US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Buddahaid]

You dismiss half the people then. Zero regard for your opinion.

[Hawk66]

What I do not understand is when you do not like Trump and do not like Clinton, why is there no bigger movement in the US to change the whole process....beginning how candidates are nominated, the de facto dominance of only two parties due to the election system and how the president gets finally elected?

[Sailor Steve]

That was my problem. I didn't want either of them. I voted for a third-party candidate who I know didn't have a chance of winning, and I get accused of stealing votes from the favorite candidate of whoever is doing the accusing. I can't seem to convince them that I didn't want their favorite either.

Of course if I don't vote for either the response is "If you don't vote you don't have a right to complain!" I usually respond with "Of course I have the right to complain. I'll have that right until they put a choice on the ballot that says "None Of The Above".

[Hawk66]

I see.

From my understanding a lot of people have voted for Trump since they want that the establishment has to change. I understand this point.

But, what those people do not seem to realize is that they have voted for the establishment. Not for the typical Washington-er establishment - nevertheless he is within the same power structures, which relies on the influence and power (=money) of the top 1%. A clear sign of that is that (since the unfortunate passing of John Mccain) no one with any power in his party tries to criticize him openly. It is always the second row or some retired military senior officers. A real, smart democratic leader would welcome criticism and feedback because this is the only way to reflect on your decisions and change course if necessary.

If you want that someone does do real changes, you have to identify and elect a proper person, who is outside of the establishment and unites your country and does not do politics for the corporates .
But without realizing that you cannot turn back the time back to the 80s, this will never happen.

[August]

What I do not understand is when you do not like Trump and do not like Clinton, why is there no bigger movement in the US to change the whole process....beginning how candidates are nominated, the de facto dominance of only two parties due to the election system and how the president gets finally elected?


Why? Well as it is now our Presidents are elected by a majority of states. Would having three bad choices (or four or five) for candidates be somehow better? Especially if it means that Presidents would be elected by 33% (or 20/25%)? How is multiple parties working out for say Italy?

Our constitution is deliberately made difficult to change for a very good reason. Despots throughout history from hitler to Chavez have changed their countries constitution in order to secure their power and/or to marginalize their opposition.

In our country if a would be dictator were to come to power they would need at least 3/4ths of the states (38 of 50) to agree to any changes before they can be implemented. IMO that is the primary reason for our countries longevity. Without it I believe we would have splintered into 50 European like nation states long ago and the resultant wars would make European history seem cordial by comparison.

[Hawk66]

Why? Well as it is now our Presidents are elected by a majority of states. Would having three bad choices (or four or five) for candidates be somehow better? Especially if it means that Presidents would be elected by 33% (or 20/25%)? How is multiple parties working out for say Italy?

Our constitution is deliberately made difficult to change for a very good reason. Despots throughout history from hitler to Chavez have changed their countries constitution in order to secure their power and/or to marginalize their opposition.



I do not agree.

First, there are other presidential-oriented democracies, like France, which work fine with more candidates.

Why do you think that more choices lead to more bad choices ? The US system was fine when it was designed but nowadays your country is more diverse, more individual due to immigration and change of lifestyle like in more or less all Western democracies.

More candidates means that potential more potential voters do actually vote, since they have a candidate they can identify with. Also the discussions will be broader, since the other than the two usual candidates do not have to stick to the well established party lines. They bring new ideas, they are disruptive, but in a positive sense. This applies not only for the president but for the two house of crs also. Actually it would to start there...

My thesis and the polls strengthen that is that Trump got elected by accident since a lot of voters where not happy with Trump, nor with Clinton but voted for Trump since he represented some change or this 'establishment' story. Most of those waving voters for sure do not identify themselves with Trump. They had only the alternative to not vote (if they did not like Clinton).

Second, of crs nobody would design a system, where a president gets elected by 33 %, but you need to apply a run-off system. This can foster also unification, since kicked-out candidates usually advice their supporters to vote for one of the two (or more) remaining candidates.

And finally....if one pillar of the system is so powerful that it can lead to a dictatorship then there is a very dangerous design flaw in the system.

I know, you probably do not agree but for my taste the president is too powerful with his decrees, applying judges and so forth. In theory there is a check/balance system but you see that does not work well currently since some senators seem to vote according their own political survival, which is (or they view it at least) connected to Trump (or any other current president).

Isn't it obvious that lifestyle, technology change and so forth requires changes in the constitution, without touching its foundation ? Only societies which are able to adapt will keep their status over the centuries. History is full of such examples...

Frankly, I would like to see the US will keep it, else it will be China.

[Sailor Steve]

Would having three bad choices (or four or five) for candidates be somehow better?
A part of the reason the Constitution is the way it is on Presidential Elections is that the Founders actually envisioned a system in which there would be no parties. This was the reason for having the candidate with the most electoral votes win and the runner-up become vice president. Of course they also didn't imagine what happened in 1800, when both parties ran secondary candidates hoping they would then dominate the top spots, only to have a tie and the opposing major party try to elect the appointed VP rather than the main candidate.

Did I say party? Oh yeah, it took almost no time at all before one of the guiding lights of the new nation had put together a grass-roots movement that grew into the two-party system. As thinkers they tended toward the brilliant, but as politicians they were as cutthroat as any of today's leaders, and probably more so.

[Skybird]

You dismiss half the people then. Zero regard for your opinion.
I hold voters responsible for the votes they make. An uncomfortable concept these days, I know, but thats how I do. If i do like this with the Germans, or the British or the EU fanboys, why should I do different with Trumpomericans and other US voters?


Also, Trump has not "half the people" in support. Not even half of all those who voted. ;) Clinton got more votes, while only 123 million poeple voted in fact o those 223 million who were eligible to vote (74% of total population was eligible to vote, turnout rate on basis of those eligible to vote: 39%). Clinton got 25.6% of all the eligible voters' votes and Trump got 25.5%. Just 59 million people voted for Trump, at a total population of 313 million.

Thats means just 19% of the total US population has voted for Trump. - Or only 40% of the claimed number of yours ("half the people"). Every fifth American only voted actively for Trump.


https://s15.directupload.net/images/181125/u2urjdss.png (https://www.directupload.net)


P.S. I spoiled the math in an earlier version of this post. Corrected now.

[Skybird]

A part of the reason the Constitution is the way it is on Presidential Elections is that the Founders actually envisioned a system in which there would be no parties. This was the reason for having the candidate with the most electoral votes win and the runner-up become vice president. Of course they also didn't imagine what happened in 1800, when both parties ran secondary candidates hoping they would then dominate the top spots, only to have a tie and the opposing major party try to elect the appointed VP rather than the main candidate.

Did I say party? Oh yeah, it took almost no time at all before one of the guiding lights of the new nation had put together a grass-roots movement that grew into the two-party system. As thinkers they tended toward the brilliant, but as politicians they were as cutthroat as any of today's leaders, and probably more so.
Interesting, I did not know that, that idea of not having parties. Interesting to me since I am very sympathetic to the idea myself and often have said that I think all political parties should be forbidden and banned, dissolved - I could imagine for not that different reasons like the founders rejected the idea as well (or did they just not imagine the possibility of parties?) . I only think however, that this can only be had at the cost of enforcing and preventing party bans by the use of force, and that alone makes the idea probably unrealistic for many people, since even the worst possible government and ruining of economy and finances and eroding basic principles of law, constitution or cultural values still seem to be better and more acceptable for most people than using force to push such government - which nowadays base on strong lobby-building and party's power interests overruling national and common interest, not to mention individual networking peoples' careers and ambitions - and parties in general out of existence.


Again my question to you: did the founders just not imagine that there could be parties, or did they indeed recommend not to have parties, trying to prevent them?

[Buddahaid]

I hold voters responsible for the votes they make.

Apparently not, but whatever.

[August]

A part of the reason the Constitution is the way it is on Presidential Elections is that the Founders actually envisioned a system in which there would be no parties. This was the reason for having the candidate with the most electoral votes win and the runner-up become vice president. Of course they also didn't imagine what happened in 1800, when both parties ran secondary candidates hoping they would then dominate the top spots, only to have a tie and the opposing major party try to elect the appointed VP rather than the main candidate.

Did I say party? Oh yeah, it took almost no time at all before one of the guiding lights of the new nation had put together a grass-roots movement that grew into the two-party system. As thinkers they tended toward the brilliant, but as politicians they were as cutthroat as any of today's leaders, and probably more so.


Well maybe it'd be more accurate to say that SOME founders envisioned a party-less system, and they were probably considered as ideological fools by the more realistic ones. Political parties are a natural byproduct of any human devised system of government ever created from republics to monarchies to theocracies to dictatorships, they all have had them. Now they can be public or secret but they have always existed and to wish them away is simply impossible.

Be all that as it may though it'd take nothing less than an entirely new constitution to change our form of government to one that will accommodate multiple parties. If that happens I don't see all 50 states being willing to start from scratch. We'd splinter for sure.

[Sailor Steve]

Well maybe it'd be more accurate to say that SOME founders envisioned a party-less system, and they were probably considered as ideological fools by the more realistic ones.
I can't argue with that. On the other hand I don't know that I'd call the opposition "realistic" in that case, but having a strong agenda. And I'm talking about my own heroes here. Alexander Hamilton accused James Madison of creating the first real American political party as a grass-roots movement to support Jefferson's bid against John Adams. From everything I've seen the accusation was pretty close to the mark.

Be all that as it may though it'd take nothing less than an entirely new constitution to change our form of government to one that will accommodate multiple parties.
I don't see the Constitution as supporting a two-party system now, and I don't think a new one would change that. It might get rid of the Electoral College and change the way we elect the President, but I doubt it would change the way we go about the business of politics.

If that happens I don't see all 50 states being willing to start from scratch. We'd splinter for sure.
Nor do I. I once had a discussion with a college-age man who insisted that we had to have a new Constitutional Convention in order to save the country. When I asked him what he would change he didn't have an answer, but he was sure it had to be done anyway. When I pointed out that starting from scratch was exactly what they did in the first place ("We didn't come to create a new government but to amend the Articles of Confederation." - "We will amend them...right out of existence."), and that once a Convention was actually convened they could do anything they wanted - anything at all, he wasn't quite so sure if that was what he really wanted.

I see some problems with the current form of electioneering, but I'm somewhat leery of changing anything. As a friend of mine liked to say, "Never do anything you can't take back."

[ikalugin]

I wonder if taking away the electoral college would lead to a one party system in the USA.

[Mr Quatro]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fc/95/40/fc9540bfc6d59eb6bd7a651e767ff915--political-science-political-quotes.jpg

[Skybird]

The goal of politics is to simplify life and ease complexity for the people by giving them just one party to chose from.

[Platapus]

I wonder if taking away the electoral college would lead to a one party system in the USA.

There is no need to do away with the Electoral College. That would take a constitutional amendment.

The solution is for each state to decide to assign their electors on a proportional scale instead of the more traditional "winner take all". That does not require any constitutional amendment just a change in the individual state laws.

That will bring the EC in alignment with the popular vote in each state., while still maintaining the concept of the president being elected by the majority of votes in the majority of states.

[August]

Oh but the Electoral College is only the start. How about the idea being floated along with the elimination of the EC that it is unfair to big states that they only get the same number of Senators as small states?

[Sailor Steve]

Whoever propounded that idea is woefully ignorant of history. The representation question was the biggest bone of contention at the original Constitutional Convention, and the two-senators-per-state concept came about because the smaller states objected to proportional representation.

[August]

Whoever propounded that idea is woefully ignorant of history. The representation question was the biggest bone of contention at the original Constitutional Convention, and the two-senators-per-state concept came about because the smaller states objected to proportional representation.


Apparently the debate continues:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/small-states-supreme-court/index.html

[Sailor Steve]

Great. Just great. The guy's either an idiot or a master manipulator.

[Mr Quatro]

Remember not that long ago when the Democrat's were in charge of the House and the Senate? They changed the voting law to a simple majority instead of the 2/3's needed to pass.

That has come back to haunt them ... I fear if they get the House and the Senate back that they could try to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of winner take all in future National Presidential races thinking that they have the numbers to win.

Trump won due to fear of Clinton being able to pick the next two to three Supreme Court justices ... the fear of House and Senate majority rule by the democrats could result in the same thing happening in the 2020 election :yep:

With the GOP (and whoever they pick) winning the WH again :up:

[u crank]

That has come back to haunt them ... I fear if they get the House and the Senate back that they could try to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of winner take all in future National Presidential races thinking that they have the numbers to win.

The Electoral College is established in the Constitution .. Article II. What that means is that to abolish or alter it in any way requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

Seems unlikely.

[Mr Quatro]

The Electoral College is established in the Constitution .. Article II. What that means is that to abolish or alter it in any way requires is a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

Seems unlikely.

Oh I see, never mind!

[August]

Interesting article on a case being heard by the Supreme Court over the Governments asset forfeiture program.


On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Timbs v. Indiana, a case that could have huge ramifications for the way states and local governments use civil asset forfeiture to target the property of suspected criminals. As most Reason readers are probably aware, asset forfeiture is the process by which law enforcement can seize cars, cash, homes, and pretty much anything else that is suspected of being used to commit a crime or believed to be the proceeds of a crime. Often, suspects do not have to be convicted of anything—sometimes they aren't even charged—before they can be deprived of their property. To top it all off, law enforcement often has a perverse incentive to engage in this sort of thing because the proceeds of forfeiture can get plugged directly into their own budgets.
Tyson Timbs, the plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court, was arrested in 2015 after selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to one count of dealing a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to commit theft, and he was sentenced to one year of house arrest followed by five years of probation. Additionally, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover—which he had purchased with money received from his late father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales—on the ground that it had been used to commit a crime.
At the Supreme Court, Timbs' attorneys are arguing that the seizure of the Land Rover is an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines and fees.


https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/28/breyer-destroyed-civil-asset-forfeiture?fbclid=IwAR1OiVurdP-0dI9W38-zHqrMdbeGemek7LbB5YlGsuTmtmiHKs1VlXjsjq8

[Platapus]

In my opinion, civil asset forfeiture should only be assigned by the courts and only after a conviction.

Having the same organization that will receive the assets being in charge of when assets can be seized is a conflict of interest.

[Onkel Neal]

I miss him

Reagan was giving a speech in West Berlin when a balloon popped very loudly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UowNDaxRqU

[u crank]

I miss him


So did that guy. :O:

[Onkel Neal]

I tell you, it's not just Trump, or Trump supporters. Something fundamental has changed with American society. Recent example: It's all over the news, as if it was significant-- Michelle Obama, who has been a pillar of class for as long as she's been in the public eye, was hosting a book tour event yesterday. She let a swear word slip, which can happen, no harm, no foul. But the reaction, by supposedly thoughtful, intelligent people, seems on par with a Metallica crowd reaction.

She said that marriage inequality can’t be solved by women ‘leaning in’ because ‘that s*** doesn’t work all the time.’

Ok, my reaction would be a smile, cause I know what she's getting at, and knowing her, it's apparent that she used the causal expression for emphasis but probably not for shock value.

But her people, ha!

Michelle Obama’s use of the four-letter word ‘s***’ sent the crowd into a frenzy at Barclays Center, according to social media.

A Twitter user named Megan tweeted: ‘Despite waiting in the rain for an hour to get into the Barclays Center, I was just in the same room as Michelle Obama and she accidentally said “s***” and it was amazing and my life has been forever changed.’

Erin Strecker tweeted: ‘At Barclays tonight, Michelle Obama said: “It’s not enough to Lean In because that s*** doesn’t always work!” Tattoo it on my body!’

Kevin Flynn tweeted: ‘Tonight at the Barclays Center Michelle Obama accidentally said “s***” in front of thousands of people and it ruled.’

I believe there are a similar number of Trump-equivalents on the left side as there are Trumpettes on the right. Same cut of people, to the bone, just wearing a different hat.

[August]

It's looking like this latest "Trump is going down" fantasy is just that, a fantasy.



Contrary to media speculation that Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, the special prosecutor’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.
Cohen pleaded guilty last week to making false statements in 2017 to the Senate intelligence committee about the Trump Organization’s failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Discussions about the so-called Moscow Project continued five months longer in 2016 than Cohen had initially stated under oath.

The nine-page charging document filed with the plea deal suggests that the special counsel is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question told RealClearInvestigations that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president. They made this assessment in light of the charging document, known as a statement of “criminal information” (filed in lieu of an indictment when a defendant agrees to plead guilty); a fuller accounting of Cohen’s emails and text messages that Capitol Hill sources have seen; and the still-secret transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by a business associate of Cohen.


https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/12/02/actually_mueller_appears_to_be_exonerating_trump.h tml

[Mr Quatro]

It's looking like this latest "Trump is going down" fantasy is just that, a fantasy.


If I was, or is it were, President Trump I would tell Mueller to poopy or get off the pot. This has taken way too long and too much attention and too much time to investigate. Trump won and that is all there is to it ... :yep:

Mean while the Russians are still up to their old tricks of trying to influence what America thinks and who they should vote for.

They must get a kick out of manipulation :yep:

[vienna]

There may be a good bit of new data arriving tomorrow (Dec 4) when the SC is scheduled to make a court filing regarding Flynn and the value of the information and cooperation Flynn's been giving the SC's team. Should be interesting...

Those who are wishfully thinking Trump and his cronies are out of the woods (a fantasy, you might call it) have overloaded the fact the SCO has not even made public the bulk of the evidence they have accumulated. While the court filings to date have been highly detailed, more than most such filings, there is a great deal more to be revealed. It almost seems as if SCO's team is luring the subjects of the investigation, including Trump, into making public statements the SCO knows to be false; its sort allowing the Trump team to weave the rope by which they will be hung. Early on in the investigation, a couple of persons from the Trump side were asked by reporters what the interview process was like with the SCO; they both expressed surprise with one stating about the SCO Team, "They know everything." This is something the Trumpettes, and, I think, Trump and his minions seem to forget: the SCO has acess to all manner of ata and intelligence; they are not just relying on interviews and publicly known documents. The SCO has access to not only DOJ/FBI data, it also can tap into the CIA, NSA, IRS, and all manner of other sources; I wouldn't be surprised if the SC has already gotten a hold of those tax records Trump has been so fearfully trying to guard. When the Manafort filing and the Cohen plea bargain went into court the other day, the data in the court papers was just the gloss on the surface; there is an extremely high certainty the emails, conversations, and other communications cited are backed up by intelligence the SC has yet to reveal. Trump's worst fears may be about to be realized...

Trump has also lost access to a source for intel against the SC when the DEMs took the House: Devin Nunes, Trump's faithful snitch will lose his chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee and he will be replaced by Adam Schiff, someone who holds no fear of Trump and also someone whom Trump was ill-advised to have provoked...

BTW, some time back in this thread someone asked if I was in the CA 38th Congressional district (I am), which is represented by Schiff. Schiff won reelection to a new term, beating his GOP opponent: Schiff 76.4% to Nalbandian's 23.6. To be fair, Nalbandian was an extremely lightweight candidate who, as far as I could see or know didn't really bother to campaign; it makes one wonder why he even bothered to run...

Nunes, on the other hand, seems to be suffering some from his recent shenanigans; he did win reelection, but he only got 53.5% of the vote; in 2016, he got 67.6%, and in 2014, he got a whopping 72.0% of the vote; the end result is a loss of 14.1& over the last two years and a loss of 18.5% over the last four years; what makes it more disturbing for Nunes is his District, CA-22, is strongly GOP and Nunes is the hometown kid; he even has the advantage of being a Portuguese descendant in a District with a high Portuguese-American voting population. Gee, I wonder what he did that made his constituents lose so much faith in him? Could it be he runs with (or runs to) the wrong crowd?...











<O>

[u crank]

Those who are wishfully thinking Trump and his cronies are out of the woods (a fantasy, you might call it) have overloaded the fact the SCO has not even made public the bulk of the evidence they have accumulated.

That's true but it is wishful thinking to fantasize about the contents. The opposite might be true... Mueller is withholding any evidence that might exonerate Trump.

Contrary to media speculation that Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, the special prosecutor’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/12/02/actually_mueller_appears_to_be_exonerating_trump.h tml

Mueller is only releasing information that is damaging to the President. He is building a public relations case, not a criminal case. The question is, is he withholding exculpatory evidence to build this public relations case? I guess we'll have to wait and see. If he is then the partisan nature of the investigation becomes evident. Mueller's original task was to investigate "any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government","and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." It would seem that Mueller is now entirely focused on the second part which is a pretty broad net that would probably include jaywalking. Mueller is not investigating crime, he is creating crimes by catching people in lies about the investigation. These are process crimes which have to do with the investigation not the actual crime i.e., collusion with Russia. Does Mueller actually have evidence of this collusion? Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Rick Gates have all pleaded guilty in relation to Mueller’s investigation, though none have admitted to colluding with Russia. The guy who was under surveillance by the FISA warrents, Carter Page has not been charged with any crime. They are running out of Trump associates to talk to.

I fear that the never Trumpers and their minnions (what a dumb word) may be disappointed in the long run. Time will tell.

[vienna]

That's true but it is wishful thinking to fantasize about the contents. The opposite might be true... Mueller is withholding any evidence that might exonerate Trump.

...

Mueller is only releasing information that is damaging to the President. He is building a public relations case, not a criminal case. The question is, is he withholding exculpatory evidence to build this public relations case? I guess we'll have to wait and see. If he is then the partisan nature of the investigation becomes evident. Mueller's original task was to investigate "any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government","and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." It would seem that Mueller is now entirely focused on the second part which is a pretty broad net that would probably include jaywalking. Mueller is not investigating crime, he is creating crimes by catching people in lies about the investigation. These are process crimes which have to do with the investigation not the actual crime i.e., collusion with Russia. Does Mueller actually have evidence of this collusion? Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Rick Gates have all pleaded guilty in relation to Mueller’s investigation, though none have admitted to colluding with Russia. The guy who was under surveillance by the FISA warrents, Carter Page has not been charged with any crime. They are running out of Trump associates to talk to.

I fear that the never Trumpers and their minnions (what a dumb word) may be disappointed in the long run. Time will tell.


The counter to the above is the very high certainty Trump minions in Congress have been working mightily to keep evidence and information that is potentially damaging to Trump from the sight of the American people, e.g., the House Intelligence Committee chaired by Devin Nunes and his merry band majority of GOP members who, over the objections of DEM members of the Committee, and other members of the House of both parties, selectively released redacted reports and/or leaked selective info basically designed to attempt to derail The SCO investigation. I wonder if any of the HIC actions could be seen as impeding a Federal investigation in progress...

As far as saying there must be no real substance to the SCOs case because so-and-so or so-and-so have not been indicted is specious; the lack of an indictment does not automatically mean there is no case; its still relatively early and, from the court filings by the SCO thus far, really the only metric by which to asses the progress of the case since Mueller and his team have been surprisingly tightly secure and leak-resistant, it seems the SCO is building its case(s) from the ground up, carefully establishing who did what, when, and weaving the fabric of the links that may exist. This is not uncommon for prosecutor faced with a multiplex case and is common in cases such as racketeering, organized crime, or other complex criminal nets. As I stated before, what is now being seen by the public as reported in the press is just the veneer; the SCO has at its disposal resources including intel from email, text message, phone intercepts, etc.; it is not out of the realm of possibility that, when the final indictments do come down, the SCO will back them up with evidence and timelines, etc, that the accused probably never imagined as possible. Just loom at any past major organized crime or criminal conspiracy cases and you will see a very great many of them had very surprised defendants who didn't realize just how far good investigative work and the wonders of new technology could upend them. Look at just Flynn's situation: do you really think the NSA, FBI, and /or the CIA weren't monitoring the activities of the foreign nationals with whom Flynn had contact, even before Flynn entered the picture, or that the relevant agencies weren't actively monitoring/intercepting their communications? All that data, and a whole lot more, are at the disposal of the SCO...

Speaking of Flynn, the sentencing document from the SCO was filed late yesterday:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5425878-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-191592-46-1-2.html

there was this excerpt that seemed to catch the most media attention:


The defendant’s history and characteristics present mitigating and aggravating circumstances. As detailed in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), the defendant’s military and public service are exemplary. He served in the military for over 33 years, including five years of combat duty, led the Defense Intelligence Agency, and retired as a 3-star Lieutenant General. See PSR (Doc. 44) at ¶¶ 70-71. The defendant’s record of military and public service distinguish him from every other person who has been charged as part the SCO’s investigation. However, senior government leaders should be held to the highest standards. The defendant’s extensive government service should have made him particularly aware of the harm caused by providing false information to the government, as well as the rules governing work performed on behalf of a foreign government.

The defendant deserves credit for accepting responsibility in a timely fashion and substantially assisting the government. As described in the Addendum, shortly after the SCO reached out to the defendant to seek his cooperation, the defendant accepted responsibility for his unlawful conduct and began cooperating with the government.

The line "However, senior government leaders should be held to the highest standards." signals the SCO is not going to be light on those who will be ultimately charged, something Trump's minions, and perhaps, Trump himself might want to keep in mind...

Another point to note: on the first page of the "ADDENDUM TO GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING", the second paragraph starts with the statement:



The defendant has assisted with several ongoing investigations...


Note the "several' in the sentence: as with many criminal investigations involving criminal enterprises, a primary investigation can lead to the discovery of other criminal activity which, as a duty of any prosecutor, must be followed to ascertain if those activities contributed to or supported the primary offense. The fiction the Trump minions are trying to foist off on the American public that the sole focus and purpose of the SCO's commission is just Russian collusion is a lie, as are so many other of their desperate attempts to wriggle out of the mess they, themselves, created; collusion was never the sole target of the investigation; in fact, the letter Rosenstein signed appointing the SCO is explicit in the scope of the investigation:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html




(b) The Special Counsel i s authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).


(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.


So far, I haven't seen any hard evidence of the SCO violation any of the above, the bellicose and frantic flutterings of the Trump camp notwithstanding...












<O>

[u crank]

Interesting article in Vanity Fair by T.A. Frank. Interesting and remarkable considering that publication's left leaning bias. The title says it all...IS THIS IT?: A TRUMP-HATER’S GUIDE TO MUELLER SKEPTICISM.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/a-trump-haters-guide-to-mueller-skepticism

This is the kind of thing that is needed as a balance to the anti Trump hysteria that consumes people on the left, their media cohorts and their never Trump allies on the right. There are things about the Mueller probe that the people who are drooling about Trump's demise should be thinking about. I would say that few are. None of them are considering the future of US politics and the impact that this hysteria will have.

The weapons you create for your side today will be used by the other side against you tomorrow. Do we really want the special-counsel investigation to become a staple of presidential life? It’s a creation with few boundaries on scope and a setup that encourages the selection of a suspect followed by a search for the crime, rather than the other way around. This caused calamities in the era of Bill Clinton, and it doesn't get any better just because the partisan dynamics are reversed.

Mueller is obviously a hero to some but he represents the worst of prosecutorial overreach in the American system. The ability to destroy the lives of his targets to procure testimony against other targets. Micheal Flynn is an obvious example. No one bats an eye when these tactics are used against mafia types but Michael Flynn, a decorated 38 year veteran. Destroying him financially and threatening his son to obtain testimony. Shameful behavior. If Mueller's team investigated Mueller what would they find?

Former FBI Director James Comey enforced two sets of rules, one for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and one for Trump.

Certainly, Trump’s ethical standards are low, but if sleaziness were a crime then many more people from our ruling class would be in jail. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to try to find out in advance what WikiLeaks has on Hillary Clinton. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to take a meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer promising a dossier of dirt on Clinton. (Just as, it should be mentioned, it is sleazy, but not criminal, to pay a guy to go to Russia to put together a dossier of dirt on Trump.

Mueller's probe will likely end up painting a very unflattering portrait of the Trump presidency and his dealings before 2016. It may even find criminal or ethical crimes or it may just suggest them. But to what end?

Like (Ken)Starr, Mueller is also likely to include footnotes and selections that will hint at criminality, the things he suspects but couldn’t prove, and the most ardent believers in collusion will claim vindication. But the international conspiracies will be few, and the collateral damage of the Russia scare will be extensive, stretching far beyond Trump or his circle to the country as a whole. It might hurt a president who many Americans hate, but even the president’s most ardent foes should reflect on a question that will linger: Was it worth it?

[Mr Quatro]

Mueller is a servant of the people for the people by the people and should not be releasing any information except to the US Congress who then in turn will decide if the evidence warrants any further reviews.

In fact that is where his final report will go and by the length and scope of this investigation the US Congress is now heavy weighted against not only President Trump, but the entire GOP who has the power to say yes or no to impeachment which is the worst case scenario.

I've said it before and I will say it again no matter what Mueller comes up with and no matter what the US Congress decides to act on ... President Trump will run in 2020 and win the race against Bernie or Biden or Clinton.

Trump will then stand down and turn over the White House to VP Pence ... Why has yet to be determined ...

I will ear mark this post to say I told you so. :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

The worst the Mueller investigation can do is lead to Trump's removal. And that will make Mike pence president. So win win. And then the left will start work on him

[Bilge_Rat]

so Trump has nominated William Barr to be AG.

Barr served as AG Under Bush senior in 1991-92, but is still only 68.


On the surface, it looks like a brillant play:

1. it undercuts the attacks against Whitaker which are now academic;

2. Barr has already been confirmed by the Senate as AG, so it is hard to see what Democrats could use this time to say he is unqualified;

3. Barr served as AG under Bush senior who everyone in Washington just finished praising as a great President, so again hard to see what Democrats could use this time to say he is unqualified;

[August]

You'd think that but the Dems will find a way.

[Mr Quatro]

so Trump has nominated William Barr to be AG.

Barr served as AG Under Bush senior in 1991-92, but is still only 68.


On the surface, it looks like a brillant play:

1. it undercuts the attacks against Whitaker which are now academic;

2. Barr has already been confirmed by the Senate as AG, so it is hard to see what Democrats could use this time to say he is unqualified;

3. Barr served as AG under Bush senior who everyone in Washington just finished praising as a great President, so again hard to see what Democrats could use this time to say he is unqualified;

Barr may have been seen smoking a joint with a girl in the back seat of his car in his High School parking lot back in 1968. Not sure it was him yet, but Ms Ford will be glad to testify that it was him for only $650,000 in Go fund me funds :D

[em2nought]

The worst the Mueller investigation can do is lead to Trump's removal. And that will make Mike pence president. So win win.


So back to Republicans running and hiding whenever the democrats shout racist, or Nazi, or anti-however many letters it is now I've lost track? Back to always moving toward the left, because we all know when the word "compromise" is used it means the right gives ground? :hmmm:

[vienna]

Well, the "very stable genius" has spoken on the economy:





Since the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s aides and advisers have tried to convince him of the importance of tackling the national debt.

Sources close to the president say he has repeatedly shrugged it off, implying that he doesn’t have to worry about the money owed to America’s creditors—currently about $21 trillion—because he won’t be around to shoulder the blame when it becomes even more untenable.

The friction came to a head in early 2017 when senior officials offered Trump charts and graphics laying out the numbers and showing a “hockey stick” spike in the national debt in the not-too-distant future. In response, Trump noted that the data suggested the debt would reach a critical mass only after his possible second term in office.

“Yeah, but I won’t be here,” the president bluntly said, according to a source who was in the room when Trump made this comment during discussions on the debt.




Trump on Coming Debt Crisis: ‘I Won’t Be Here’ When It Blows Up --


https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-on-coming-debt-crisis-i-wont-be-here-when-it-blows-up


Nice to know he's got real plan...















<O>

[u crank]

Nice to know he's got real plan...

Yep. And it's not a very original one. Same one all his predecessors had. :har:

[vienna]

One more he should join them out of office...












<O>

[eddie]

Nice to know the Republicans have the moral high ground,lol How's that election in North Carolina going? And to think that Trump complained about voter fraud!! :har::har:

[u crank]

One more he should join them out of office.

Don't know if you ever noticed it .... but eventually they all do.:O:

[vienna]

Yeah, but its better to get 'em out on their heels sooner than later...


For those for whom a "Trumpy Bear" doll just isn't enough, this is something I first saw couple of days ago in a tourist shop on Hollywood Blvd.:


https://d1w8cc2yygc27j.cloudfront.net/4635117086315539437/-7141226706287385843.jpg





So lifelike...:haha:


The "Trump Troll Doll"...


Just the stocking stuffer for Xmas...














<O>

[Mr Quatro]

For those for whom a "Trumpy Bear" doll just isn't enough, this is something I first saw couple of days ago in a tourist shop on Hollywood Blvd.:

So lifelike...:haha:

The "Trump Troll Doll"...

Just the stocking stuffer for Xmas...

<O>

Laugh now, but that little doll will be worth a lot of money someday on ebay :yep:

[vienna]

Maybe not; Nixon stuff, after his resignation in disgrace, have little value even nowadays...












<O>

[Buddahaid]

I want one but I'm sure it's made in China....

[u crank]

Well, the "very stable genius" has spoken on the economy:

Trump on Coming Debt Crisis: ‘I Won’t Be Here’ When It Blows Up --

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-on-coming-debt-crisis-i-wont-be-here-when-it-blows-up

Nice to know he's got real plan...


President Donald J. Trump doesn’t care about the nation’s debt, according to that paragon of truth known as the Daily Beast. The article in question claims that Trump’s view on the concern about the rising debt crisis was, “I won’t be here” when the whole thing comes crashing down. For the record, as with most of these reports, the claims are entirely unsourced.


https://spectator.org/congress-not-trump-is-responsible-for-americas-debt/

Think about this, though: if Congress ultimately controls the purse strings, and the debt has been piling up since the Reagan years, how is this all of a sudden Trump’s problem? If Congress has been talking about this matter since the 1980s, why hasn’t it formulated the necessary legislation for reining in government spending?

And of course the answer is quite simple....Congress likes to spend money. They routinely expand the size of the administrative state and the massive welfare state (which accounts for the overwhelming majority of America’s debt). Both parties do this and cooperate in doing it. Blaming Trump or any President excuses the real culprits.

Unfortunately, the president doesn’t control these things. He can demand for Congress to take certain actions (and, as noted above, has) but he’s not the decider here. Congress is the only entity that can really change things for the better and Congress only takes action when its members are consistently threatened by the loss of votes or campaign money in an election year. Since the 1980s, the American voters have not held their elected representatives and senators accountable enough to warrant the kind of drastic legislative change needed to tamp down on America’s debt problem.

[em2nought]

For those for whom a "Trumpy Bear" doll just isn't enough, this is something I first saw couple of days ago in a tourist shop on Hollywood Blvd.:


https://d1w8cc2yygc27j.cloudfront.net/4635117086315539437/-7141226706287385843.jpg





So lifelike...:haha:


The "Trump Troll Doll"...


Just the stocking stuffer for Xmas...

<O>




I want one! :subsim:

[vienna]

There's another version of the Trump troll doll available, but its NSFW, so you'll have to Google it...












<O>

[vienna]

I want one! :subsim:




In lieu of the lump of coal?... :D














<O>

[vienna]

A rarity: Fox News citing an AP fact check on Trump's erroneous and/or misleading statements regarding the border wall...


AP FACT CHECK: Trump sees a border wall where none exists --

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ap-fact-check-trump-sees-a-border-wall-where-none-exists


It should be noted that, as the article points out, tremendous portions of the wall have not been built and some barrier renovation has happened, but little wall construction has been completed under Trump; and the construction/renovation that has been carried out thus far is almost all projects started under the Obama administration. There was a sort of big show put on when a section of the border renovation here in California was completed, with representatives fron the Trump administration trying to take credit for the project; the show all fell apart when reporters and local officials pointed out the project had been started, and funded, under Obama and the Trump administration had almost nothing to do with it; there was a sudden silence fro the Trump camp...












<O>

[Catfish]

^ you should have realized that reality or facts do not longer play a role. Trump can say what he wants, he will always be believed or at least no one calls the bluff.
There are "Women for Trump" who proudly wear T-shirts with "You can grab my pussy anytime, Mr President". What more can you say.

[u crank]

There are "Women for Trump" who proudly wear T-shirts with "You can grab my pussy anytime, Mr President". What more can you say.

What more can you say? Really? It's humor. Self depreciating humor which is the best kind. These days people on the left are so uptight that I swear they must squeak when they walk.

Judging peoples character and political beliefs by the T-shirts they wear is a pretty low bar. And I'm sure it is common on both sides of the divide. Doesn't give it any more credibility.

[Catfish]

[...] It's humor. Self depreciating humor which is the best kind. These days people on the left are so uptight that I swear they must squeak when they walk.
How funny. The women wearing those shirts did not seem to be too humorous. Wanting the president to "grab my pussy anytime" is reserved for dumb women. The whole new deal is low-bar, everywhere. I fail to see anything "funny" in Trump, or what he does.

Judging peoples character and political beliefs by the T-shirts they wear is a pretty low bar. [...] Oh please, speak for yourself. If a message like "Look i'm dumb" is meant to be seen publicly, it intentionally tells you something about the one who wears it, don't you think so? And this "message" is really low-bar. Next move Trump declares rape and abuse a trivial offense.

Lets just say i have a different opinion.

[Mr Quatro]

Lets just say i have a different opinion.

Like this old song that is now banned on some radio stations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFJ7ie_yGU

[u crank]

How funny. The women wearing those shirts did not seem to be too humorous. Wanting the president to "grab my pussy anytime" is reserved for dumb women. The whole new deal is low-bar, everywhere. I fail to see anything "funny" in Trump, or what he does.

I rest my case. People on the left who hate Trump are humorless killjoys. Here you are judging a women I presume you have never met because of a funny t-shirt. Just for the record I think it is hilarious and clever and not because it is about Trump. It's because it is so damned politically incorrect.

Oh please, speak for yourself. If a message like "Look i'm dumb" is meant to be seen publicly, it intentionally tells you something about the one who wears it, don't you think so? And this "message" is really low-bar. Next move Trump declares rape and abuse a trivial offense.


I am speaking for myself. And no I don't think so. If I judged everybody I ever met for the clothes and hats they wear I'd be in big trouble. I just came back from Wallymart. Enough said. If you honestly believe that the T-shirt was meant to be taken literally and not as a joke then the problem is all yours. Good luck with that.

Lets just say i have a different opinion.

I for one will defend your right to your opinion regardless of the t-shirt you wear.:D:yep:

[Mr Quatro]

I just came back from Wallymart. Enough said. If you honestly believe that the T-shirt was meant to be taken literally and not as a joke then the problem is all yours. Good luck with that.


They have Walmart's in Halifax? :o

[u crank]

They have Walmart's in Halifax? :o

There are over 400 Walmarts in Canada. I don't live in Halifax. My son does. Here on Prince Edward Island there are 2 Walmarts, the place where you can and will see strange people. :D

[vienna]

^ you should have realized that reality or facts do not longer play a role. Trump can say what he wants, he will always be believed or at least no one calls the bluff.
There are "Women for Trump" who proudly wear T-shirts with "You can grab my pussy anytime, Mr President". What more can you say.


My intent in my post was really just a bit of amusement over Fox News actually:

1.) publishing something contradicting Trump without trying to put a torturous spin on the matter; and,

2.) Using that horrible, awful mainstream media to make the point

...


I threw in the bit about the situation with the CA border barrier as an example of how the Trump administration is trying desperately to either take credit for renovations/construction it had nothing to do with or trying to dupe the public into believing any actual real progress has been made on 'Donny's Folly'. The local news coverage here of the Trump representative trying to sell the idea the section of the barrier that was renovated was really a part of the Trump wall and being shot down when the reporters started to point out the obvious fallacy of the notion was highly amusing; the deafening silence from the Trump administration following was also amusing...








<O>

[vienna]

Well, Cohen got 3 years and, on the heels of Cohen's statement in court he acted on instructions from Trump directly, within hours of the sentencing came the announcement yet another trusted Trump ally is flipping on him:


National Enquirer owner admits to paying off Playboy model to protect Trump --

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prosecutors-media-company-admitted-it-paid-off-playboy-model-to-protect-trump-before-election/




AMI "admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election," the office said.

The announcement came hours after former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was sentenced in Manhattan to three years in federal prison for violating campaign finance laws for his role in paying off McDougal and Stormy Daniels.

Prosecutors did not say when they reached the agreement not to prosecute AMI for the payment to McDougal, which came in the weeks before the 2016 election. The office said in a press release the company "admitted that it made the $150,000 payment ... in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate."

"AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election," the news release said.


The case for campaign finance law violations against Trump seems to be getting yet stronger...











<O>

[Rockstar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS_J6C6rZiQ

[Bilge_Rat]

The case for campaign finance law violations against Trump seems to be getting yet stronger...

<O>

let's see..

1.-Can a sitting President be indicted? 3+ years until the Supreme Court decides; if no=over; if yes, on to 2

2-Do the facts, even if true, amount to a criminal Campaign finance violation in law? 3+ years until the Supreme Court decides; if no=over; if yes, on to 3

3-Can they prove that a criminal Campaign finance violation occured beyond a reasonable doubt? if no=over; if yes, on to 4

4-Will the guilty verdict be overturned by the Appeals Court 2+ years after 3? if yes=over; if no, on to step 5

5-Will the guilty verdict be overturned by the Supreme Court 2+ years after 4? if yes=over; if no, then Trump will have to pay a fine.

in other words, I would not get my hopes up.

non lawyers are salivating at the thought that this is a smoking gun that will quickly get Trump out of office, but as a lawyer I see little chance this will ever amount to much until he has been out of office for many years. Even then the chances that he would go to jail for this are slim.

now the more interesting discussion is that even if Trump was indicted or even found guilty of criminal Campaign violation, he could still act as President unless he is impeached.

Will the GOP controlled Senate vote to convict him if the criminal Campaign prosecution looks to be politically motivated? :hmmm:

[Mr Quatro]

But Trump did not pay the National Enquirer owner to do that and Trump did not pay him back for his admission of suppressing a story that may or may not have been damaging to his election.

Cohen initially said that it was his money that he paid to Stormy Daniels, but said he lied and that it was paid back to him by Trump. Trump has said a lot of things, but his last statement was that the payments were private funds not campaign funds.

Good luck on any criminal investigation of a sitting US President ... but after Trump leaves office is another matter. :yep:

Another twenty-two months of hearing about Cohen and Trump is too much for me to take.

I think a lot of other people are fed up with it too :yep:

[vienna]

But Trump did not pay the National Enquirer owner to do that and Trump did not pay him back for his admission of suppressing a story that may or may not have been damaging to his election.
...





A payment made on the behalf of a Presidential candidate and/or their campaign is actually considered to be a campaign contribution under the election laws and failure to report such payments is a violation of those laws, regardless of whether there was repayment or direction by the the candidate. Further, if AMI and Trump discussed the payment(s) and the circumvention of the applicable laws, charges of basic criminal conspiracy may attach. The fact that AMI "admitted to "working in concert" with the Trump campaign to pay off a woman who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump in order to squash her story" is an admission of a conspiracy (or, if you will, collusion) by one of the principals in the case; the fact that Cohen was actively involved with AMI in the conspiracy and that other member(s) of the Trump campaign were also involved does not bode well for Trump. If you really want to see the meat of the matter, here is a a link to a PDF of the actual agreement between AMI and the US Attorney's Office , Southern District, New York:


https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/download


















<O>

[August]

President Donald Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, may have been convinced by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to plead guilty to a supposed violation of campaign finance law, but that doesn’t mean that what happened is actually a federal crime.
In fact, neither the Federal Election Commission—which is the independent agency tasked with enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act—nor its former commissioners would likely agree with the overaggressive view that the Southern District is taking. Indeed, the Southern District’s aggressive stance on this issue might have violated the Justice Department’s own policy.



and


On the one previous occasion that the Justice Department tried to argue that hush money payments to a mistress were a “campaign-related” expense, a jury also did not appear to buy the government’s theory. In the unsuccessful prosecution of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, campaign donors made payments to Edwards’ mistress, Rielle Hunter, a videographer who was actually working on his presidential campaign.
Unlike Daniels and McDougal, Hunter was paid (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/us/edwards-jury-returns-not-guilty-verdict-on-one-count.html) $1 million while directly working for the campaign and Edwards. Her payments did not go through the Edwards campaign’s account, but the government tried to claim they were campaign expenditures because they were intended to protect Edwards’ reputation during his presidential run and thus “influence” the election.
Yet a jury acquitted Edwards on the charge of accepting an illegal campaign donation and failed to reach a verdict—resulting in a mistrial—on the other charges, which included filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission for not listing the payments to his mistress.



https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/11/cohen-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-laws-and-neither-did-trump/

[Buddahaid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS_J6C6rZiQ

I probably don't agree with your politics very well, but I love your sense of humor.....

[vienna]

and

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/11/cohen-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-laws-and-neither-did-trump/


Apples and oranges...

The government implicates Trump and the Trump campaign in federal campaign finance violations --


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/07/government-implicates-trump-trump-campaign-federal-campaign-finance-law-violations/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5eee7fb243d7





“In this case, you’re dealing with a situation where his lawyer who actually admits to doing the transactions says that they broke the law and that Trump knew about it,” Noble said. “This is something that very clearly would have to be considered for criminal prosecution” of Trump — were he not president. Department of Justice guidelines indicate that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

For Trump to be charged — if he weren’t president — it would need to be a “knowing and willful violation,” Noble said. This doesn’t mean, though, that Trump would need to know the specific statutes that his actions were violating. It would be enough for Trump to know that campaign contributions needed to be reported and were subject to limits, which he clearly did, and that the payments were being made to influence the election.

That Cohen and Trump went to great pains to obscure the payments bolsters the latter point. (Cohen “arranged one of the payments through a media company and disguised it as a services contract, and executed the second non-disclosure agreement with aliases and routed the six-figure payment through a shell corporation,” the filing reads.) In that leaked recording from earlier this year, Trump mentions a payment in cash, which would shield the payment from scrutiny. (His legal team insisted he was saying not to make the payment in cash.)

“What’s unusual is you have the person who was the key operator in this” — Cohen — “did it for the purpose of influencing the election, and that the candidate knew about it," Noble said.

That sets this case apart from the case of former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who faced criminal charges for accepting contributions aimed at helping him hide a romantic relationship. In that case, there was no equivalent to Cohen implicating Edwards. (That relationship was brought to light, ironically, by the National Enquirer.)



As with many, many things Trump claims are "the same", this situation is not equal. The basic fact is, if Trump were not a sitting President, but, say, a state governor or a candidate for other office, he would be indicted and face charges and a trial. And, remember, there is no real need to indict and/or convict a President in order to have an impeachment; Nixon was never indicted, nor was Clinton. All that is needed is evidence of conduct involving high crimes and misdemeanors. It is interesting how Trump is being referred to in US Attorney filings as "Individual 1"; kinda sound sa bit like Nixon's "Un-indicted Co-Conspirator...











<O>

[u crank]

Apples and oranges...

And of course there are going to be a variety of opinions and we have just started to hear them.

Here's one from a guy who may actually know what he is talking about. Bradley A. Smith is a former Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) between 2000 and 2005. He was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

This is an article by him in Wednesday's National Review. It is aptly titled 'Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime'

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/

...the law — following our common sense — tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures. There is no violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

To reach the opposite conclusion, the U.S. Attorney is placing all his chips on the language “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Intuitively, however, we all know that such language cannot be read literally — if it were, virtually every political candidate of the past 45 years has been in near-constant violation.

In short, Michael Cohen is pleading guilty to something that isn’t a crime. Of course, people will do that when a zealous prosecutor is threatening them with decades in prison. But his admissions are not binding on President Trump, and Trump should fight these charges ferociously.

Many Americans have convinced themselves that Trump is a uniquely dangerous and bad man, such that any available tool should be used to expel him from office. But in that way lies the bigger threat to our democracy and rule of law.

We do ourselves no service by distorting and misapplying our campaign-finance laws in the hope of bagging Donald Trump.

[Mr Quatro]

It's a battle for what we think, right?

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KInCGItM5vk/VsXS9Mo3BuI/AAAAAAAAHwY/YfdO0WYPpFI/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/good-evening-its-6-oclock-and-heres-what-we-want-you-to-think-2.jpg

[u crank]

It's a battle for what we think, right?

I would agree. Some are pitching, some are catching and the odd guy is trying to steal home.:D

[vienna]

And of course there are going to be a variety of opinions and we have just started to hear them.

Here's one from a guy who may actually know what he is talking about. Bradley A. Smith is a former Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) between 2000 and 2005. He was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

This is an article by him in Wednesday's National Review. It is aptly titled 'Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime'

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/


As you said, the above article is just an opinion based on publicly known data and prior experiences. But does Smith have some 'inside' knowledge of the substance and extent of the SCO's investigation or is he, like the rest of us, going on what we got? I would rather doubt his knowledge of actual, specific dtat given how tightly reigned in the SCO is about releasing any data. And that is the gist of what I have been saying; when you hear Trump, his minions, or his Trumpettes rail against the SCO and claim everything coming out is false and they have no case, you have to take into account, other than their own obvious bias and mount desperate need fo self-preservation, they really don't know what cards the SCO is holding. A case in point is this regarding a new criminal investigation into another possible Trump screw-up:





The reported investigation arose in part from materials that federal prosecutors seized in April when it raided the home of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who was just sentenced to three years for lying to Congress and violating campaign finance laws during Trump’s 2016 campaign when he coordinated payoffs to two women who had alleged affairs with Trump.

A source who spoke with the Journal said that during the Cohen raid, FBI officials obtained a recorded conversation between him and Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former adviser to Melania Trump who also worked on inaugural events. In it, she expressed concern about the committee’s spending, the Journal reported.




Trump Inauguration Committee Under Criminal Investigation Over Spending: Report --

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-inauguration-spending-criminal-investigation_us_5c12d4c1e4b0539b32132fe2


The full extent of what the SCO holds and knows is very uncertain. Who knows what the SCO has harvested from the records of the various participants in the scandals; and given how modern communications media (emails, tweets, DMs, etc.) has an extraordinarily long shelf life and/or are surprisingly easy to resurrect, the possibility the SCO has far more than publicly known is more of a high probability. Trump and his supporters are acting like the mess he's in is a binary process of just one issue and just one resolution when its really more like a web with many threads and intersections. Trump has been able to skate through his life of scams and duplicity because, as a private citizen, the general populace and, to a certain extent, the authorities gave him little or no notice, and, now, he's seeing how much genuine scrutiny a holder of the Oval Office must face, a situation an awful lot of people pointed out in articles posted well before his election. Basically, if Trump or his minions haven't each deleted, shredded, erased, burned, or, in some other manner disposed of possibly incriminating material before the investigations got under way, they are screwed; and they better hope that anyone they interacted with has likewise disposed of those materials...

Its not surprising at all the new campaign/inaugural investigation seems to have come from documents, etc., seized from Cohen; lawyers are notorious for saving everything and documenting everything as just part of their professional CYA SOP; and, remember Cohen was not only so cautious about documenting all transactions with Trump, he also recorded their phone conversations. Who knows: maybe he also recorded their face to face conversations, too?...

And, hey, how about that Maria Butina taking a plea today? Not looking good for the NRA and the GOP, PR-wise, hobnobbing with a now admitted Russian agent...










<O>

[u crank]

As you said, the above article is just an opinion based on publicly known data and prior experiences. But does Smith have some 'inside' knowledge of the substance and extent of the SCO's investigation or is he, like the rest of us, going on what we got? I would rather doubt his knowledge of actual, specific dtat given how tightly reigned in the SCO is about releasing any data.

Hmm, judging by that I wonder if you read the article. Bradley is not giving his knowledgeable opinion on what he doesn't know. He is talking about the facts we do know, what Cohen pled guilty to and his expertise in that area. I don't see anything in the article about Bradley claiming to have 'inside' knowledge of the substance and extent of the SCO's investigation. His claim is quite simple and well explained. Micheal Cohen pled guilty to something that is not a crime.

[eddie]

LOL


https://i.postimg.cc/bvqM4Kr3/48083241-2464780566948316-5610891408014573568-n.png (https://postimages.org/)

[vienna]

Hmm, judging by that I wonder if you read the article. Bradley is not giving his knowledgeable opinion on what he doesn't know. He is talking about the facts we do know, what Cohen pled guilty to and his expertise in that area. I don't see anything in the article about Bradley claiming to have 'inside' knowledge of the substance and extent of the SCO's investigation. His claim is quite simple and well explained. Micheal Cohen pled guilty to something that is not a crime.


Oh, but I did read the article just as I have also read the full sentencing documents posted regarding Cohen. Please note that in the quote of mine you cited I did not say Smith claimed to have 'inside' knowledge; also the phrase cited is actually a question: "But does Smith have some 'inside' knowledge of the substance and extent of the SCO's investigation or is he, like the rest of us, going on what we got?" The question was asked in a more rhetorical manner, rather than a statement about Smith's actual knowledge. As for his statement, yes, it is simple and it is, at best, an opinion; and as I pointed out and you have stated yourself in the second and third sentences of the quote of you'r I posted above:



Bradley is not giving his knowledgeable opinion on what he doesn't know. He is talking about the facts we do know, what Cohen pled guilty to and his expertise in that area.


While he may have some expertise, he is not really a 'definitive expert' since I am pretty sure you could easily find other equally or better experienced experts who would disagree with him and his position(s). And, in the current state of knowledge of the real specifics of the SCO's case, he knows about as much as you and I know...

If you want a bit of insight from someone who probably knows a 'bit' more about Cohen and the SCO's case against him and Trump, maybe this fellow might meet you standards: Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen's attorney in the case...



Michael Cohen's former attorney, Lanny Davis, responds to claims that the testimony of President Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen cannot be trusted, says prosecutors from the Southern District of New York presented witnesses and documents that corroborate his former client's version of events.


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


Oh, and its from Fox News, you know the 'non-mainstream' media outlet...













<O>

[u crank]

While he may have some expertise, he is not really a 'definitive expert' since I am pretty sure you could easily find other equally or better experienced experts who would disagree with him and his position(s).

Now you are making me laugh. First of all I didn't say he was a 'definitive expert'. You did. I said here is an opinion "from a guy who may actually know what he is talking about." Does he know what he is talking about? Well the discussion is about Micheal Cohen and campaign finance violations. Is Mr. Smith a knowledgeable commentator on this subject? As a graduate of Harvard Law School, a law professor and a former head of the FEC... I'm going to say yes. And yes he is a Republican. I won't hold that against him. Are there other opinions that disagree with his? Probably. I never said there wasn't.

If you want a bit of insight from someone who probably knows a 'bit' more about Cohen and the SCO's case against him and Trump, maybe this fellow might meet you standards: Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen's attorney in the case...

As his lawyer I would expect that he would. Not much of a lawyer if he doesn't. But again we are talking about two different things. Cohen has already pled guilty to a crime. That is what Mr. Smith is commenting about. I see nowhere in Smith's article any speculation about what the SCO knows or will do. Do you?

As for Lanny Davis meeting my standards, I guess you don't know what my standards are. :har: Davis is probably a good lawyer, but by today's standard that isn't necessarily much of a talent. Michael Avenatti is a lawyer as well. I see Davis as just a little bit (but not much) less sleazier than his client. And of course he is an in the tank Democratic operative and unabashed Hillary supporter but I won't hold that against him.

Oh, and its from Fox News, you know the 'non-mainstream' media outlet...

Not sure who that bit of sarcasm was aimed at. :hmmm:

As a habit I usually check out all the major US news sites on the web with my morning coffee. Ah the life of a retiree.:D I don't have cable TV by choice. Frankly I don't see much difference in news reporting by the major players...MSNBC, CNN and Fox. Make no mistake they all are biased. The idea that all the networks except Fox are neutral news providers is laughable at best. I also see no difference between night time commentators Sean Hannity, Don Lemon and Rachael Maddow except their obvious political bias. They could be on the payroll of their respective political parties for all we know.

And...speaking of Fox news here is an article they carried from The Washington Post by Marc Thiessen this morning.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-thiessen-democrats-negotiating-strategy-can-be-summed-up-in-one-word

There's a name for this in classic negotiating strategy. It's called "leverage." Good negotiators use leverage (something they have, which their adversary wants) to obtain what are called "concessions" (something their adversary has, which they want). The result is what experts call "compromise." This is how the civilized world gets things done.

But in a fit of pique, Democrats are throwing away their leverage, insisting that they will never -- under any circumstances -- give Trump the wall he so desperately wants. The reason? Because he wants it and they despise him.


No one has ever accused Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi of being the sharpest knives in the drawer and for good reason.

So if Democrats want to get anything done, they can't ram it through over GOP objections, because Trump has leverage, too -- in the form of a pen he can use to sign or veto legislation. To get anything done, Democrats have to negotiate -- and compromise.

The answer for Democrats is simple: Don't refuse the wall; use the wall.

[Dowly]

And yes he is a Republican.
So is Mueller. :O:




But in general about credentials: One should not take it for granted that someone with appropriate knowledge base tells the truth. Some fields, sure. Where it is hard for a layman to understand, then one is forced to take the word of an 'expert'. I am not talking about US politics specifically, but in general.

Example: Last year there was a new Titanic doc (Titanic: New Evidence) in which Senan Molony, a Titanic historian and an author with 30 years of experience, made claims that he 100% knew were false. Claims that has been known since 1912.

Dont stick to credentials, but the message.

Anything you hear or read, you can check by taking your phone from your pocket. There is no excuse to being ignorant today.

Again, this is not about US politics solely, just wanted to say it in general because the ignorance of people makes me mad.


EDIT: And yes, I've relied on credentials myself before I am sure, but I do try to not to whenever possible.

[Rockstar]

...just wanted to say it in general because the ignorance of people makes me mad.Internet Crusader:

A person on the internet who goes around preaching what they think is right or wrong and acting upon it.


https://pics.onsizzle.com/internet-crusaders-how-they-think-thev-look-how-they-actually-24067519.png

[Dowly]

Says the one who believes blog posts over scientific data.

[u crank]

So is Mueller. :O:

So was John McCain. So is Jeff Flake. So is/was James Comey. Etc. :D

I agree with what you are saying but expertise means something.

Dont stick to credentials, but the message.

I believe in my case above with regards to Bradley A. Smith I am.

[Bilge_Rat]

well again the whole problem with trying to charge Trump with a criminal campaign finance violation is the fact that lawyers can't even agree on whether, even if the facts are true, it was a criminal violation of the law. Some argue yes, some argue no.

One of the fundamental principles of criminal law is that someone can only be found guilty of a crime if the statute is crystal clear and not subject to interpretation. You can't be found guilty of violating the law and subject to potential jail time when it is not even clear what the law is. Here half the lawyers in America are arguing that the actions of Trump, even if true, are not a crime.


So no, even though the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC are getting all hot and bothered over this, don't expect to see Trump in a courtroom anytime soon.

[u crank]

In the hunt to take down Trump, Robert Mueller's probe has snared a number of individuals, although none for 'Russian collusion' yet. Some like Micheal Cohen and Paul Manafort are actually guilty of crimes committed without the help of the Special Counsel. Others it would appear are guilty of crimes because of the Special Counsel. One such case is that of Micheal Flynn whose biggest crime was being a harsh critic of the Obama administration. Obama (Flynn claims) forced him into early retirement in 2014 over disagreements about policy and then advised Trump not to hire him. Trump of course did appoint him as National Security Advisor.

Now we are getting some revelations that shed light into not just the Obama administration's FBI misdeeds but the overreach of Robert Mueller's probe. The Judge who will sentence Flynn, Judge Emmet Sullivan received a sentencing memo filed by Flynn's lawyers this week. The memo sheds new light on the Flynn-FBI meeting in January 2017. That meeting eventually led to Flynn being charged with lying to the FBI. How that all played out and some new and disturbing facts is described in this Wall Street Journal article by Kim Strassel.

https://outline.com/GL9ZLM

The meeting

...was arranged by then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who personally called Mr. Flynn on other business, then suggested he sit down with two agents to clear up the Russia question. Mr. McCabe urged Mr. Flynn to conduct the interview with no lawyer present—to make things easier.

The agents (including the infamous Peter Strzok) showed up within two hours. They had already decided not to inform Mr. Flynn that they had transcripts of his conversations or give him the standard warning against lying to the FBI. They wanted him “relaxed” and “unguarded.” Former Director James Comey this weekend bragged on MSNBC that he would never have “gotten away” with such a move in a more “organized” administration.

Judge Sullivan has run into this kind of shady operating tactics by the FBI before.

..as he wrote for the Journal last year, he got a “wake-up call” in 2008 while overseeing the trial of then-Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Judge Sullivan ultimately assigned a lawyer to investigate Justice Department misconduct.

The investigator’s report found prosecutors had engaged in deliberate and repeated ethical violations, withholding key evidence from the defense. It also excoriated the FBI for failing to write up 302s and for omitting key facts from those it did write.

Take a wild guess at who was the FBI Director for that case. Yep. Non other than Mr. 'straight arrow' Robert S. Mueller III.

One of the more remarkable tidbits is the date of the Flynn 302 which was used to convict him of lying. Aug. 22, 2017, seven months after the interview.

Texts from Mr. Strzok and testimony from Mr. Comey both suggest the 302 was written long before then. Was the 302 edited in the interim? If so, by whom, and at whose direction?

That would be interesting to know.

Judges have the ability to reject plea deals and require a prosecutor to make a case at trial. The criminal-justice system isn’t only about holding defendants accountable; trials also provide oversight of investigators and their tactics. And judges are not obliged to follow prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations.

No one knows how Judge Sullivan will rule. His reputation is for being no-nonsense, a straight shooter, an advocate of government transparency.

[Onkel Neal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLQ_DuQ65PmpDuBu6KJbszi0P76gsueX0M&v=ZL-Up0ej8Vo

[August]

This guy makes a pretty good case for repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the appointment of Senators back to the states.


http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/10/reform-senate-needs-end-directly-electing-senators/


Some rightfully bemoan the deterioration of collegiality. Others, like Dingell, less persuasively argue the upper chamber, with its lopsided representation, is an affront to democratic governance. Largely lacking in this debate are attempts to address the more fundamental question: What is the purpose of the Senate?
The Founders, of course, had a clear answer. In drafting the Constitution, they created a robust national government whose powers far exceeded what had preceeded it under the Articles of Confederation. The Supremacy Clause, for example, ensured that statutes passed by Congress would supersede state law. Some feared that under such a system the state governments would stand defenseless in the face of federal power.

[Buddahaid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLQ_DuQ65PmpDuBu6KJbszi0P76gsueX0M&v=ZL-Up0ej8Vo
That was nice.

[Sailor Steve]

This guy makes a pretty good case for repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the appointment of Senators back to the states.
Good point. The original purpose of doing it that way was so the States could retain their autonomy while placing themselves under control of a greater power. The strong central government was necessary to settle disputes between States, get the States to work together on matters of national concern, and to represent them as a whole when dealing with foreign policy.

The House of Representatives represents the people, and members are elected by the people they represent. The Senate represents the States, and members are appointed by those States. The President represents the nation as a whole to other nations, and is elected by a body (the Electoral College) designed strictly for that purpose. When the election of Senators was handed over to the people it was tacitly recognized that the States were no longer independent nations banded together for their common protection and cooperation, but were now reduced to the same subservient level as provinces in other countries.

Is it a coincidence that this happened in the same year (1913) that the Federal Income Tax was imposed upon us? Probably, but it's always fun to speculate.

[vienna]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=snl+its+a+wonderful+trump









<O>

[August]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVg044so190

[u crank]

One has to wonder how long the James Comey clown show will go on before it becomes a skit on SNL. Not holding my breath but the script writes itself.

On Monday afternoon, after testifying again before Congress, Comey threw a fit, making a great show of his exasperation at having to answer questions about the “Steele dossier” and the Hillary email investigation. He informed us that questioning a former FBI director who approved spying warrants without verifying them is tantamount to attacking “the FBI.”

https://spectator.org/comeys-latest-charade/

Comey has always been the sanctimonious virtue signaler about his unassailable 'higher values'. The total lack of self awareness he has is hard to comprehend. It is no wonder that he was a totally incompetent failure as FBI Director. One can only imagine his reaction to any criticism by his staff.

But what exactly are Comey’s “American values”? Spying on Americans on the basis of what their political opponents say about them? Lying to FISA courts about utterly politicized sources? Calling a spying warrant “verified” when it demonstrably wasn’t? Calling Americans “probable Russian agents” based on nothing more than overheated partisan conjecture? Leaking to the press through law school buddies for self-aggrandizement? Treating FBI memos as private property? Using violated government confidences as fodder for a lucrative score-settling memoir? That is only a partial list of Comey’s prized values.

How dare Congress question him for crowning himself the de facto attorney general and deciding on his say-so to absolve Hillary! How dare a sandbagged and sabotaged president fire him! (Trump had Comey sized up as a self-serving weasel from the start.)

[mapuc]

People who have been working with Trump are falling one after each other.

Can't remember their names, what kind of punishment they have received and what their jobs were when they worked for Trump during the election and right after.

Does this mean Trump had knowledge about it ?

That is something this commission under Mueller have to find out.

Markus

[Platapus]

Looks like it will be March before Disgraced General Flynn is sentenced.

[vienna]

Ya know, Flynn is a particular case. He has admitted to doing all the offenses he is accused of and the SCO and other entities do have the evidence to back up the charges. Flynn was fully aware his actions were possibly violations of Federal law; on at least two occasions, Flynn expressed his qualms to the Trump administration, once some time before before his appointment as Trump's NSA, and, again, at the time of his appointment; neither trump nor his minions expressed any interest in pursuing any investigation of those concerns (way to do "due diligence", Benedict Donald) and Flynn was left open to further legal problems. I'd say the TRump White House bears some responsibility...

Flynn did man up and own his own failings and has tried to set right what he's done. The animus Trump, his minions and the Trumpettes hols toward Flynn is all because Flynn did what a hell of a lot of others involved should so: accept responsibility and try to set things right. They aren't mad at Flynn because they consider him a 'traitor' to Trump (why anyone would hold loyalty towards one of the most disloyal persons ever is beyond me), they are angry because they know they have participated in a series of criminal wrongs, have been caught and are going to suffer for it. Flynn knows a lot about their transgressions and how they link together and that terrifies them. Its kind of like a guy who gets pulled over for speeding and rails at the cop writing the ticket saying cops should have better things to do and how its a waste of time and money; they aren't really angry, at the heart of it, because they are really concerned with use of LEO resources, or the cost, or even the time spent; the are angry because they know they actually broke the law and, most at the heart of it, they are really angry they got caught...

Flynn, other than his misadventures in government, has had a respectable career. He has manned-up, put on his big boy pants, and has admitted to and is taking responsibility for his actions. If the leeches that have attached themselves to Trump and Trump himself don't seem to understand that, then they deserve what's about to come down on them. Flynn, as an individual, is more basically honorable than the whole lot of Trump, his minions, and his Trumpettes combined...

Flynn has done serious illegalities, but he is trying to do right. He's going to have to live with the repercussions, but he hasn't let that keep him from giving up the last of his honor and dignity in defense of one who is as dishonorable and undignified as they come...








<O>

[Skybird]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46614138


:D An honour!

[em2nought]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46614138


:D An honour!


To those on Trump's side it does constitute an honor. If "our" guy is so much in leftist minds that they have to resort to dumb stunts like this then he must be doing something right. :up: I only wish that the left hated me this much, but they just dismiss me instead. Signed, just another flyover state voter. :03:

[u crank]

If you ever doubted the left wing MSM's incredible failure to divide truth from fiction and propaganda from objective opinion this should push you over the edge. This guy, Malcolm Nance, a so called 'national security analyst' for MSNBC appeared on Brian Williams' 11th Hour last night. The fact that Williams took it all in and never pushed back on this kind of mainstream conspiracy theory crap shows just how far MSNBC has fallen. I wonder will Williams look under his bed tonight?

Nance said for 20 years the Russian have been running a disinformation campaign against the U.S. so we would "welcome" an invasion.

What!! I had to listen to that a couple of times to be sure I heard it right. Watch the video. It is enlightening stuff.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/18/malcolm_nance_russia_ran_a_disinformation_campaign _for_years_so_us_would_welcome_an_invasion_under_t rump.html

They now own the mindset of one third of this nation.

And by doing that, they have managed to now make us not believe anything that we believed before. That diversity was an American factor which made us greater. They have played on the themes of far-right conspiracy theorists from the 1960. The John Birch society, a sideline group. You know, and the farthest extremes of the libertarian parties. They have amplified racism to the point where the alt-right, Steve Bannon`s own creation of gamers is now the wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump campaign and are believers in David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan, Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi, and Robert Spencer, the Islamophobe, to the point where they`re mainstreamed.

Williams ended the segment by saying...

Wow. Malcolm Nance, this is why we ask you all the time to come on this broadcast. Scary stuff, but it needs to be said. Needs to be heard. Thank you, sir, so much for joining us once again.

And people on the left make fun of Fox News.

[eddie]

Trump is going to pull all our troops out of Syria over the next 30 days, even when his Generals tell him it would be a real bad move. All he can worry about is his punked up wall. He hasn't thought this through at all. What will happen to the Kurds who fought against ISIS? He'll give a free hand for the Turks to go after them, along with Assad's forces plus the Iranians. Now Iran can run weapons across Syria, even into Lebanon for Hezbollah, without worrying about it. But when it comes to Trump, stupid is as stupid does.

[Skybird]

TBH, he is right in that the mission goal was to defeat IS in Syria - not to stop the Turks or protect the Kurds. Doing the first and latter should be more the Europeans' task, since it is happenign before their housedoor.

But Europeans - and the Turkish dictator - you know th blues (sigh)...


But dreaming of a more potent European army parallel to NATO... :D LOL Maulhelden.

[ikalugin]

What will happen to the Kurds who fought against ISIS?
They have served their purpose and would probably be gassed by the US ally - Iraq all over again.


Unless you believe that US should have created and sustained the independent Kurdistan this was always going to be their fate.


Ofcourse that may indeed be an option to consider, but it has it's own problems (ie turning all local powers against you while creating and sustaining a state which you can't properly resupply).


Now Iran can run weapons across Syria, even into Lebanon for Hezbollah, without worrying about it.
This is possible even with an independent Kurdistan.

[August]

I might also point out that we still have troops stationed in neighboring Iraq.

[Rockstar]

... and a barely tolerable ally we would drop like a hot potato had they not the same concerns in the region as we do.

[Skybird]

Most likely the Donald has bowed to Erdoghan who threatened a scenario where Turkish and American soldiers might start to shoot at each other. The Turks are planning a bigger invasion of more of Syria since longer time, and threatened an all out strike against the Kurds as well.

That Turkey still is member of NATO, is unbelievable and severly devastates NATO's credibility. Which does not change the fact that the Donald is a clueless dilletantee not knowing anything about anything.

And the Europeans? Are once again completely ill-prepared to deal with the fallout of this. Idiots.They have made Erdoghan strong with their brainless endless babbling and paying. And now the ypay him to not lose the "investments" :har: they already paid for, intead of understanding that they once again messed things up and make a clear cut.

China, Russia, Turkey, Syria teach us one thing: the world of the present years does not belong to the babblers and bribers, but to the tough bullies not shy to use force and to bath their hands in blood. Their gains and successes and that the "strong" West must let them get away with it, speak a clear message.

[Jimbuna]

Trump is going to pull all our troops out of Syria over the next 30 days, even when his Generals tell him it would be a real bad move. All he can worry about is his punked up wall. He hasn't thought this through at all. What will happen to the Kurds who fought against ISIS? He'll give a free hand for the Turks to go after them, along with Assad's forces plus the Iranians. Now Iran can run weapons across Syria, even into Lebanon for Hezbollah, without worrying about it. But when it comes to Trump, stupid is as stupid does.

Being the C-in-C he has that authority but I'm of the opinion he tends to do what he is allowed to do without a great deal of forethought, on a whim, despite the advice he is able to call upon from the 'experts' whose job it is to advise.

This latest decision is nothing short of a gift to Putin and hands Syria over to Russia as their latest colony. This could well lead to some European countries (Britain included) wondering just how reliable an ally the US is under the current administration.

[ikalugin]

This latest decision is nothing short of a gift to Putin and hands Syria over to Russia as their latest colony. This could well lead to some European countries (Britain included) wondering just how reliable an ally the US is under the current administration.
What are the US options then?

[Jimbuna]

What are the US options then?

That would be dependant on what advice the US generals/experts have given.

[ikalugin]

That would be dependant on what advice the US generals/experts have given.
What you, as a voter, think he should have done?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html
Interesting to see this development.

[Catfish]

^ hehe, seems the US appreciate the russian edfforts in meddling with the elections, and embrace it :haha:

If you can't beat them, join them. Interesting times ahead..

[Jimbuna]

What you, as a voter, think he should have done?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html
Interesting to see this development.

I'm not a US citizen.

[Mr Quatro]

Putin is on a first name basis with President Trump ... they must be old friends by now, uh?


https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/12/20/Putin-on-Trump-decision-to-leave-Syria-Donald-is-right/4811545309652/

Putin on Trump decision to leave Syria: 'Donald is right'

"Donald is right and I agree with him," Putin said in his annual meeting with reporters.
"If the U.S. decided to withdraw its contingent, it has done the right thing.
We see no signs of withdraw, but we admit that this is possible,
especially since we are moving along the path of a political settlement."

[Rockstar]

From the days of the CCCP I believe Russia has always had very close ties with Syria. It wasnt until the freedom bombs started dropping lately did Russia send its military in to protect their interests in region.

Frankly I would rather deal with Russia who holds more sway over Assad than some new never heard before armed Islamic religious zeolots organization in charge of Syria.

Werent we told ISIS was fighting to oust Assad? Well, ISIS nolonger seems to be a threat. Time to go home.

[Skybird]

That would be dependant on what advice the US generals/experts have given.
German media reported that eveybody, the defenc eminsitre, thePentagon, the military chief of staff, the intel services - EVERYBODY - told him not to pull out. And that he did not tell them in advance of his decision and that they all were caught on the wrong foot, stunned and surprised.

I said before and I say it again, Russia is not the big issue that influenced the Donald here, but it was Erdoghan calling him out. That Russia and Iran benefits form this deciison, is just a side effect. An obscene side-effect by its dimensions, but still not the original intention.

[ikalugin]

German media reported that eveybody, the defenc eminsitre, thePentagon, the military chief of staff, the intel services - EVERYBODY - told him not to pull out. And that he did not tell them in advance of his decision and that they all were caught on the wrong foot, stunned and surprised.
But why shouldn't US pull out? What objective do the US forces have in Syria?

[Skybird]

^ Containment: Iran.
Containment: Russia.
Containment: Turkey.


Containment: IS. It's still alive.

[ikalugin]

^ Containment: Iran.
Containment: Russia.
Containment: Turkey.


Containment: IS. It's still alive.
Containment via creation and sustainment of a geographically isolated state?


Can you please explain this idea in greater depth?

[ikalugin]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46640114 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46640114)
May be related to the whole US-Syria thing.

[Skybird]

Containment via creation and sustainment of a geographically isolated state?


Can you please explain this idea in greater depth?
"We stay in, thus the others must stay out". Simple as that, no better option available anyway.

[Skybird]

And Mattis throws in the towel.

Trump macht wieder eine Kerbe in seinen Colt.

[eddie]

Now the White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for our complete withdrawal from Afghanistan for next year. On one side, I would be glad to be out of there, but the other part of me worries about AQ and ISIS setting up terrorist training camps again, which would endanger the whole world.

[ikalugin]

Now the White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for our complete withdrawal from Afghanistan for next year. On one side, I would be glad to be out of there, but the other part of me worries about AQ and ISIS setting up terrorist training camps again, which would endanger the whole world.
Well atleast the drug farming cannot get any worse.

[em2nought]

Now the White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for our complete withdrawal from Afghanistan for next year. On one side, I would be glad to be out of there, but the other part of me worries about AQ and ISIS setting up terrorist training camps again, which would endanger the whole world.


There are more ways to get a border wall than just by threatening democrats and their "toys". :03:

[eddie]

It will take Congress to get the money for the wall, not the Military. Trump can't control that, even if he thinks he can!

[eddie]

Well atleast the drug farming cannot get any worse.


Got that right,lol I could care less if those people in Afghanistan want to go back to living in the dark ages, means nothing to me. But terrorist training camps and networks are a different matter. But have no idea as to how to go forward.Nothing has worked so far, the Afghan Army is a joke, so what do we do?

[ikalugin]

Atleast for us the drugs are about as big of a factor, that heroin farming buisness is no joke.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Afghanistan_opium_poppy_cultivation_1994-2007b.PNG

The irony is that drug production fell only when Taliban has been trying to get accepted as a legitimate goverment, right before the US invasion. This lead to many, many conspiracy theories (basically that Americans are trying to kill the Russian people by promoting the drug trade).

[eddie]

We have a heck of a big drug problem over here , so why would we promote more drugs? Doesn't make any sense.

[ikalugin]

We have a heck of a big drug problem over here , so why would we promote more drugs? Doesn't make any sense.
I think the issue here is that the drug related farming is very profitable for the local farmers and US does not feel so inclined to anger said farmers as then they would go to Taliban, ISIS, etc.


Which is why, atleast in my understanding, US drug fighting measures in Afghanistan are, ehem, underwhelming.


For the obvious geographic reasons we get a lot of transit (and consumption) in a way it is like Cocaine and the Central/Southern America drug trade for the US.
https://cdn4.img.sputniknews.com/images/15816/18/158161800.jpg

[eddie]

The war on drugs will never be won, unless people stop taking them, no matter where they live. If demand for them stopped, production would stop. But that is not going to happen anytime soon, no matter what.

[eddie]

Now the Idiot CIC has ordered the withdrawal of 7,000 US troops from Afghanistan. Mueller's investigation plus the other investigations in to his business' is starting to make him become unhinged, like we didn't know that already,lol Poor Donnie boy is throwing one big tantrum, and there is no way Congress will pass a budget including $5 Billion for the wall, don't have the votes in the Senate to pass it, despite what they voted for in the House.

[Skybird]

^ This. And what does the president of the Polarized States of America?


Posting this.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1075846949427908608/video/1


I say it in German so that not the slightest doubt remains or gets lost in translation.


Einfach nur ein völlig vertrottelter, schwachsinniger, verblödeter Idiot, der mit den Füßen stampft wenn er die Bonbons nicht kriegt, die er haben will. Idiot, idiot, idiot.



What a blender. And half of the active American voters still fall for this zero. Not a compliment that is.


Think I can save myself from asking for a visum now, eh, Donald?


One message is crystal clear. The US is nobody anyone could trust for any reason anymore. Untrustworthy, unpredictable, unsolid. You have come a long way, dear America.

[Dowly]

Defense Secretary James Mattis announced his resignation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46640114

[Jimbuna]

One message is crystal clear. The US is nobody anyone could trust for any reason anymore. Untrustworthy, unpredictable, unsolid. You have come a long way, dear America.

There could well be some mileage in that....the British press are beginning to echo exactly that.

[Cybermat47]

Yeah, if Mattis didn’t want to serve under Trump, that shows that Trump is a **** President.

#Mattis2020

[Rockstar]

Finally France and Germany and by extension the E.U. will finally have their chance to play a meaningful role in Syria! Last I heard the European Union is enforcing a so-called Blocking Statute to protect its firms operating in Iran from US sanctions against Iran. Which in turn will keep Iran wealthy enough to expand its influence all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. The way I see you can commit YOUR troops to stop them.

Its your jelly donut, you eat it.



edit: Russia has been in Syria since 1972. Its nothing new go home stop complaining and figure out what you should be doing

[Dowly]

I for one applaud US pulling out of Syria. Let Assad get rid of the various terrorist rebel factions. Might actually bring some sort of order in the country.

[ikalugin]

Finally France and Germany and by extension the E.U. will finally have their chance to play a meaningful role in Syria! Last I heard the European Union is enforcing a so-called Blocking Statute to protect its firms operating in Iran from US sanctions against Iran. Which in turn will keep Iran wealthy enough to expand its influence all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. The way I see you can commit YOUR troops to stop them.

Its your jelly donut, you eat it.



edit: Russia has been in Syria since 1972. Its nothing new go home stop complaining and figure out what you should be doing
On the other hand US sanctions on Iran allow it to develop nuclear weapons with their delivery systems and actually theaten Europe.

[Rockstar]

On the other hand US sanctions on Iran allow it to develop nuclear weapons with their delivery systems and actually theaten Europe.


Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal or perfect manner. Realism, on the other hand, tends toward a more pragmatic and actual view of a situation. A nuclear Iran is inevitable.

According to one U.S. government source we hoped by lifting sanctions that Iran’s leaders would use this influx of investment to lift up their people. Instead, the regime did what it always does: poured money into supporting terrorism, fomenting violence and promoting regional instability. From its support of Syria’s brutal Bashar al-Assad regime and the Houthis in Yemen, to missile attacks on its neighbours, the Iranian regime actually grew more aggressive. Its increasingly brazen actions highlighted the deal’s fundamental flaws and reinforced the decision to withdraw.

Europe can spill their blood in Syria they're paying for it.

But I'm sure Russia will, just as we have seen, defend its interests in Syria even against Iran. Europe as usual will just sit back and bitch and complain all day long while they make money which only makes our job harder.

[ikalugin]

Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal or perfect manner. Realism, on the other hand, tends toward a more pragmatic and actual view of a situation. A nuclear Iran is inevitable.

According to one U.S. government source we hoped by lifting sanctions that Iran’s leaders would use this influx of investment to lift up their people. Instead, the regime did what it always does: poured money into supporting terrorism, fomenting violence and promoting regional instability. From its support of Syria’s brutal Bashar al-Assad regime and the Houthis in Yemen, to missile attacks on its neighbours, the Iranian regime actually grew more aggressive. Its increasingly brazen actions highlighted the deal’s fundamental flaws and reinforced the decision to withdraw.

Europe can spill their blood in Syria they're paying for it.
Originally it was a trade of, but now indeed the nuclear Iran may well be inevitable after how US sabotaged the control regime.


The added "benefit" to that is the decreased credibility of USA (and other powers, Europeans and Russia) in any future negotiations, for example Korean de-nuclearisation.


p.s. this is uniquely an USA challenge, as US has allies everywhere and has to balance the interests of it's local allies (ie Saudis fighting a proxy war with Iran) and it's out of region allies (ie Europeans who do not want a nuclear Iran). In the end I think that US has sabotaged it's long term interests by leaving the control regime as nuclear Iran would not only undermine the interests of the out of region allies, but also of the local allies, with the regional nuclear arms race.

[Skybird]

trump betrays everybody. The Kurds. The sisraelis. The Europeans. And the long-time intersts and strategic perspectives of the US. He opens the field for Iran. And Russia.



But he sticks to the murderous terror regime of Saudi Arabia, because, as he reminded everybiody, they buy Amerian weapons, and that is good for America.


Financing and equipping a global terror exporter is good for America, that means.



I thought after Bush jr, foreign politics could not get worse, but then came Obama. And after Obama I thought again foreign politics could not get worse, but then came the Donald. Making idiocy grrreat again.


"Again"...? American foreign politics is in constant degenration since at least 18 years. Well. Scientists claim peak IQ was in the early and mid 70s already.

[em2nought]

I don't see why Europe would fear a nuclear Iran? You're going to be a collection of caliphates soon, why would Iran nuke their bestest buddies. :03:

[Catfish]

^ Exactly. And since we inherited the mess you anglo-saxons initiated there since decades we let Russia 'solve' it all. Along with the good-friend-Saudis.

[Bleiente]

Eh bien ... maintenant, il se passe exactement ce qui est arrivé à de nombreux grands empires: ils expirent et perdent une importance énorme. Dans 20 ans, les États-Unis n’ont plus rien à dire dans l’histoire du monde: ce ne sont que des terres agricoles. :03:

[em2nought]

Eh bien ... maintenant, il se passe exactement ce qui est arrivé à de nombreux grands empires: ils expirent et perdent une importance énorme. Dans 20 ans, les États-Unis n’ont plus rien à dire dans l’histoire du monde: ce ne sont que des terres agricoles. :03:


It would be nice if we didn't hasten that ending along by embracing politically correct stupidity :03:



Ce serait bien si nous ne précipitions pas cette conclusion en embrassant une stupidité politiquement correcte

[Cybermat47]

edit: Russia has been in Syria since 1972. Its nothing new go home stop complaining and figure out what you should be doing

I’d like to know what you know that General (retired) Mattis doesn’t. Especially given the fact that he has half a century of experience in military matters, especially in the Middle East.

“For a sitting U.S. president to see our allies as freeloaders is nuts."
- General (retired) Mattis

[Buddahaid]

It's another great Republican push for isolationism that presages most of our wars.
http://www.paperlessarchives.com/Dr_Seuss_World_War_II_Political_Cartoon_14.gif

[August]

Ah I see, we're not the Worlds Policeman but apparently if we stop being the Worlds Policeman then we're allowing foreign children to be eaten.

[u crank]

It's another great Republican push for isolationism that presages most of our wars.


Hmm, what are you suggesting here? Will Syria become the next Afghanistan? If the United States of America, the richest, most technologically advanced military power the world has ever known can't resolve one problem in a backwater country like Afghanistan against a single adversary after seventeen years and 1.07 trillion dollars what hope do they have in Syria which is a far more complicated situation? What is the end game in Syria and is there any possible chance it will ever be accomplished?

[ikalugin]

I don't see why Europe would fear a nuclear Iran? You're going to be a collection of caliphates soon, why would Iran nuke their bestest buddies. :03:
Russia is not a (purely) European countries, yet even we are concerned with nuclear Iran.

[Rockstar]

On the other hand US sanctions on Iran allow it to develop nuclear weapons with their delivery systems and actually threaten Europe.


If anyone 'allowed' Iran to build a nuclear weapon I think that would be Abdul Qadeer Khan and (though not proven) Pakistan. And if Iran decides to enrich enough uranium to build nuclear warheads its because they choose too. There is nobody else to blame not the U.S., not the E.U. not Russia not China or some far and away distant island in the Pacific.

However at the moment IMO the immediate concern seem to be the conventional hostilities Iran is waging thanks to their new found wealth. I also read somewhere that Iran pledged to stand with Europe and the JCPOA, meanwhile the U.S. pressures Iran with sanctions, kinda reminds me of the good cop bad cop routine. :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

I’d like to know what you know that General (retired) Mattis doesn’t. Especially given the fact that he has half a century of experience in military matters, especially in the Middle East.

“For a sitting U.S. president to see our allies as freeloaders is nuts."
- General (retired) Mattis

I have the utmost respect for General Mattis he's an outstanding soldier. But maybe we dont need soldiers right now.

[August]

Russia is not a (purely) European countries, yet even we are concerned with nuclear Iran.




Now you're concerned about that? Didn't seem to worry Russia when you were building reactors for them.

[Buddahaid]

Ah I see, we're not the Worlds Policeman but apparently if we stop being the Worlds Policeman then we're allowing foreign children to be eaten.

That's the narrow view and you said it, not me.

By the way, the wall is not a new concept. Notice the ladder into Mexico for all that cheap migrant labor.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z5mXezPZ6Bg/Tq1XHAlROSI/AAAAAAAAACg/p0d-nU2gr08/s1600/ImmigrationQuota1921.JPG
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/76/ad/53/76ad5343fd247746bf30fcf2792a3462.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/ea/02/76/ea02769fb611f71f03113469222a1452.jpg
http://www.newsport.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Isolationaism.jpg

[Hawk66]

Ah I see, we're not the Worlds Policeman but apparently if we stop being the Worlds Policeman then we're allowing foreign children to be eaten.

August, you should read the resignment letter of Mattis if not already done. Maybe then you understand the difference between acting as a World Police and a responsible super power.

I may remember you that the US choose to invade in Middle East and Afghanistan and in the latter Theater all major allies have contributed considerably...both with resources and blood. If you got out now, do you think in the next 100 years there will any trust remaining in those regions ? Especially if Trump supports the Saudis but not the Kurds, who struggle for their own sovereignty the last couple of decades ?

And I may remember you that even in the Middle East, countries which have not supported the invasion, have considerably shared the burden or do y think there is always only a military dimension to an issue ?. I may only point, as an example, you to the refugee stream and in which countries they go. Senator McCain has recognized that - but yeah he was a hidden liberal like Mattis, I know.

It is sad that supporters of populists do not see the root cause for the problems in their country. They will see it if final damage is done. But yeah, so are humans...a look at history books reveal that: Following a charismatic (??) leader until the end. The next generation have to deal with the created mess...

[Dowly]

Don't bother, this is the guy who thinks US won WW2 alone.

[Skybird]

Don't bother, this is the guy who thinks US won WW2 alone.
Not alone, but it is hard to imagine how the Axis would not have won without the industrial output from the US.

Whether especially the Germans would have managed to keep what they had conquered - that is an entirely different question. Militarily alone that probaly would not have been managable. Only by "culturification" (my word) as well, like the Romans did. And even for them it did not last forever: in the end it was a foreign culture eroding and taking over the Roman from within that overwhelmed Rome.

Back to the main program.

[Dowly]

Not alone, but it is hard to imagine how the Axis would not have won without the industrial output from the US.
Sure, I agree. Most of us know how WWII was won, August just isn't one of them.

[August]

August, you should read the resignment letter of Mattis if not already done. Maybe then you understand the difference between acting as a World Police and a responsible super power.

I may remember you that the US choose to invade in Middle East and Afghanistan and in the latter Theater all major allies have contributed considerably...both with resources and blood. If you got out now, do you think in the next 100 years there will any trust remaining in those regions ? Especially if Trump supports the Saudis but not the Kurds, who struggle for their own sovereignty the last couple of decades ?

And I may remember you that even in the Middle East, countries which have not supported the invasion, have considerably shared the burden or do y think there is always only a military dimension to an issue ?. I may only point, as an example, you to the refugee stream and in which countries they go. Senator McCain has recognized that - but yeah he was a hidden liberal like Mattis, I know.

It is sad that supporters of populists do not see the root cause for the problems in their country. They will see it if final damage is done. But yeah, so are humans...a look at history books reveal that: Following a charismatic (??) leader until the end. The next generation have to deal with the created mess...

Trump is the next generation. You'll remember that it was his predecessor who sent our forces into Syria without Congressional approval. That is supposed to be limited to 90 days. How many years has it been now? He is dealing with the mess by pulling us out before we get more of our people killed.

Yes I have read Matthis' resignation and this is why I agree with the administrations move.

We have no clear military mission in Syria. We originally went into that county to help the rebels fight Assad. We failed in that mission. ISIS is certainly not going to regenerate with Assads forces poised to complete their reconquest of the country. We're not there to fight either the Syrians or the Russians, a possibility which becomes more likely the longer we keep our troops in close proximity with them. Especially such a small force that won't be able to defend themselves.

There has been plenty of hand-wringing on this forum ever since we put troops into Syria and there is even more hand wringing now that we are leaving. People who called us war mongers when we went there now accuse us of abandonment. Well it makes me think that nobody really cares if we are there or not but only complain because it's Trump that wants to do it.

Well yes he is going to do it, and he is also going to pull our people from that 14 year long failed experiment of nation building in Afghanistan too and God bless him for it. We have made no progress in either nation and it's time to cut our losses before we get more of our people killed and maimed. If this is a problem for Germany and the other NATO allies then let them fill the vacuum with their own troops. Maybe it can count in lieu of your unpaid alliance dues.

[August]

Don't bother, this is the guy who thinks US won WW2 alone.


I never said that we won WW2 alone and you know it so stop being a jerk you troll.

[Dowly]

People who called us war mongers when we went there now accuse us of abandonment.
Yeah, that's because that's what you've done since Vietnam.


EDIT:
I never said that we won WW2 alone and you know it so stop being a jerk you troll.


Just recently you said that the Dutch people should be grateful for the US liberating them (paraphrasing). You were wrong.

And yes, you've made claims that the US "won the war" many times over the years, I've got a very good memory.

[August]

Yeah, that's because that's what you've done since Vietnam.


]Just recently you said that the Dutch people should be grateful for the US liberating them (paraphrasing). You were wrong.


And yes, you've made claims that the US "won the war" many times over the years, I've got a very good memory.


Well then maybe you should stop drinking so much because your memory isn't as good as you think it is. Of course we won the war, we were after all on the winning side, unlike nazi ally Finland. Show me where I said we won it alone like you claim.

As for the Dutch I can only go by my personal experience with them and they were quite grateful for the US Airborne liberating them when I was there last. I have personally marched through the streets of Nijmegen lined with cheering crowds throwing flowers in our path. They were cheering other nations too (although Germans were somewhat subdued as was the Englishes but for different reasons) but they really broke loose when the American contingent trooped by. Pretty girls running up and giving us kisses, little kids wanting to hold our hands. I have been bought drinks in Nijmegen bars by Dutch survivors of Market Garden just because I was wearing the uniform of a US soldier and those of us wearing Airborne wings were treated even better. Those are not the actions of a people who have your consistently dim view of us so you'll excuse me if I reject your theories.

[Skybird]

Trump is the next generation.


:har:



You got stuck in the mid-60s, maybe?



Trump is the figure head of the old caste of WASPs. Their relevance is declining rapidly. Thats why they are so angry. The next generation - that is the Middle and Southern Americans, the multiculturalists and socialists. And its only a question of time until they also take over the Republican party, like they did with the Democrats. At lats iof the Reopublicans want to win elections in the fture as well. Becasue the angry old whites are dying out, and get bred out, and the Latinos move and breed their way in, and both in numbers that cannot be beaten. America turns darker in skin colour, and with that it turns redder in colour (red internationally is the colour of the left/left, outside of America not the conservatives/Republicans).

[ikalugin]

Out of the identarianists there are plenty of the right wing types out there, so I am not really concerned with the GOP being overrun.

[August]

Pretty good article.





Trump is right to withdraw US troops from Syria. We've done our job by defeating ISIS.

Trump’s decision is a good one, even though it reflects poorly on his administration’s security decision-making process. With the defeat of ISIS, the risks of keeping U.S. troops in Syria badly outweigh any potential benefits. The rationales that administration officials recently offered for staying are really reasons to go.
No one knows exactly how an “enduring” defeat of ISIS differs from plain old defeat. That’s the point, presumably. Ensuring ISIS’s total extinction is a useful goal for keeping troops there forever, adding more, and adopting all manner of nation-building goals.
The idea that U.S. forces can compel Iran’s eviction makes little sense. Like Russia, Iran has long-standing interests in Syria that are stronger than ours, was invited by the regime to deploy forces, and is unlikely to pull them before the civil war is over. Leaving rivals the draining task of trying to stabilize Syria is hardly doing them a favor. Syria offers occupiers nothing that can vault them to greater power and lots of potential trouble. Keeping U.S. forces there until Iran decides to leave simply offers them the right to say how long we incur costs.
Nothing justifies the risks of staying in Syria

Chasing those nebulous benefits means running a massive risk of escalation, with the Assad regime, Russia, Iran or NATO-ally Turkey. U.S. forces protecting Kurdish allies have engaged in tense stand-offs (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey/turkeys-erdogan-says-joint-us-kurdish-patrols-near-syria-border-unacceptable-idUSKCN1NB1BE) with Turkish forces in northern Syria. Israel attacks (https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-it-has-carried-out-over-200-strikes-in-syria-since-2017/) on Iranian-backed forces in Syria risk wider war that could embroil U.S. forces.
Most worrying, given the nuclear stakes, is the potential for inadvertent war with Russia. In February, U.S. commandos and airstrikes killed scores of Russian “mercenaries” in a prolonged battle. Ambassador James Jeffrey later remarked of the incident that “this has occurred about a dozen times (https://ru.usembassy.gov/special-representative-for-syria-engagement-jeffrey-in-interview-with-ria-novosti-and-kommersant/) in one place or another in Syria,” and “there have been various engagements [with the Russians in Syria], some involving exchange of fire, some not.” This revelation somehow did not set off alarm bells in Congress, which never authorized the war in Syria, let alone conducted serious oversight of it.
The United State has nothing approaching the tremendous stakes needed to justify running these risks. This calculation should not turn on what one thinks of Russia’s actions in Europe or its relations with Donald Trump. The same goes for Iran. If you want to punish rivals for actions elsewhere, find a better way to do it than using 2,000 troops to manage the end of the Syrian civil war so that they do not do it for you.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/12/20/donald-trump-decision-withdraw-troops-syria-lowers-risks-costs-column/2374266002/

[Cybermat47]

Pretty good article.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/12/20/donald-trump-decision-withdraw-troops-syria-lowers-risks-costs-column/2374266002/

Thank god we have a policy director and a director of programs to tell us why a four-star USMC General with half a century of experience is wrong.

[Rockstar]

Thank god we have a policy director and a director of programs to tell us why a four-star USMC General with half a century of experience is wrong.




It wouldn't be the first time.


https://i.pinimg.com/736x/87/ed/a3/87eda343a2736efbb75ae4a21c5f50c9--philippine-army-douglas-macarthur.jpg

“This looks like the last straw,” a seething President Harry Truman scrawled in his diary on April 6, 1951. Once again the commander of U.S. forces in the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur, had gone public with his differences with the commander in chief over the conduct of the war.


I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.



https://mrzip66.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/general-george-s-patton.jpg


At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of Army records in Bavaria. That he had been an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression triggered his sudden removal from the battlefield. In the aftermath of war, the Western powers sought to sideline the mercurial Patton and his incendiary views.
But Patton despised the politically driven circus and the media minions that carried out their dirty work. Still, he continued to speak out against the Russians as an American witness to their brutality during and after the war. As Stalin devoured Eastern Europe, Patton remarked, “I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them… …the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”

[August]

I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.


That's a great quote by Truman. Imagine the nerve of a former clerk questioning the great MacArthur!

[Rockstar]

great quotes by Truman and Patton ;)

I have the utmost respect for these Generals I stand in awe of their abilityl to wage war, achievements, leadership and intelligence. But thankfully they dont run the show.

[Cybermat47]

The difference between Truman and Trump is that your allies respected Truman. We don’t respect Trump. But we do respect Mattis.

Meanwhile, enjoy your guns while you can, because it turns out that former Democratic Party supporter Donald Trump is doing Democrat things.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/147152/trump-embraced-gun-control-wednesday-everyone-shrugged

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/19/conservatives-decry-trumps-new-gun-control-mandate-announce-lawsuit-against-bump-stock-ban/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/20/gun-rights-supporters-outraged-donald-trumps-bump-stock-ban/

[Cybermat47]

Anyway, in the interest of discussing something rather than just arguing in circles, what would you guys say is Pres. Trump’s biggest success so far? I’m interested in knowing more about why people support him.

[Buddahaid]

All that means nothing. Whatever Trump says can never be counted on.

[Cybermat47]

Whatever Trump says can never be counted on.

That was my point.

To quote one of my disillusioned Trump supporting friends, he’s “just another politician”.

[Cybermat47]

Republican Representative elect, retired USN SEAL Lieutenant Commander, and wounded Iraq veteran Dan Crenshaw on why America should stay in Syria:

President Barack Obama was planning to fulfill his campaign promise of total troop withdrawal, despite objections from military leadership. While the situation seemed stable, it was obvious to those of us on the ground that it was only stable because the United States was there. The rest of the story is the history of the Islamic State.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/21/dan-crenshaw-why-guys-like-me-go-places-like-syria/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2070292d0a3f

[Rockstar]

This isnt about Trump. As much as I agree with MacArthur, Patton, and Mattis and admire their ability to wage war. and bring destruction upon the enemy. They dont run the show, they are told by civilian government when to kill and for how long to go about that task.

What was the purpose of U.S military involvement in Syria? Has it been accomplished?

Now for Trump, how exactly has been disrespectful to our allies?

[u crank]

Anyway, in the interest of discussing something rather than just arguing in circles, what would you guys say is Pres. Trump’s biggest success so far? I’m interested in knowing more about why people support him.

One could list a few but then the naysayers come out of the woodwork. But for sure one is exposing the depth of an unelected corporate state that cares very little if anything for the will of the citizens. Deciding to disengage from foreign military operations exposes this quite clearly. The shrill and hysterical hyper ventilating from the Pravda arm (MSNBC,CNN, and even FOX news) of this corporate state is evidence of that. I am not a big Trump fan but things like this are reason to think his presidency is not all a waste. This corporate state knows no political affiliation and only seeks compliant Presidents like GWB and Obama. Hillary Clinton would have taken this to a new level. Trump, (on some issues, not all) refuses to go along. The main two that I see are unlimited illegal immigration and endless foreign military engagements. Trump campaigned on those issues and shows a determination to keep his promises.

[Rockstar]

Now I dont completely agree with the idea that all policy is determined by the Military Industrial Complex. But this article is close enough.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-military-industrial-complex-controls-america/5633549/amp

Unlike corporations that sell to consumers, Lockheed Martin and the other top contractors to the U.S. Government are highly if not totally dependent upon sales to governments, for their profits, especially sales to their own government, which they control — they control their home market, which is the U.S. Government, and they use it to sell to its allied governments, all of which foreign governments constitute the export markets for their products and services.

These corporations control the U.S. Government, and they control NATO. And, here is how they do it, which is essential to understand, in order to be able to make reliable sense of America’s foreign policies, such as which nations are ‘allies’ of the U.S. Government (such as Saudi Arabia and Israel), and which nations are its ‘enemies’ (such as Libya and Syria) — and are thus presumably suitable for America to invade, or else to overthrow by means of a coup. First, the nation’s head-of-state becomes demonized; then, the invasion or coup happens. And, that’s it. And here’s how.

[ikalugin]

First, the nation’s head-of-state becomes demonized; then, the invasion or coup happens. And, that’s it. And here’s how.It all makes sense now, considering how Russia is the number two exporter of arms and how China is catching up.

[August]

If you're really interested then here's one example:


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping



As Trump nears the two-year mark of his historic election and conducts political rallies around the country, during which he talks up his wins in hopes it will energize Republican voters, the administration has counted up 289 accomplishments in 18 categories, capped by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kavanaugh-confirmed-by-smallest-senate-margin-in-137-years) to the Supreme Court.
They include 173 major wins, such as adding more than 4 million jobs, and another 116 smaller victories, some with outsize importance, such as the 83 percent one-year increase in arrests of MS-13 gang members.

[Mr Quatro]

Anyway, in the interest of discussing something rather than just arguing in circles, what would you guys say is Pres. Trump’s biggest success so far? I’m interested in knowing more about why people support him.

The tax thingy I was against, but I guess it's working so far and of course the fact that we don't have Hillary Clinton to kick around and discuss is my number one plus for President Trump being the POTUS.

He has been very supportive of the military and the budget for new weapons will outlast the democrats in Congress for two more years. :yep:

[eddie]

The new tax bill is working!?! Got to be kidding me,lol Deficits are at an all time high, spending is way up, but tax revenues are way down, can't get any better then that!!

[Mr Quatro]

The new tax bill is working!?! Got to be kidding me,lol Deficits are at an all time high, spending is way up, but tax revenues are way down, can't get any better then that!!

It's more of a personal thing than a collective one :yep:

[August]

http://thepilotspub.org/download/file.php?id=2699

[Buddahaid]

I'm getting nothing. Best post ever.... :arrgh!:

[em2nought]

Having to spend vast sums on the military is just the price of admission to get Trump, I don't think it's in his personal roundhouse of things wished for. Renegotiating everything that we got super crap deals on in the first place is his forte. If he can stop the mass importation of democrat(socialist) voters he will have been a success. I fear that the prior idiots have let it slip by too long already. Getting us out of foreign entanglements that only cost us big time money and kill Republican voters would be a plus. Trump just needs to pitch border security as the new way for the military industrial complex to bank money. LOL

[Buddahaid]

Don't downplay the task of actually using the weapons systems and knowing how well they work.

[Buddahaid]

And as the government shutdown continues and the stock market slide continues, our fearless leader continues to blame just about anything other than his bombastic, tantrum throwing, helter-skelter leadership. Amazing how it is always somebody else's fault. He sure knows how to put the twit in twitter.

[August]

You mean as opposed to the Lefts opinion that EVERYTHING is Trumps fault from Global Warming to the decline of Western Civilization?

A government shutdown doesn't hurt me one bit and I think the swamp is just scared that the public will see how easily they can get along without them so they cry wolf through their media shills on CNN.

[Buddahaid]

....they cry wolf through their media shills on CNN.

I guess that makes Trump the shill in chief then.

[August]

I guess that makes Trump the shill in chief then.


Show me a politician who isn't a shill and I will show you somebody who isn't in politics.

[Buddahaid]

I'll high five that. Merry Christmas.

[Hawk66]

Trump is the next generation. You'll remember that it was his predecessor who sent our forces into Syria without Congressional approval. That is supposed to be limited to 90 days. How many years has it been now? He is dealing with the mess by pulling us out before we get more of our people killed.

Yes I have read Matthis' resignation and this is why I agree with the administrations move.

We have no clear military mission in Syria. We originally went into that county to help the rebels fight Assad. We failed in that mission. ISIS is certainly not going to regenerate with Assads forces poised to complete their reconquest of the country. We're not there to fight either the Syrians or the Russians, a possibility which becomes more likely the longer we keep our troops in close proximity with them. Especially such a small force that won't be able to defend themselves.

There has been plenty of hand-wringing on this forum ever since we put troops into Syria and there is even more hand wringing now that we are leaving. People who called us war mongers when we went there now accuse us of abandonment. Well it makes me think that nobody really cares if we are there or not but only complain because it's Trump that wants to do it.

Well yes he is going to do it, and he is also going to pull our people from that 14 year long failed experiment of nation building in Afghanistan too and God bless him for it. We have made no progress in either nation and it's time to cut our losses before we get more of our people killed and maimed. If this is a problem for Germany and the other NATO allies then let them fill the vacuum with their own troops. Maybe it can count in lieu of your unpaid alliance dues.

August, you seem not to realize, that Germany is in Afghanistan only due to the US request and support after 9/11 and not the other way around. I do not know in which world you live but it cannot be the same in which I live. Maybe you should not belive all tweets from the leader, especially when it comes to facts. He is not very good in that...there are no unpaid alliance dues. Maybe just read the NATO treaty and decisions once again.

And y missed my point regarding MiddleEast, although it is partly my fault because I was not precise enough: I have meant the invastion in Iraq with no clear concept. Part of the consequence is the rise of ISIS. This is what I meant with acting responsible and I have exactly the same view as Mattis here...

And Trump is the next generation....so the 70plus generation if for you the new one ?.

Yes but the whole discussion is really meaningless. I guess the US is a young country and has to make the experience with a "dear" leader by itself. The price will be high but humans are learning best by experience....

[August]

August, you seem not to realize, that Germany is in Afghanistan only due to the US request and support after 9/11 and not the other way around. I do not know in which world you live but it cannot be the same in which I live. Maybe you should not belive all tweets from the leader, especially when it comes to facts. He is not very good in that...there are no unpaid alliance dues. Maybe just read the NATO treaty and decisions once again.

And y missed my point regarding MiddleEast, although it is partly my fault because I was not precise enough: I have meant the invastion in Iraq with no clear concept. Part of the consequence is the rise of ISIS. This is what I meant with acting responsible and I have exactly the same view as Mattis here...

And Trump is the next generation....so the 70plus generation if for you the new one ?.

Yes but the whole discussion is really meaningless. I guess the US is a young country and has to make the experience with a "dear" leader by itself. The price will be high but humans are learning best by experience....


So you want to talk about Afghanistan instead of Syria? OK sure.

Germany is only there because we asked you to come as Skybird and others have repeatedly mentioned here on this forum and Germany has done nothing but complain and criticize our efforts so i'd think that you'd be happy to finally see the end of it.

After all what exactly have we accomplished over there in almost 2 decades of continual conflict? What will we accomplish in three decades or four? We completed original objective long ago and now we are engaged in nation building in probably the worst place in the world to try it and the second we stop it will revert right back to the 14th century (albeit with modern weapons). So how do you feel about Germany fighting in Afghanistan forever?

Oh and please keep the "dear leader" crap to yourself. We are not Germans nor is this post WW1 Europe and unless the Democrats prevail in their efforts to overturn the 2016 election then President Trump will leave office either in 2020 or 2024 and not one day longer.

[Cybermat47]

After all what exactly have we accomplished over there in almost 2 decades of continual conflict? What will we accomplish in three decades or four?

You prevented yourselves, and your allies, from falling victim to another Jihadist attack on the scale of 9/11.

But in the end, I settle on one very simple reason: We go there so that they don’t come here.

It really is that simple. We bring the fight to the enemy so that they don’t bring it to us. There is a common misconception that if we just let them fight their own wars they will leave us alone. This is wildly untrue for two main reasons. First, groups such as the Islamic State will always try to attack the homeland. And second, even if we manage to prevent them from attacking the homeland, we cannot stop the cascade effect of instability and chaos that ensues when the United States leaves a power vacuum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/21/dan-crenshaw-why-guys-like-me-go-places-like-syria/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.75f2dab0658d

To be clear, though, I think it would be great if we could just get out of the Middle East, so I don’t have to worry about my family or friends being the latest KIA. I understand where President Trump is coming from. But just like I listen to my doctor when it comes to health matters, I listen to servicemen and veterans when it comes to military matters. Both General Mattis and Lieutenant Commander Crenshaw have experience in the region, and saw what happened when President Obama withdrew from Iraq, so it’s my opinion that they’re the best people to listen to in this situation.

But hey, maybe they’re wrong. I actually hope they are.

unless the Democrats prevail in their efforts to overturn the 2016 election then President Trump will leave office either in 2020 or 2024 and not one day longer.

Yeah, I think any talk of Trump being a dictator is just alarmist. Say what you want about him, but I haven’t seen any signs of him destroying the democratic political system in America. Calling him a dictator is like saying that all his opponents are communists or something.
——————————————
Also, I have another question for you guys - how divided is America, politically? All I ever hear about is government shutdowns, Nazis running over people in the street, and Antifa harassing people and their families at home. The way the media shows things, you’d think that the left and the right are incapable of co-operation. But frankly, the media isn’t something you can rely on.

[Hawk66]

Oh and please keep the "dear leader" crap to yourself. We are not Germans nor is this post WW1 Europe and unless the Democrats prevail in their efforts to overturn the 2016 election then President Trump will leave office either in 2020 or 2024 and not one day longer.

Arrogant as often, August. You know for sure that "Dear leader" was meant sarcastically since some of his supporters actually pay homage to him in an irrational way, which can remind one of the same guy in North Korea.

Yes I know, I am a bad German^^. I pledge guilty what all my ancestors have done in the past and other people will do in the future.
Who has compared Trump to Hitler ?, I am certainly not (else please proof it).

That your country is divided more than ever, that it gets more radicalized than ever (shall I only mention this tweet ****storm concerning the "liberal" supreme court judge and her current struggle with cancer) does not seem to bother you. Also that rights like freedom of the press got challenged this year and were not repulsed by all in a most aggressive, necessary way.

There is no democratic nation immune against anti-democratic tendencies. And it might be new to you there are flavors between democratic and totalitarianism.

There is evidence scientific research about that that no nation is immune against that. I leave it up to you to search for it but I know you will not do so, since you seem not interested in facts or science.

You live in a bubble and see enemies all around you. Be it the liberals in your country or allied nations. All want to destroy or weaken your country. Yes they have their weaknesses (and I talked here more than once that the burden sharing in NATO of my country has to be improved and by the way that is going on currently). But those weaknesses are nothing against the hate and destructiveness the very right wing of the political spectrum in the USA or elsewhere in the West is currently doing. Only the real enemies are benefiting from this...

[August]

Arrogant as often, August. You know for sure that "Dear leader" was meant sarcastically since some of his supporters actually pay homage to him in an irrational way, which can remind one of the same guy in North Korea.

Yes I know, I am a bad German^^. I pledge guilty what all my ancestors have done in the past and other people will do in the future.
Who has compared Trump to Hitler ?, I am certainly not (else please proof it).

That your country is divided more than ever, that it gets more radicalized than ever (shall I only mention this tweet ****storm concerning the "liberal" supreme court judge and her current struggle with cancer) does not seem to bother you. Also that rights like freedom of the press got challenged this year and were not repulsed by all in a most aggressive, necessary way.

There is no democratic nation immune against anti-democratic tendencies. And it might be new to you there are flavors between democratic and totalitarianism.

There is evidence scientific research about that that no nation is immune against that. I leave it up to you to search for it but I know you will not do so, since you seem not interested in facts or science.

You live in a bubble and see enemies all around you. Be it the liberals in your country or allied nations. All want to destroy or weaken your country. Yes they have their weaknesses (and I talked here more than once that the burden sharing in NATO of my country has to be improved and by the way that is going on currently). But those weaknesses are nothing against the hate and destructiveness the very right wing of the political spectrum in the USA or elsewhere in the West is currently doing. Only the real enemies are benefiting from this...


You claim that you're just being sarcastic but then accuse me of being arrogant for the same thing? Sounds pretty hypocritical no?
As for commenting on German history, well seeing as how I've had family members loose their lives fighting for the Fatherland in both world wars I think I have every right to do so.

[August]

But just like I listen to my doctor when it comes to health matters, I listen to servicemen and veterans when it comes to military matters.


Wow, I couldn't disagree more Cybermat.

Generals aren't at all like doctors and war is nothing at all like health care. Polar opposites when it comes to effort, motivation and results. A doctor wants to cure his patient or at very least not cause additional harm to him whereas a general wants to destroy his enemy and is quite willing to spend as many of his troops lives as he thinks his civilian masters will let him get away with in order to do it. I have never heard of a General who advocated leaving a war, have you? They're like Pit Bulls whose job it is to keep attacking an enemy until their master pulls back on their leash. There is too little of the surgeon and far too much of the butcher in a general, even a good one to take opinions on geo-politics without a lot of skepticism.

After all should we have listened to Patton when he advocated attacking the Soviets across the ruins of a defeated Germany? Should Truman have allowed MacArthur to turn the Korean conflict into WW3 or his idea that we should loose the rest of our Pacific Fleet in what would almost surely have been a failed effort to relieve the Philippines in early 1942? Or how about Westmorelands idea that Vietnam could be won by fighting a guerilla war like it was the WW2 ETO? They are hardly the only fools we've had wearing stars and like Patton even the good ones have bad ideas. We have a civilian commander in chief for a very good reason.

I find it amazing that people who never had a good thing to say about generals are suddenly willing to take their opinions as gospel, apparently just because it goes against Trump.

Take him out of the discussion and I think that on it's own merits pulling our ground troops out of Syria is a darn good idea. Not only is such the small number of troops we have there ripe for attack by any number of local entities, more importantly their removal significantly reduces the chance of us getting into a shooting war with the Russians and Turks. That was something people used to be worried about. Funny how that's no longer the concern eh?

I also totally reject the idea that we're abandoning our allies. Not including fielding an enormous navy and air force we have ground troops stationed in nearly 100 countries around the world, including neighboring Iraq, and most of them are working in concert with those same allies. I hardly think pulling our ground troops out of this one is the great betrayal that the Presidents political opponents, and some here, are trying to make it out to be.

If ISIS somehow makes a recovery in Syria, which I think is unlikely given the position and number of powers now arrayed against the few remaining survivors and even if they do it will take them a very long time, then we can just as easily send our troops back in and finish them off but until that happens our people aren't going to get caught in the crossfire of a civil war or be handy sitting duck targets for every armed group looking to make the news by killing or capturing an American.

As for Afghanistan, it's been nearly two decades now and little has changed. Sure, we finally got bin Laden and gutted Al Qaeda but like our predecessors in that country our efforts at nation building have been ineffective. The second we pull out of a province the Taliban moves right back in and the national government is run by thieves and incompetents and will collapse faster than South Vietnam Government did once we stop propping them up.

The thing is we can't stay there forever. At some point if we're not going to be successful in our nation building efforts then we are going to have to cut our losses and leave. Is it that time now? I don't claim to know I'm not "Mad Dog" Mattis or the President, but if not now, then when?

[Cybermat47]

At some point if we're not going to be successful in our nation building efforts then we are going to have to cut our losses and leave. Is it that time now? I don't claim to know I'm not "Mad Dog" Mattis or the President, but if not now, then when?

When we don’t get a repeat of President Obama’s mistakes.

Thanks to President Obama, we already know what happens when America rushes for the exits before finishing off its enemies. When Obama pulled the last U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011 he insisted that the country had become stable and self-sufficient and that the Iraqi military no longer needed support from U.S. troops in the country.

Obama ignored numerous warnings from American generals and diplomats that the Islamic extremists would return if we left too soon – and Obama turned out to be wrong.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/in-syria-trump-must-avoid-following-the-obama-model-why-pull-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory

Now, I agree with a lot of President Trump’s foreign policy, especially his harsh treatment of the Iranian and North Korean regimes, and I think he should keep that up - especially when it comes to the jihadists who have sworn to destroy our western values.

[August]

When we don’t get a repeat of President Obama’s mistakes.


That's just the point. Trump is not declaring victory in Afghanistan. Quite the opposite, he is giving up on the objective of nation building, which was not even why we went over there in the first place. Our original objective of rooting out AQ from their training camps was accomplished long ago and now almost two decades later we're still there futilely trying to reshape an unwilling people into our own political image. At what point do we decide we're just not going to be able to pull it off? 30 years? 50? 100?

Just don't expect a general to answer that, because it's not how they think. They'll tell you we keep at it for whatever it takes for as long as it takes, and all the blood and death that entails will in their mind will be increasing justification to keep going.

In Afghanistan's case it's been 20 years of holding back the tide with no end in sight. No corner has been turned or is there even any light at the end of the tunnel (to quote some famous generals) in Afghanistan so maybe Trump is right and it's time to get off the merry-go-round so to speak.

[Hawk66]

You claim that you're just being sarcastic but then accuse me of being arrogant for the same thing? Sounds pretty hypocritical no?
As for commenting on German history, well seeing as how I've had family members loose their lives fighting for the Fatherland in both world wars I think I have every right to do so.

"We are not the Germans" and your further comment here, do not indicate, you meant that sarcastic - although I can understand a bit your emotions regarding this aspect due to your family history.

I guess it is the best, we stop the discussion here. I guess we both can agree on that we hardly agree on anything with respect to politics.

[eddie]

Well, here we go. Trump visits our Troops in Iraq, and now the Iraqi Govt wants our troops out. Plus the Iranian militias in Iraq said if we don't leave on our own, they will use other means to make us leave. Sounds like a threat, so we will see how Trump responds.

[Dowly]

Well, here we go. Trump visits our Troops in Iraq, and now the Iraqi Govt wants our troops out. Plus the Iranian militias in Iraq said if we don't leave on our own, they will use other means to make us leave. Sounds like a threat, so we will see how Trump responds.
And then there's the possibility that someone screwed up and showed the Seal Team 5 faces publicly. (the guys on Trump's twitter vid with the NVGs on etc.), tho this is unconfirmed.

[eddie]

I saw that Dowly, will be interesting to see how this turns out.


This from Newsweek about the photo op with Seal Team 5. Unreal.


https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-navy-seal-iraq-video-1272102

[August]

You have to be kidding. Nobody forced the Seals to have their pictures taken, nor would the Seal team commander ever allow it if there was an issue. I predict this latest bit of fake news will amount to nothing as usual.

[August]

:)

Oh, the lengths media will go to sour Trump's Christmas visit to troops

Forget bias. Forget animus. Forget missing a self-awareness gene. And forget attempts to outdo yesterday's hyperbole with uber-hyperbole. Because, when it comes to coverage of the Trump administration and the figure at the top of it, what many in our media have become is utterly, tediously predictable.
Exhibit A this week is the president's surprise visit to troops in Iraq. Leading up to it was a story by NBC News that went viral, declaring that Trump would be the first commander in chief since 2002 to forego the presidential tradition of visiting troops at Christmastime. The story was picked up by dozens of news organizations, including this one.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/422979-oh-the-lengths-media-will-go-to-sour-trumps-christmas-visit-to-troops

[Mr Quatro]

:)


https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/422979-oh-the-lengths-media-will-go-to-sour-trumps-christmas-visit-to-troops

I saw that and the next thing I know, after waking up Christmas morning, was the news of Trumps surprise visit with the first lady to Iraq in tow no less.

Then I thought maybe NBC was working for the Secret Service or the CIA to keep it secret.

Wrong again I said to my lame brain :oops:

They just wanted to share their dislike for the POTUS :yep:

[August]

I saw that and the next thing I know, after waking up Christmas morning, was the news of Trumps surprise visit with the first lady to Iraq in tow no less.

Then I thought maybe NBC was working for the Secret Service or the CIA to keep it secret.

Wrong again I said to my lame brain :oops:

They just wanted to share their dislike for the POTUS :yep:


And anyone else who doesn't agree with them apparently. Another thing they are complaining about is those young troops with the maga hats. Can you imagine that they are actually are trying to get them in trouble with the military for that?

[Bleiente]

A ray of light on the dark horizon - so there is still hope and salvation.

Bot Translator
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fpolitik%2Fal exandria-ocasio-cortez-usa-1.4254775

Original
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-usa-1.4254775


:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

[Skybird]

One of the two leftiest daily mainstream newspapers in Germany hails one of the leftiest politicians in the US.

Quelle surprise.


After Clinton I thought it could not get worse, and so came Bush jr. After Bush i though it could not get worse, and then came Obama. After Obama I thought it could not get worse, and then came Trump. I thought so far it could not get worse after Trump, but the Democrats have quite some promising names in their quiver.


I just slammed two Democrat and two Republican "presidents". Shall nobody say I am biased or unfair. :D I slam them all. Maybe that is the true meaning of Islam. :D

[em2nought]

I just slammed two Democrat and two Republican "presidents". Shall nobody say I am biased or unfair. :D I slam them all. Maybe that is the true meaning of Islam. :D


Trump isn't docile enough to be a republican, he's a man of the "working" people. :03:

[Bleiente]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a bright spot in our western world. She has the power to extinguish this parasitic, assiocial, social-racking and treasonous demagogue named Donald Trump and to bring his criminal family to the penal system.

By the way - anyone who actively participates in treason, as by supporting the traitor as such, is equally punishable. :03:

Donald Trump is a traitor to the nation and should be punished accordingly, as are his fellow Crimean fellows - they are all guilty of absolute betrayal.

[u crank]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a bright spot in our western world.

I disagree.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a media darling for all the wrong reasons. The self identifying Socialist has a very poor grasp of how the political system she is about to enter works and despite having a degree in economics seems to know little about that either. But hey not to worry. That hasn't stopped others from saying and doing stupid things as well. The left wing media feeds on people like her without ever asking themselves why. The answer of course is ... ratings.

I wish the young lady all the luck in the world. Where she's going she's gonna need it.

[Bleiente]

I disagree.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a media darling for all the wrong reasons. The self identifying Socialist has a very poor grasp of how the political system she is about to enter works and despite having a degree in economics seems to know little about that either. But hey not to worry. That hasn't stopped others from saying and doing stupid things as well. The left wing media feeds on people like her without ever asking themselves why. The answer of course is ... ratings.

I wish the young lady all the luck in the world. Where she's going she's gonna need it.
Oh, yes - she has what it takes.
And should something happen on their way there, the world knows automatically - it was the criminal Trump with his best buddy Putin. :03:

[u crank]

Oh, yes - she has what it takes.

How do you know? What possible evidence do you have to make that statement? Enlighten us please.

And should something happen on their way there, the world knows automatically - it was the criminal Trump with his best buddy Putin. :03:

Make a good SNL skit wouldn't it? :O:

[Bleiente]

Back to the topic... :03:

A ray of light on the dark horizon - so there is still hope and salvation.

Bot Translator
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fpolitik%2Fal exandria-ocasio-cortez-usa-1.4254775

Original
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-usa-1.4254775


:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:


:arrgh!:

[u crank]

You would make a good politician. Never try to answer a question you don't want to answer. :D

[fumo30]

You would make a good politician. Never try to answer a question you don't want to answer. :D


Its not Bleiente you're talking to, I think its his evil twin on the loose again.
Lock him back in the cellar, QUICKLY!:D

[August]

Toldya... :yep:


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/12/28/no-trump-didnt-reveal-covert-navy-seal-team-iraq.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3BVeKh_H9id8ea-JWLqr99aGBhFV1wbmWBdM01BUmcbP4sUtld3h_EsuU#Echobox =1546011147

[em2nought]

Oh, yes - she has what it takes.
And should something happen on their way there, the world knows automatically - it was the criminal Trump with his best buddy Putin. :03:
Just as long as he doesn't reveal a photo of the SEAL Team that's undercover in the House of Representatives we're all good. Hopefully while Trump was colluding with the Russians he picked up some of that stuff they used in the UK not too long ago. :03:

[Dowly]

Toldya... :yep:


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/12/28/no-trump-didnt-reveal-covert-navy-seal-team-iraq.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3BVeKh_H9id8ea-JWLqr99aGBhFV1wbmWBdM01BUmcbP4sUtld3h_EsuU#Echobox =1546011147


It is as if you didn't bother to read the article:
But make no mistake: Revealing the identities of SOF personnel is still bad news, even if they're not tasked with a real "covert" mission.

"Even during special operation demonstrations for congressional delegations or for the president or vice president, personnel either have their faces covered or their face is digitally blurred prior to a release to the general public," as one DoD official told Newsweek. "I don't recall another time where special operation forces had to pose with their faces visible while serving in a war zone."

[Bleiente]

The gallows sling slowly contracts... :03:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fpolitik%2Ftr ump-mueller-russland-affaere-1.4266571


:Kaleun_Applaud:

[Mr Quatro]

Without vienna we don't have a good pool game going on in here :yep:

[August]

It is as if you didn't bother to read the article:


I read the article Dowly, now don't strain yourself stretching a point like that. You're big gotcha moment relies on one unnamed DOD official who is claimed to have said that by Newsweek in order to back up their hit piece that was trying to make a mountain out of a flat plain. You blissfully ignore Military.com's main conclusion that it was really no big deal.

Try and see past your hatred of me and Trump for just a wee second and ask yourself who took that video and why wouldn't they have been under the control of the military in whose facility they were filming as is always the case, and how could they pass an unauthorized video to the President of the United States?

Remember the only one that was actually identified was a Chaplain who claimed to be with Seal team 5. So now our enemies in Iraq have the apparent presence of a SEAL team to worry about, but for all you or Newsweek or anyone else really knows those unidentified "SEALS" who just happened to have brought all their fancy combat gear with them to the mess hall for this "spur of the moment" photo op could have flown in on Air Force One and right back out again with the President. The whole thing could have been staged because they know that the democrat press would be so eager to slam Trump any way they can that they'd take what they're seeing as real without question. The guy plays them like a fiddle at an Ozark hoedown.

[Jimbuna]

US President Donald Trump has said he could declare a national emergency to build a US-Mexico border wall without the approval of Congress.

It came after he met senior Democrats, who refused his requests for funding.

The stand-off has seen Mr Trump withhold support for a bill to fully fund the government until he gets money for the border wall.

He said he was prepared for the partial government shutdown - now in its third week - to last years.

Around 800,000 federal workers have been without pay since 22 December.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46763940

Whatever become of the election campaign assertion that Mexico would be paying for the wall? :hmmm:

[Buddahaid]

Whatever become of the election campaign assertion that Mexico would be paying for the wall? :hmmm:

It's moving rapidly in the opposite direction with federal employees already paying with their livlyhoods as our infantile president throws another tantrum. When will he start to hold his breath?

[August]

Whatever become of the election campaign assertion that Mexico would be paying for the wall? :hmmm:


What about it? Some say that renegotiating nafta means that Mexico is indeed footing the bill but be that as it may I don't think it's wise to leave our borders undefended in the meantime regardless of who ends up paying for it.

[Buddahaid]

Fabricating that national emergency?

[Platapus]

Whatever become of the election campaign assertion that Mexico would be paying for the wall? :hmmm:

It appeared that Trump lied

[Buddahaid]

It appeared that Trump lied

You mean that man who said he'd tell people whatever they wanted to hear to get elected? Surely not!

[August]

Fabricating that national emergency?


Ask the families of Sabrina Starr, Ronald da Silva, Ingrid Lake, Tessa Tranchant, Sarah Root, Shayley Estes, Drew Rosenberg or Grant Ronnebeck to name just a small few who might have an opinion on that idea.

[u crank]

It boggles my mind that people circumvent the reality of the situation by arguing over who will pay for the wall/barrier/fence. The fact is the thing has not been built and no money has been allocated for it so nobody knows who will pay for it.

Instead of a discussion about who will pay for it, the discussion should be about the reality of foreign nationals freely crossing the boarder of a sovereign state. If you are ok with that, say so. If not, what is the answer?

[Buddahaid]

Small few is right compared to the national violent crime statistics. A wall is not the answer, it's a monument to fear and stupidity.

[u crank]

A wall is not the answer, it's a monument to fear and stupidity.

And the answer is.....

[August]

Small few is right compared to the national violent crime statistics. A wall is not the answer, it's a monument to fear and stupidity.


Stop kidding yourself. That's just a small few examples that I took the time to look up. There are many many more victims of illegal immigration but I guess to you they're acceptable losses just as long as it sticks it to Donald Trump right? Because after all the Democrats were supposedly in favor of border security (at least they gave it lip service) right up until he started advocating it, then suddenly its "immoral".

[em2nought]

If we build the wall on the Mexican side, with Mexican labor, I think that go fund me should just about cover it. :D


Or maybe Trump should make all asset forfeitures go to paying for the wall instead of buying new APCs for Barney Fife?

[Buddahaid]

Stop kidding yourself. That's just a small few examples that I took the time to look up. There are many many more victims of illegal immigration but I guess to you they're acceptable losses just as long as it sticks it to Donald Trump right? Because after all the Democrats were supposedly in favor of border security (at least they gave it lip service) right up until he started advocating it, then suddenly its "immoral".

Stop kidding yourself. I'm not against border security, I'm against building a huge static structure that will still need to be manned and defended.

[August]

Or maybe Trump should make all asset forfeitures go to paying for the wall instead of buying new APCs for Barney Fife?


That's not a bad idea. Maybe they can start with the criminal Clinton Foundation eh?

[mapuc]

About this wall.

Most of us if not everyone is thinking political or human.

Have any of us(I didn't until I read about this)ever thought about the animal who take the tour from south to north or viceversa ?

A wall the size Trump wants would prevent those animals entering their areas.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Well there could be a way around the current impasse.

US President Donald Trump has said he could declare a national emergency to build a US-Mexico border wall without the approval of Congress.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46763940

Meanwhile, another top official resigns.

Department of Defence chief of staff Kevin Sweeney has resigned, a month after the Defence Secretary James Mattis announced his departure.

Rear Admiral Sweeney said in a statement that "the time is right to return to the private sector".

He is now the third senior Pentagon official to announce his resignation since President Donald Trump announced US forces would leave Syria.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46773138

[u crank]

I'm not against border security, I'm against building a huge static structure that will still need to be manned and defended.

I think you should explain how that makes sense. An analogy would be a prison. The high walls and other barriers are there for a purpose. Yes there are guards but without the walls what would happen?

There are a variety of reasons why people on the left oppose any kind of physical barrier on the border. This guy suggests one glaring possibility.

The reason a secure border wall has not been — and may not be — built is not apprehension that it would not work, but rather real fear that it would work only too well.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/us-mexico-border-high-wall-would-save-immigrant-lives/

[Dowly]

I think you should explain how that makes sense. An analogy would be a prison. The high walls and other barriers are there for a purpose. Yes there are guards but without the walls what would happen?People have tunneled out of prisons and even climbed over the walls to escape. With border wall, it will be much easier to do both of the above since there simply is not enough manpower to guard the entire length of the border. Tunnels will be even more harder to prevent as they can be started out of sight on the Mexican side.


The wall won't work.

[u crank]

People have tunneled out of prisons and even climbed over the walls to escape.

The frequency of escapes from max security prisons is rare. Most escapes take place at minimum security lockups. Prisoners mostly just walk out and most are recaptured. If the percentage of illegal immigration was on the level of max security prisons escapes, illegal immigration via the southern border would be dramatically reduced to practically zero.

With border wall, it will be much easier to do both of the above since there simply is not enough manpower to guard the entire length of the border. Tunnels will be even more harder to prevent as they can be started out of sight on the Mexican side.


Are you suggesting that digging tunnels under a patrolled and monitored section of wall would go undetected. It would be pretty dumb to invest billions of dollars to build a wall/barrier/fence and not have ways to prevent people from climbing over or digging under it. Hamas has been digging tunnels for years and although some have been used successfully most are discovered and destroyed. Tunnels require much labor and money. They also provide a single exit with which to catch border violators. Tunnels would be easily detected by drones, satellite images and listening devices. If the total number of illegal immigrants crossing US/Mexican border have to do so through tunnels....


Tunnels won't work.

[Dowly]

Are you suggesting that digging tunnels under a patrolled and monitored section of wall would go undetected.No, that is not what I said at all. I specifically said the border is too long and undermanned. Tunnels can be and are being dug anywhere along the border.

It would be pretty dumb to invest billions of dollars to build a wall/barrier/fence and not have ways to prevent people from climbing over or digging under it.Yes, it would be stupid, something this administration excels at. Perhaps it would be wise to first get the border manned and the technology there to make any sense to build a wall that on its own does very lttle.


Getting people and goods across the border is a big business. Do you really think they'll just stop because there's a wall in the way? Just this year last year(?) they found a tunnel dug at the depth of ~30 meters. That would go right under Trump's wall and probably can bypass monitoring equipment as well.

[August]

Just this year they found a tunnel dug at the depth of ~30 meters.


Didn't do them much good now did it?

Like U Crank says tunnels won't work.

[Dowly]

Didn't do them much good now did it?

Like U Crank says tunnels won't work.
IIRC, the tunnel had been finished and in use for indefinite amount of time. So clearly it did work and tunnel detection technology didn't.

[Mr Quatro]

About this wall.

Most of us if not everyone is thinking political or human.

Have any of us(I didn't until I read about this)ever thought about the animal who take the tour from south to north or viceversa ?

A wall the size Trump wants would prevent those animals entering their areas.

Markus

The animals can use the same tunnels that the Mexican cartel uses to transport drugs and people under the border :D

[Catfish]

Maybe there is some inspiration for the Mexicans to build and fund the wall, if it will be capable of keeping Trump out :hmmm:

[u crank]

No, that is not what I said at all. I specifically said the border is too long and undermanned.

Well you are right, it is long and undermanned. No one, not even Trump is suggesting a wall/fence/barrier along the entire border. I'm going to suggest that authorities on the US side know exactly where most crossings take place. That would be a good place to start.

Tunnels can be and are being dug anywhere along the border.

Again I'm going to suggest that those tunnels are not being dug by immigrant mothers, fathers and their children from Guatemala. They are being dug by criminals for smuggling drugs and illegals into the USA. Which kinda reinforces what Trump has been saying all along. And you can bet that those illegals pay a hefty fee to use such tunnels.

Perhaps it would be wise to first get the border manned and the technology there to make any sense to build a wall that on its own does very little.

Again I'm going to suggest that there is a plan. And that plan is a combination of a physical barrier, enhanced detection and surveillance and the current border patrols.

Getting people and goods across the border is a big business. Do you really think they'll just stop because there's a wall in the way? Just this year they found a tunnel dug at the depth of ~30 meters. That would go right under Trump's wall and probably can bypass monitoring equipment as well.

Well I'll ask the obvious question. How many tunnels do you think would be needed to keep up the current level of illegal immigration and drug smuggling?

[u crank]

All this wall talk is of course secondary to what is happening in Washington. It is inconceivable to me that dum dums Pelosi and Schumer are not taking advantage of Trump's demand for $5.6 billion to start building some of his wall. That is chump change in a country that has a $4 trillion budget. There are deals to be made. Trump has long signaled his desire to get a deal for "the Dreamers", children brought to the US illegally by their parents and that are covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. Permanent status for these people would be a big win for the Democrats and it won't happen without Trump's help.

There are other deals to be made and people on both sides should be trying to make them. If the only reason to deny Trump his wall is, well because he's Trump or it won't work or it's immoral, that's a silly game. Much has been made about the 'blue wave' and Pelosi's new found power in the House. Correct me if I'm wrong but legislation passed in the House has to get through the Senate (controlled by GOP) and get Presidential approval. Good luck with that Nancy.

Dum dums.

[Catfish]

Drug smuggling at that rate is possible because there is a demand and collaboration with the USA. Most drugs pass the border via public roads and normal customs. No wall alone will stop that.

[Bleiente]

Oh Lord God - let them build their stupid wall.
In less than 20 years, they will regret it.
The gross national product of the US is questionable on the whole because it is generated from questionable stock market transactions.
Due to the currency exemption from gold as a security guarantor, the US generates only fictional bubbles.

In the near future, when China and its allies suddenly return their currency to gold, the dollar is not worth a penny.

In this context, I would advise Canada to build a similar wall.

Real - USA you are so broken. :03:

:salute:

[Rockstar]

Yes, yes the U.S. is weak, the U.S. is falling apart, the U.S is GDP is questionable, The U.S. immigration problem etc. etc.


"Psychological projection" is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person whose country has had no economic growth, no army, a disintegrating Union, citizens protesting leaders, and unchecked immigration. Constantly accuse other people of the same thing. :haha::hmmm:

[August]

Well I'll ask the obvious question. How many tunnels do you think would be needed to keep up the current level of illegal immigration and drug smuggling?


I'd make a wild ass guess at least 1000 times the number of tunnels needed without the restriction of a wall for the increased volume alone. Then there is the fact that tunnels are far more difficult to keep open for long without detection by the authorities at each end of it so whatever the actual number they'll constantly have to be replaced and every rabbit hole found and filled means another area compromised, forcing the tunnelers to continually find new areas to dig.