Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • He has apparently signed the new sanctions bill - I was wrong but maybe it is because he is feeling the pressure. Not to have done in the current circumstances would be tantamount to admitting his guilt.

    This latest dictation of "adoption meeting" excuse again is clear BS; the emails leading upto the meeting do not mention adoption once. His own lawyer said he was not involved in the statement - so he has screwed his lawyer on ethics grounds and it also makes a mockery of the excuses that he only found about the meeting "a couple of days ago" which frankly was unbelievable from the start.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
      So noted, and apologies if I missed the sarcasm. I'm probably just really tired of people saying things like that (seriously or jokingly).
      Joe, Welcome to the crotchety, nasty old guyhood! Embrace the get off the lawn attitude!
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
        Joe, Welcome to the crotchety, nasty old guyhood! Embrace the get off the lawn attitude!
        So this is what being in your 40's is all about
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          joe,



          what i think David's trying to get at is the act of voting in a US Presidential election follows from a binary decision, just due to the structure of our system. you can THINK what you like, but if you don't pick from the two, you are essentially abrogating your right to vote.

          given the state of the US Libertarian Party, this is essentially the anti-Green Party/Jill Stein argument more than anything else. don't think there were enough "never-Trumpers" from the GOP side to really count for anything.
          In defense of Joe, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is never wasted. It may be negligible in terms of impact on the outcome of an election, but it may force one, if not both, of the mainstream parties to adopt the 3rd party's positions. That depends, of course, on a high turnout for the 3rd party candidate.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
            In defense of Joe, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is never wasted. It may be negligible in terms of impact on the outcome of an election, but it may force one, if not both, of the mainstream parties to adopt the 3rd party's positions. That depends, of course, on a high turnout for the 3rd party candidate.
            I thought they got Federal funding once they cross a certain percentage of voters. That's what some of my Green Party and Libertarian friends have told me
            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

            Comment


            • Originally posted by antimony View Post
              I thought they got Federal funding once they cross a certain percentage of voters. That's what some of my Green Party and Libertarian friends have told me

              Not the issue at hand. But, no, Federal money is given out based on contributions received.
              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                Not the issue at hand. But, no, Federal money is given out based on contributions received.
                Well, how about that? My friends voted these other parties thinking somehow they would get a 3rd option
                "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                Comment


                • snapper came closest to understanding what I meant. She would have voted for Hillary, but that doesn’t mean she supports each and every Hillary policy platform. Nor does it mean she thinks Hillary is the Second Coming. But, she would have done her duty and made the best possible choice.

                  astralis also gets it: the system requires that you make a choice: A, B or declining to do your civic duty. That means absent any possibility of supporting Candidate A, one supports Candidate B. Or, one doesn’t do one’s civic duty, which to me is unacceptable behavior.

                  The “concept of independent thinking” is not related to anything in my post. There is nothing lacking in independence to make a choice between two, and only two options.

                  And, “abrogate” isn’t the right word; it implies negating something that exists.

                  Abstentions are clear, deliberate decisions not to chose a side. Failing to even go to the polls to vote in dozens of elections simply because one doesn’t like the candidates for the top office is shirking.
                  Trust me?
                  I'm an economist!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                    snapper came closest to understanding what I meant. She would have voted for Hillary, but that doesn’t mean she supports each and every Hillary policy platform. Nor does it mean she thinks Hillary is the Second Coming. But, she would have done her duty and made the best possible choice.
                    Not sure I regard it as my "duty" to vote for the least worst option. I do not consider it a social or moral 'duty' to do so and sometimes the decision to 'do nothing' can be the best course. Indeed it could be argued that the decision to not vote if you do not agree with either side in a binary choice is the more principled stance. For me such moral principles are applicable more rightly to my private choices of action - not to public actions that effect others. The moral principles that dictate my own particular preferences of action (partly based on my faith) I do not apply to those actions of mine that may effect others. In the former I can be alot more 'purist' and try at least to follow the dictates of God, in the latter alot more pragmatism is required. Often we have to vote 'tactically' as they call it in England. If you want to stop the socialists winning - or the conservatives - vote for the option that makes that most likely; sure it is a 'negative vote'; a vote against something or someone rather that for something but if I seriously believe that one choice will result in disaster, as I did with Trump in the US election case, well it just the old logic "x or y", "not x"... "therefore y". It is not my 'duty' but in my interest to avert what I believe will not end well.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      astralis also gets it: the system requires that you make a choice: A, B or declining to do your civic duty. That means absent any possibility of supporting Candidate A, one supports Candidate B. Or, one doesn’t do one’s civic duty, which to me is unacceptable behavior.

                      The “concept of independent thinking” is not related to anything in my post. There is nothing lacking in independence to make a choice between two, and only two options.
                      I have to say, that is one of the most...remarkable things I've read in a long time. I consider myself to have a good vocabulary but words initially failed me when trying to describe what you've said.

                      "Myopic"..."Blinkered"..."Hardline"...These are close but sorely inadequate.

                      Also, there is much debate of what constitutes a "civic duty". Serving on a jury is clearly a duty. Voting, there is far less of a consensus. However, an op-ed had this to say about "Voting is a civic duty":

                      "You have the right to vote, not a duty to do so. In much the same way, you have the right to worship freely, the right to express your views, the right to run for public office — but no obligation to do any of them. Just as freedom of religion encompasses the freedom to practice no religion, your freedom to vote for the candidate of your choice includes the freedom to vote for no candidate at all."

                      Actually I think Snapper's response sums up my own feelings quite well.

                      Originally posted by snapper View Post
                      Not sure I regard it as my "duty" to vote for the least worst option. I do not consider it a social or moral 'duty' to do so and sometimes the decision to 'do nothing' can be the best course. Indeed it could be argued that the decision to not vote if you do not agree with either side in a binary choice is the more principled stance. For me such moral principles are applicable more rightly to my private choices of action - not to public actions that effect others.
                      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                      Comment


                      • (IMO) Six months ago Trump had a chance to really positively move forward towards making "America Great Again" with the backing of many Americans whether they voted for him or not.
                        America was at least 50% optimistic...(again IMO)...just look at the USD exchange rate versus major world currencies during his earliest days of transition and following his inauguration.

                        Now I cannot get past the fact he's the leader of the world's largest democracy and comes across operationally thinking in the devine status of a Hollywood star mindset. I'm actually wondering if he thinks of himself as a syndicated demigod a lá The Apprentice* where "You're fired" was constantly expected by all the viewers.

                        After seven months some are slowly coming to the realization that four years just might be too long.
                        Mike Pence is noticeably being kept out of the fray.

                        [* Caveat 1: I never viewed a full episode of The Apprentice show...though I gathered the basic premise of the show through reviews including "soci-all media" and promotional spots.
                        Caveat 2: I do not reside in America nor own a business or property there.]
                        Last edited by PeeCoffee; 03 Aug 17,, 13:49.
                        Real eyes realize real lies.

                        Comment


                        • our Commander-in-Chief.

                          ====

                          http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...nerals-n789006

                          Trump Says U.S.‘Losing’ Afghan War in Tense Meeting With Generals

                          by Carol E. Lee and Courtney Kube

                          WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has become increasingly frustrated with his advisers tasked with crafting a new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and recently suggested firing the war's top military commander during a tense meeting at the White House, according to senior administration officials.

                          During the July 19 meeting, Trump repeatedly suggested that Defense Secretary James Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford replace Gen. John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, because he is not winning the war, the officials said. Trump has not met Nicholson, and the Pentagon has been considering extending his time in Afghanistan.

                          Over nearly two hours in the situation room, according to the officials, Trump complained about NATO allies, inquired about the United States getting a piece of Afghan’s mineral wealth and repeatedly said the top U.S. general there should be fired. He also startled the room with a story that seemed to compare their advice to that of a paid consultant who cost a tony New York restaurateur profits by offering bad advice.

                          Trump is the third president to grapple with the war in Afghanistan. On Wednesday, two American troops were killed in Afghanistan when a convoy they were in came under attack. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.

                          Trump's national security team has been trying for months to come up with a new strategy he can approve. Those advisers are set to meet again to discuss the issue on Thursday at the White House. The president is not currently scheduled to attend the meeting, though one official said that could change.

                          Former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush went through multiple strategies over the course of their presidencies to try to stabilize Afghanistan. What set Trump apart in the July meeting was his open questioning of the quality of the advice he was receiving.

                          During the meeting, Trump criticized his military advisers seated around the table in the White House Situation Room for what he said was a losing U.S. position in the war, according to the senior administration officials. At one point the president directed his frustration at Mattis, saying Trump had given the military authority months ago to make advances in Afghanistan and yet the U.S. was continuing to lose ground, the officials said.

                          "We aren't winning," Trump complained, according to these officials. "We are losing."

                          One official said Trump pointed to maps showing the Taliban gaining ground, and that Mattis responded to the president by saying the U.S. is losing because it doesn't have the strategy it needs.

                          The White House declined to comment on internal deliberations.

                          "The president's national security team is developing a comprehensive, integrated strategy for South Asia that utilizes all aspects of our national power to address this complex region," said Michael Anton, spokesman for the National Security Council. "That strategy has been worked carefully in the interagency process and while no decision has been made the president's team continues to develop options for him that address threats and opportunities to America arising from this vital region."

                          Told that Trump was considering firing Gen. Nicholson, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "I can't think of a good reason to fire the general. I think he's done an admirable job."

                          "If the president doesn't listen to the generals, like Gen. Nicholson and he goes down the road that President Obama went, Afghanistan is going to collapse," Graham said. "Here's my advice to the president — listen to people like Gen. Nicholson and McMaster and others who have been in the fight."

                          The president's advisers went into the mid-July meeting hoping he would sign off on an Afghanistan strategy after months of delays, officials said. One official said the president's team has coalesced around a strategy, though it had presented him with other options as well such as complete withdrawal.

                          Trump, however, appeared to have been significantly influenced by a meeting he'd recently had with a group of veterans of the Afghanistan war, and he was unhappy with the options presented to him.

                          Trump vented to his national security team that the veterans told him forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have not been helpful, and he lamented that China is making money off of Afghanistan's estimated $1 trillion in rare minerals while American troops are fighting the war, officials said. Trump expressed frustration that his advisers tasked with figuring out how the U.S. can help American businesses get rights to those minerals were moving too slowly, one official said.

                          China purchased mineral rights in Afghanistan a decade ago, an investment the U.S. supported at the time. Beijing has since had teams mining copper outside of Kabul.

                          The focus on the minerals was reminiscent of Trump's comments early into his presidency when he lamented that the U.S. didn't take Iraq's oil when the majority of forces departed the country in 2011.

                          To underscore his view that the veterans who fought in the war may be better positioned to advise him on an Afghanistan strategy, Trump compared the policy review process to the renovation of a famed New York restaurant in the 1980s, officials said.

                          Trump told his advisers that the restaurant, Manhattan's elite '21' Club, had shut its doors for a year and hired an expensive consultant to craft a plan for a renovation. After a year, Trump said, the consultant's only suggestion was that the restaurant needed a bigger kitchen.

                          "“We aren't winning. … We are losing.”"

                          Officials said Trump kept stressing the idea that lousy advice cost the owner a year of lost business and that talking to the restaurant's waiters instead might have yielded a better result. He also said the tendency is to assume if someone isn't a three-star general he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that in his own experience in business talking to low-ranking workers has gotten him better outcomes.

                          The '21' Club, which has been one of Trump's favorite New York spots, closed for two months in 1987 while it underwent a full renovation and reopened to great fanfare.
                          Image: U.S. troops walk outside their base in Uruzgan province
                          U.S. troops walk outside their base in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan July 7, 2017. Omar Sobhani / Reuters

                          One senior administration official said the president mentioned the restaurant in an attempt to convey to his advisers that sometimes the best advice comes from those working day-to-day in a place, rather than those who are farther removed.

                          "The clear message if you heard the story was: high-priced consultants or high-priced anybody, expensive supposedly-big-brained people, but who are physically far from the source of the problem, often give you much worse advice than the supposedly low-ranking guys who are right there," the official said.

                          Mattis Upset After Trump Meeting

                          Trump left the national security meeting without making a decision on a strategy. His advisers were stunned, administration officials and others briefed on the meeting said.

                          Two Pentagon officials close to Mattis said he returned from the White House that morning visibly upset. Mattis often takes a walk when grappling with an issue. That afternoon, the walk took longer than usual, the officials said.

                          Among those at the meeting were Trump's senior White House advisers including Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, national security adviser H.R. McMaster, and then chief-of-staff Reince Priebus, plus Mattis, Dunford, Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

                          At one point, Dunford offered to set up a meeting for Trump with Gen. Nicholson in the hopes that personal interaction may soothe Trump's concerns about his leadership.

                          Mattis also defended Gen. Nicholson, an official said, adding that the conversation about the commander ended inconclusively.

                          In an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday, McMaster praised Nicholson.

                          "I've known him for many years," McMaster said. "I can't imagine a more capable commander in any, on any mission." Asked whether the president had confidence in Nicholson, McMaster said "absolutely."

                          But a defense official confirmed that discussions are underway at the Pentagon regarding Nicholson's future in Afghanistan.

                          Retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former head of NATO and an NBC News analyst, suggested the delay in finalizing a strategy has hurt U.S. efforts in the war.

                          "The situation in Afghanistan is not improving, but I think it's hardly irretrievable at this point, and what the president needs to be doing is deciding on the strategy," Admiral Stavridis said.

                          "What is hurting the process at the moment is this back and forth about do we stay or do we go, how many troops," he added. "Any commander is going to be incredibly handicapped in an environment like that. So I think the fundamental problem here is lack of decisiveness in Washington, specifically in the White House."

                          During the presidential campaign, Trump often talked about knowing more than U.S. military generals. Last September, he suggested he would probably have different generals from those who served under former President Barack Obama.

                          Retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey advised against shaping a strategy around advice from troops serving on the ground.

                          "One of the last things you necessarily want to do is form policy advice based on what the current combatants think about something in a war zone," said Gen. McCaffrey, an MSNBC military analyst. "They're qualified totally to talk about tactics and things like that and what they're seeing, but the president's job is to formulate strategy and policy not to do tactical decisions."

                          He also said acquiring mineral rights in Afghanistan is complicated and potentially costly because it would require the type of security the U.S. has been unable to achieve, as well as a workforce and access to a port to ship the materials.

                          Nicholson has called the war a "stalemate" and said he needs a "few thousand" additional troops. "Offensive capability is what will break the stalemate in Afghanistan," he said in February during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

                          His comments angered White House officials who thought they boxed in the president before he had made any decisions, according to Pentagon officials.

                          In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of key counties where Trump had broad support in the November election, 46 percent of respondents supported sending more troops to Afghanistan while 36 percent opposed.

                          Heading into its 16th year, the war in Afghanistan is the longest war in U.S. history.

                          A decision on an Afghanistan strategy was expected more than two months ago, but it has been delayed as the president remains unsatisfied with the options. Last month he gave Mattis authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan, but Mattis has been unable to do so absent a presidential strategy. Trump also gave his military commanders broad authority to make key decisions. The move resulted in the U.S. dropping its largest non-nuclear weapon in Afghanistan several months ago.

                          The U.S. currently has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan. Some of Trump's advisers are advocating for a very limited U.S. role in the war, while others have recommended several thousand additional troops. Officials said it's unclear when the president will sign off on a new strategy.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                            In defense of Joe, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is never wasted. It may be negligible in terms of impact on the outcome of an election, but it may force one, if not both, of the mainstream parties to adopt the 3rd party's positions. That depends, of course, on a high turnout for the 3rd party candidate.
                            See Gore v Bush & Ralph Nader 2000
                            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                            Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PeeCoffee View Post
                              Now I cannot get past the fact he's the leader of the world's largest democracy
                              That would be Narendra Modi actually.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                                He has apparently signed the new sanctions bill - I was wrong but maybe it is because he is feeling the pressure. Not to have done in the current circumstances would be tantamount to admitting his guilt.
                                He doesn't like the sanctions because its bad for business. Tillerson is the same. Will take time to gauge how much tangible effect this has on relations between the two countries.

                                How long it takes to dawn on Putin that Trump cannot deliver what he wants and vice versa too. Can't deliver much till the next term.

                                Will this be the beginning of a Euro - US split.
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Aug 17,, 19:04.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X