took office, something not even the worst presidents have experienced. You say elections are won by coalitions; very true. But reelections are won by broadening the size of the coalition beyond the base or "core". In this, Trump is failing miserably; and, if his decline continues, the GOP stands to lose everything come 2020 and to lose significantly in 2018. Consider this: if Trumpcare gets enacted as Trump has fashioned it, a very large number of those who will lose healthcare coverage or have coverage severely curtailed are voters in the states that helped Trump win the Electoral College in 2016; will they look favorably on Trump and, by extension, the GOP, in 2020? Beyond those "core" states, what about other issues such as the newly revived Federal efforts to re-criminalize marijuana or rollback environmental protections, etc.? As the effects of Trump policies becomes closer to the everyday lives of the voters, do you really think they are going to sit there and say "Well, he and the GOP have taken away the health care I and my family really need, but you know what? I'm gonna vote for him again, anyway."?...

For the GOP, the really most important number is not the GOP support; they already have that and they are, numerically, the minority party. In 2018, the Mid-Terms are a pure vote: no electoral colleges, no swing states, no finagling;one person, one vote. They need numbers to win and they need numbers larger than what they have now. They need to retain control of the House and their 'core' cannot guarantee that outcome. If Trump continues to hobble the GOP, there is very little chance the non-GOP voters will be sympathetic enough to the GOP to lend them their vote. Without a goodly portion of the non-GOP vote, they have no coalition and they will have no win, and that will be thanks to Trump and the GOP backing him...

<O>

vienna

05-12-17, 10:47 AM

Bilge_Rat

05-12-17, 11:03 AM

An analysis of the whole Trump/Comey mess:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/05/12/daily-202-trump-s-warning-to-comey-deepens-doubts-about-his-respect-for-the-rule-of-law/5915063ee9b69b209cf2b814/

<O>

analysis? you mean DNC press release....:ping:

Bottom line, POTUS has the power to remove the FBI director at will.

The only way POTUS can be removed is through impeachment and that will not happen as long as Republicans control Congress, not matter how much journalists who pretend to be lawyers try to twist facts to try to create potential legal issues.

According to a recent poll, 50% of voters don't even know who the FBI director is, do you really they are going to get worked up about his firing?

Platapus

05-12-17, 12:47 PM

We live in interesting times....

vienna

05-12-17, 01:41 PM

Nobody disputes the president's ability to dismiss an FBI director; it's the how, when, and why that's the bottom line issue, one for which Trump and/or his minions have been unable to even coordinate a coherent explanation, and don't haul out the old saw that 'a president doesn't have to explain his actions'; real life doesn't work that way and, while it may be the norm for third-world banana republics or old world oligarchies, our system, the US system of law and governance, does, in fact, require accountability and oversight; the president is neither a law unto himself nor is he above or beyond the purview of the Congress or the investigative reach of the Judiciary. If Trump, or his followers, believe otherwise, then they are sorely lacking in knowledge or understanding of this nation, odd given how much they wrap themselves in the flag. If Trump is removed, or any President, for that matter, it will be because of a broad range of transgressions or failings; there have been two impeachment proceedings in US history and both of them failed, ending in acquittals both times. Why? Because the political forces trying to remove those Presidents based their accusations and arguments on a very narrow scope and did not meet the degree of severity associated with full impeachment and removal. Nixon resigned after the a House committee voted in favor of three articles of impeachment to be sent to the full House for action; in Nixon's case the charges were for cumulative and widespread violations and transgressions, not just one or two matters, and Nixon opted to resign rather than face the inevitable. If Trump is removed, it will be for a broad range of issues, to which he seems to be hell-bent on providing. And the claim that it is mainly journalists who are raising concerns about the actions and activities of Trump & Co. is also specious: there is broad criticism and concern, across party lines, by legal scholars and law enforcement and investigatory experts over the conduct of the White House and its occupants, concerns about matters beyond just the firing of an FBI director. Remember, Nixon's articles of impeachment were handed down for 1) obstruction of justice, 2) abuse of power, and 3) contempt of Congress. Trump seems well along on the first two and also seems to be leaning towards the third...

The really odd part of this whole situation is no one has actually linked Trump personally to any personal involvement or collusion with Russia, yet he continues to act as if he is about to be held accountable. The only persons being actively investigated by Congress and the Justice Department (at least until Sessions scuttles the probe) are members of Trump's campaign and transition teams, not Trump himself, but he seemingly insists on engaging in furtive, combative behavior as if the hammer was about to fall on him, personally. Is there something he is afraid will be revealed that will lead to his removal?; Is that why, by his own account, he has been repeatedly asking if he was under investigation? If there isn't, then he should just let the Russian investigations play out and, if some of his associates should happen to be found to be criminally involved, then he will have already distanced himself from taint. All he is doing now is just adding to the idea he has something very serious to hide...

I've said it before and I will say it again: Barring a massive 'smoking gun' situation, I don't believe Trump will be swept up in the Russia investigation fallout, as long as he distances himself from the process. He should just do what Clinton did when he was being assailed: just do the job you were elected to do, don't act guilty, and let the process play out. If Trump is brought up on charges at all, it will most likely be where he is most vulnerable: the questions of conflict-of-interest regarding his (and his family's) business interests, the possibility of emoluments infractions, and an active effort to obstruct justice; he could avoid the latter just by not doing anything at all...

...but, given Trump's personality, style, and overweening ego, the chance he's going to take the wiser course and keep out of it is negligible...

<O>

Catfish

05-12-17, 01:51 PM

German newspaper claims Trump's son Barron (11) will be the new head of the FBI. Evidence:
http://www.der-postillon.com/2017/05/barron-fbi.html
:O:

Platapus

05-12-17, 02:45 PM

vienna

05-12-17, 02:52 PM

Since these days, the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint the Director of the FBI, should the rules be changed to require the advice and consent to fire the Director of the FBI?

A very good question. Should this possible change be extended to other high impact appointments, Secretary of State, Defense Secretary, etc.?

<O>

August

05-12-17, 03:08 PM

Since these days, the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint the Director of the FBI, should the rules be changed to require the advice and consent to fire the Director of the FBI?

I'd think it'd take more than a simple rules change. Wouldn't such an action require a constitutional amendment?

vienna

05-12-17, 03:40 PM

I'd think it'd take more than a simple rules change. Wouldn't such an action require a constitutional amendment?

Perhaps, not. The Constitution just requires two-thirds approval for treaties in the same clause where the need for approval of appointments is specified, but the two-thirds requirement apparently does not extend to the appointments. Someone more familiar with Senate rules will have to weigh in on this, but, IIRC, the Senate has been making up the rules for appointments as exhibited when the Senate modified the votes needed in order to secure the approval of Gorsuch to the SCOTUS. Since the Constitution seems to have left the nature, rules and practice of approving appointments to the Senate and does not specify explicitly the need for Senate approval of a removal of an previously Senate-approved appointee, nor does it bar such, it seems possible to argue, if the Senate can make up the rules to approve, they are within their purview to establish rules for removal... :hmmm:

<O>

vienna

05-12-17, 03:48 PM

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/05/12/trump-admitted-obstructed-justice-now-needs/ppXfOOFa1z3HZLK20vNbIN/story.html

<O>

vienna

05-12-17, 03:58 PM

Just in -- another Trump lie held up to the light and some good advice from James Clapper:

The former intelligence chief also dismissed Trump’s assertion that the Russia investigation is “fake news,” and indirectly issued some advice to the White House to cooperate with the inquiry.

“What needs to happen here is to clear this cloud, the cloud that’s hanging over the administration, over the president, over the White House, and it would be in everyone’s best interest to get to the bottom of this.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clapper-refutes-trump-dont-know-collusion-not-180540949.html

<O>

Platapus

05-12-17, 04:59 PM

No constitutional change needed.

28 US CODE section 532 was amended in the mid 1970's to require senate confirmation of new Directors. That law can easily be changed again.

August

05-13-17, 05:11 PM

In more news Rhode Island Democrats are considering legislation to require a candidate for public office to release his taxes before he can be added to the ballot.

Not all that bad of an idea but I think they need to extend it to birth certificates and college transcripts too or it's just another Dem attempt to legislate Trump out of the White House.

mapuc

05-13-17, 05:46 PM

I hope I'm not stepping on somebody's toes, when having read my comments

This Trump Vs the fired FBI Director story looks more and more like a bad B-version of a sitcom made by Hollywood.

Markus

Rockstar

05-13-17, 06:12 PM

excellent observation.

August

05-13-17, 09:52 PM

Just think of the movies that will come out of it. I'll bet Oliver Stone is already assembling background material!

Skybird

05-14-17, 05:33 AM

It got reported that during a meeting with Trump in the WH, Trump repeatedly pressed Comey for pledging himself personally to the person of Trump, not to the duties and role of Comey's office, duties, and service, which are not the person of the president perosnally, but the FBI. Führergehorsam, we call that in German, or Nibelungentreue. Comey should have rejected that demand to allow getting corrupted by Trump, which led to Trump repeatedly pushing him for it again, mistaking professional honesty with personal loyalty. Later, as we know, Trump attacked Comey for dishonesty and attacked his character. He also tried to intimdate him in words via the press and wanred him against revelaing to the public what he called internal information, which of course wa smeant to be a warnign to not tell the public what coup against the FBI Trump was running.

This is no longer just harmless odditiy, this is the behviour of a man that is not any different from banana republic dictators and tyrants like Erdghan or Putin. Trump tries acts and speaks the language of the godfather of some Sicilian Mafia clan. And as commentators have started to point out, he started to really damage the substance of the US constitutional and legal order.

From a purely American perspective , he must be removed, no matter how. Better yesterday than today. This is becoming dangerous far earlier than I assumed it to be possible.

I can only hope that the Russian connection breaks Trump's neck - and that of his damn clan that he tries to anchor in the Washington soil as the new dynasty haunting America for times to come.

This was always the main question: Would President Trump go beyond mere Twitter abuse and move against institutions that limit his power? By any reasonable standard, we now have an answer.

Trump’s official rationale for firing FBI Director James B. Comey (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/comey-misstated-key-clinton-email-evidence-at-hearing-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/05/09/074c1c7e-34bd-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.0c20aa0cddbd)— that the president was suddenly seized with outrage at the shocking treatment of Hillary Clinton by the FBI during the election — is false in a typically Trump-like way. It requires his supporters to demonstrate their loyalty by defending the indefensible. This is apparently the manner in which Trump identifies true believers. They must be willing, when instructed, to say that 2+2=5. On cable television.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-test-of-our-tolerance-for-trump-comes-now/2017/05/11/d9558c6a-3679-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html

During his famous interviews with David Frost in 1977, Richard Nixonmade a statement regarding Watergate that has been mockingly quoted ever since. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he said to Frost. Nixon was a smart lawyer and a close student of the Constitution. He was basically right. The president, in effect, sits above the law. The Justice Department, after all, works for him. Refusing to follow certain ethical guidelines in separating himself from his business empire, Trump told the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0), “The law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Most lawyers say he is right. The rules don’t really apply to the president.

(...)

There are only two forces left that can place some constraints on Trump — the courts and the media — and he has relentlessly attacked both (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/04/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-who-temporarily-blocked-travel-ban/?utm_term=.82eb784406da). Every time a court has ruled against one of his executive orders, the president has ridiculed the decision or demeaned the judges involved. To their enormous credit, the courts have not been deterred from standing up to the president.
That leaves the media. Trump has gone at them (us) like no president before, smearing news organizations (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html), attacking individual journalists (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donald-trump-news-conference-anti-semitism/)and threatening to strip legal protections (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/30/media/libel-laws-donald-trump-new-york-times/) guaranteed to a free press. We will survive, but we must recognize the stakes.
The media should cover the administration’s policies fairly. But they must also never let the public forget that many of the attitudes and actions of this president are gross violations of the customs and practices of the modern American system — that they are aberrations and cannot become the new norms.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-president-almost-sits-above-the-law-thats-a-bigger-problem-than-ever/2017/05/11/81c05dd0-368e-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.b0e96d4ba949

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/33167708/puppe.jpg (https://www.pic-upload.de)
Board of CEOs of the autocrat and macho corporation. (We hope for our first quota female).

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/33167714/russ.jpg (https://www.pic-upload.de)
"there aint no Russian connection... there aint no Russian connection... there aint no Russian connection..."

by Stuttman, Der Tagesspiegel

August

05-14-17, 07:45 AM

Nippelspanner

05-14-17, 07:53 AM

Interesting, what "fake news" claim is immediately a lie - no need for further investigation.
Your President says "not true", and you immediately fall in line as if it is therefore true - despite the fact that Trump so far spend 3 days in office where he didn't spread some sort of lies.
Oh and on two of these days, he went golfing.

The day will come many people here will fall over their own bias, and make a pretty dumb face when they start to finally realize what 1+1 equals... but this seems to take longer than expected.

Rockstar

05-14-17, 09:27 AM

Dictorship my butt. The duty of a department head in the executive branch of government is supposed to advise and carry out the policies of the chief executive. If they cannot do that then they get fired and the chief executive gets to find someone who will.

Skybird

05-14-17, 09:57 AM

2+2=5. "I do not pull the cat's tail, I just hold it tight."

August

05-14-17, 11:16 AM

One equals a million

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heasnJY8HMM

What will one do when the real wolves assemble and everyone is tired of ones lies?

Platapus

05-14-17, 11:43 AM

I don't like the idea of requiring an elected person to publicly release their tax forms. As long as the IRS certifies that there is nothing wrong with it, that is all that should be required.

I doubt the average person will even understand the tax forms of someone with a complicated business and family background, so we would be back where we are now with political commentators just spinning it as they like it.

It is nice that politicians voluntarily release personal data, but I don't want it a requirement. Of course, the voters are free to make their own inferences based on the activity of the politician.

vienna

05-14-17, 07:00 PM

Skybird you're basing this enormous wall of text on what the New York Times claims unidentified associates of Comey heard him say. Hardly the most solid of sources especially coming from that rag. The president flat out denies that he asked Comey for a loyalty oath. Comey himself has not said that such a pledge was demanded of him.

In other words this is just another political attack on the president by a hostile media organization with a proven track record of collusion with the Democratic party. Just more mud tossed by the liberals in the hopes that enough suckers will believe it to make a difference to their dwindling power.

Trump flat out denies something? That fountain of truth and honesty? Really?? That's your argument?? "Sad, weak". Actually, the real meat of Trump's troubles have been caused by, predictably, Trump himself. He really must have a lot of lead in his heiney, given how often he shoots himself there. Aside from doing a boneheaded thing like firing the head of the investigative agency charged with either confirming or clearing the allegations against Trump associates (and, again, there have been no official allegations against Trump, himself), he then compounds the whole mess by first denying the firing had anything to do with the Russian-influence investigation and then he reverses himself and says the decision was based on the investigation. To fully top off the mess he's gotten himself into, he then hints at the existence of "tapes" of conversations he had with Comey. Trump is his own worst enemy; every action he takes screams out a high suspicion of guilt. Someone compared Trump's actions to those of a child who comes into the house and tells his/her parent, out of the blue, "I didn't throw my shoes up on the roof!" and walks away; the parent instantly has more than a passing suspicion, if they check the roof, the shoes will be there. Trump's furtiveness, prevarication, and duplicity only serve to further make the idea of his possible guilt take hold. His own party is steadily moving away from supporting his actions and he is rapidly losing any traction he might have had with the public...

His latest idiocy of hinting at the existence of "tapes" may be very costly; members of the House and Senate, from both parties, are now calling for him to 'put up or shut up'. They want him to either produce the tapes and prove his allegations and assertions, or they want him to admit he was lying about any "tapes" and to publicly apologize to Comey and the American people:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-and-democrats-agree-if-trump-has-tapes-hell-need-to-turn-them-over-to-congress/2017/05/14/cbfea12a-38b6-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html

These are not made up transgressions or allegations of misuse of power; they are very real and Trump, again, has no one to ultimately blame but himself. It is highly conceivable the situation will get worse for Trump, and by extension, the GOP; the really sad part is, all this would have been unnecessary if Trump had just shut up and gotten out of the way...

Oh, and for those who nod their heads like bobble-head dolls in agreement with Trump and the Far Right assertion the whole investigation has been born out of the DEMs 'sour grapes' over losing the Electoral College vote, there is no better response than a factual timeline:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/12/donald-trump/trump-calls-trump-russia-story-made-/

Dictorship my butt. The duty of a department head in the executive branch of government is supposed to advise and carry out the policies of the chief executive. If they cannot do that then they get fired and the chief executive gets to find someone who will.

You know, I seem to remember the FBI Director is required, by law, to take an oath of office; now how does it go? Oh, yes, exactly like this:

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I must be missing something. Did Trump or the Congress change the oath to specify absolute loyalty to the President? I can't seem to find it in there, anywhere. Perhaps you would be so kind to point it out to us. Also, the oath says "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Now, to investigate the possibility of a foreign power to interfere with the conduct of the US political system, in any way, seems to cover the foreign enemies part; I'd say a President who consciously, deliberately, knowingly, and with intent acts in such a way as to interfere, perhaps criminally, with the legitimate investigation into such a matter has made himself little more than a domestic enemy. The FBI Director is not obligated to pledge fealty to anyone or anything other than Constitution of the United States of America, nor is he beholden to any political party, political agenda, or individual caprices of Congress or the occupant of the White House. Comey was doing his job, and given he has pissed off Presidents from both parties, he seems to have been doing the job well; the big difference is, the prior the Presidents, even though they were not necessarily always happy with the course of Comey's action, they were at least smart enough to stay out of the way and let whatever was being done play out; this president seems to lack both the basic knowledge of his office and the common sense of an average person. Even working people have more sense: if faced with an employer who is engaging in illegal or unethical conduct, most honest people would at least quit if not turn the matter over to the proper authorities. Common street criminals have more sense than Trump and his minions...

Regarding foreign enemies, it must be great to win a war without firing a shot:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/11/15616798/trump-comey-fire-fbi-putin-russia-influence-election

<O>

Bilge_Rat

05-14-17, 08:12 PM

Oh, and for those who nod their heads like bobble-head dolls in agreement with Trump and the Far Right assertion the whole investigation has been born out of the DEMs 'sour grapes' over losing the Electoral College vote, there is no better response than a factual timeline:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/12/donald-trump/trump-calls-trump-russia-story-made-/

<O>

Politifact?

that is your source?

:har::har::har::har:

vienna

05-14-17, 09:04 PM

Politifact?

that is your source?

:har::har::har::har:

The source does not refute the facts, the same facts that are available from other sources, as well...

So, basically, your argument to any posit of reality is a schoolyard "Sez you..."... :rolleyes:

Being unable to actually intelligently refuting facts or offering up cogent counterarguments and resorting to mocking a source as your form of rebuttal? "Sad, sad, sad and weak, weak, weak". No wonder Trump was able to sell his shoddy bill of fare to all those yokels... :har::har::har::har::har::har:

Come on, use your wits and give an intelligent argument that really has substance and isn't just a regurgitation of 'the party line'... if you can...

<O>

em2nought

05-15-17, 12:49 AM

This is the underhanded thing that's been going on in our institutions of learning ever since I went to university :hmmm: https://www.truthmonitor.com/2017/05/msnbc-host-goes-rogue-admits-truth-about-trump-that-liberals-ignore/

Skybird

05-15-17, 01:37 AM

EVERY political party has an inbuild craving for intellectual erosion and streamlining mono-opinion. Thats what it is there for in the first. And that is why I am against EVERY political party there can be. The whole system design featuring parties, is wrong.

Hooligans. They do not ask for who the better team was in last sunday's match. Because that hooligans always will decide by worn team colours, not by playing performance. My colours: good. Your colours: fistintheface.

Political parties must be destroyed. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Their power priviliges must die with them.

vienna

05-15-17, 01:43 AM

[Truth Monitor]?

that is your source?

:har::har::har::har:(Sorry, some of Bilge_Rat must have infected my post...)... :D

This is how you do it:

Read the article and noticed it was dated "14 hours ago"; checked Google News and Yahoo News to confirm and found no mention. I copied a string of the article's text and found out the original articles (there were more than one) actually first appeared back on or about 12 December 2016, not "14 hours ago"; this indicates that while the "Truth Monitor" article seemed a current response to a current situation, it in fact is a recite of five-month old articles passed off as current 'fact':

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/even-liberals-decry-rise-liberal-echo-chamber/

http://freebeacon.com/politics/morning-joe-blasts-colleges-not-allowing-conservative-ideas/

http://truepundit.com/video-morning-joe-blasts-colleges-for-not-allowing-conservative-ideas-promoting-illiberal-education/

These articles appeared originally a full month ahead of the inauguration Trump and represent a range of opinions, not necessarily fact, about a long-debated issue, an issue that will most likely be argued for as many decades to come as it has for decades preceding: it ultimately proves nothing, conclusively. Like the Trump Campaign-Russian issue, it certainly requires further discussion and investigation...

It must be pointed out the original source of the articles is, in fact, a panel discussion held by and on the MSNBC program Morning Joe; we all know from that paragon of wisdom, Donald Trump, MSNBC is a fountain of "fake news" and misinformation; perhaps the panel discussion was a ruse to raise yet another issue that doesn't exist, you know like ties between Trump campaign staff and Russia; I mean, we can't trust MSNBC because, after all, Trump says they lie and can't be trusted and we all know how honest Donny is...

As far as Truth Monitor is concerned...ahem:

...

A questionable source exhibits any of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence. Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. ...

Bias: Extreme Right

...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/truth-monitor/

The site does go on to give examples of Truth Monitor's apparent disregard for anything near the Truth...

I'm more than willing to listen to anyone's viewpoint as long as that view is based in actual fact, not propaganda, or, worse, tin-foil hat vagaries...

BTW, I actually do believe there is a pervasive liberal bent in higher education and I do believe it colors a great deal of what is taught; is it as serious as the Far-Right makes it out to be? Perhaps not, but it is an interesting question that bears further investigation...

<O>

Nippelspanner

05-15-17, 07:38 AM

Political parties must be destroyed. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Their power priviliges must die with them.

And then what?

Catfish

05-15-17, 08:20 AM

Then democracy is finished, and Skybird will erect his Empire of Doom. :O:

Seriously, with Facebook, the Internet and Google certain groups of people will be presented with certain news, tailored for them, just like those advertisements.
All what a man makes out is measured in spending power, political views are tailored to his liking, there is no "hate" button, only warm fuzzy likes, and his encounter with any hostile group deviating from his point of view has to be avoided at all costs, really or on virtual public platforms.

This is how Breitbart and Fox do it, to get their stuff sold. Not only anymore, of course, other Media jump the bandwagon to be able to sell their bovine scatology. They sell trolling and hate as an "opinion", standing out from this despicable common sense and what they call "political correctness", and which has now to be avoided. Call a Black man a n. again, and all will be fine. It is only the "political correctness" why we have it soo bad.

Since people do not see anything else they will then believe that everybody thinks as they do, and they will then create, and belong to, opinionated swarms, isolated from reality. This is how radicalisation and the downfall of democracy already works. We can see this in the US, and we usually get those things happening here ten years later, though now it will probably be only five years.

After the peeing contest of who can f. itself up better, between brexit lovers and Trump, I wonder who will play the Trump here, after Merkel.

Skybird

05-15-17, 08:46 AM

And then what?

"Destroy the Mafia! Fight corruption, special interests and lobbyism!" - "And then what?"

If you still cannot see why parties and lifelong career politicians are no part of the solution, but part of the problem, and that they do not make things better, but worse, since allways - then I really have nothing new to tell you.

Nippelspanner

05-15-17, 08:52 AM

"Destroy the Mafia! Fight corruption, special interests and lobbyism!" - "And then what?"

If you still cannot see why parties and lifelong career politicians are no part of the solution, but part of the problem, and that they do not make things better, but worse, since allways - then I really have nothing new to tell you.
What "old" can you to tell me, then, if nothing new at all?

Again: Then what?

Bilge_Rat

05-15-17, 09:20 AM

Come on, use your wits and give an intelligent argument that really has substance and isn't just a regurgitation of 'the party line'... if you can...

<O>

when someone actually bothers to have an intelligent discussion, I reply accordingly.

When someone posts Politifact as an unbiased source, I laugh...:haha::haha:

If you want posters to actually reply to your posts intelligently, then stop ranting.

-------------------------------------

The truth is there is no hard evidence of any collusion between Trump and the Russians.

if YOU can come up with even one piece of actual evidence, please post it.

If someone can actually come up with some actual evidence that Trump actually committed a criminal offence, then yes, I will support the appointment of a special counsel.

Until then, this is just a political witch hunt.