US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by vienna

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

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

[Bilge_Rat]

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

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

[Rockstar]

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

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



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

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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

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

Not necessarily a huge hole; possibilities abound:

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

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

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

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

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

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



<O>

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by vienna

Not necessarily a huge hole; possibilities abound:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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

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

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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

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

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by vienna

I don't know...

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


<O>

Graecum est; non legitur

[Platapus]

In the category of congressional hypocrisy...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politi...ump/index.html

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

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

...

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

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

[Skybird]

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

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

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

I now see this attack as a PR stunt.

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

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

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

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Platapus

In the category of congressional hypocrisy...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politi...ump/index.html
Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strike
They were against it when a democrat proposed it, but are now in favor when a republican proposed it.
I am finding it harder and harder to take the GOP seriously these days.

Members of major parties in US are partisan. In the other news - the sky is blue.

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

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

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

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

I now see this attack as a PR stunt.

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

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

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

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

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

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

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

(Engels seems to be seen as an academic heavyweight and is professor for Roman, Greek and Seleukide history, so what does he know...)

His credentials doesn't interest me, only the content of his arguments.

You only understood that he criticises the EU, sees it way of forming up critical - and that is before anything else what triggered your appearance here, Dowly.

You will be hard pressed to find many posts by me about the EU. I am quite indifferent about it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MaDef

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

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

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

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

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

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Graecum est; non legitur

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




<O>