Jump to content
Awoo.

The General 'Murican Politics Thread


Tornado

Recommended Posts

I was holding out hope that DeVos wasn't connected to any of this shit or the people prior beyond simple billionaire nepotism. She seemed like such a random choice beyond that that I just shrugged her off. However, my mom told me about a week ago "Oh, her shit will come out soon; don't worry," and I- being the little naive millennial- was more optimistic and had hope for her.

Read the GAF thread about it a couple of days ago and laughed my ass off. Just lock all of them up already.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wonder how embarrassed all the "Crooked Hillary" chanting types are as more and more evidence comes out that this administration is rotten to its core. The billionaire Cabinet was receiving so much support from the right on the idea that their wealth made them independent from lobbying, but we're quickly discovering they just have corruption tendencies of a different sort.

If this continues, as it probably will, I think Trump's outsider status is officially toast. He's arguably worse than most politicians at the rate he is going.

All else being equal, I don't think he will win 2020 without that status, assuming he isn't thrown out of office before then.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey:

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-nj-governor-race-deadline-20170403-story.html

Quote

On the Democratic side, wealthy former ambassador Phil Murphy is leading in polls, has key establishment and interest group support, and is self-funding.

Murphy dropped off six cardboard boxes containing what he said were 42,000 signatures, far above the 1,000 needed.

Murphy is pledging $10 million of his own cash on the race, so I would say he's ready for a long fight (and no doubt has higher ambitions if he's willing to drop that much on a Governor's race and gain instant name recognition).

http://www.11alive.com/news/politics/exclusive-poll-democrat-john-ossoff-dominates-republican-stronghold-district-6/428494693

Bouncing around to Georgia's 6th District, Democrat Jon Ossoff still dominates the polls at 43% of likely voters in spite of GOP attempts to discredit him as an inexperienced, far left liberal (or a puppet of outsiders, given the insane amount of aid he is receiving from out of state Democrats). The election is a jungle primary to be held on April 18th; if no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held between the top two on June 20th.

This in mind, Democrat strategy is to maximize turnout so Ossoff wins outright on the 18th, while Republicans want to deny him 50% so that they can more easily unify behind a single Republican in June.

This will be the first special election in a Republican seat since Trump took office, and it is seen as a bellwether for future races. Historically, excellent opposition turnout in special elections has preceded waves in the midterms. Even if Ossoff loses, if it's only by a small margin, Democrats stand to retake the House in 2018.

This is especially so if Democrats can build a broad coalition around healthcare. The Republicans' fumbling with AHCA can very possibly haunt them among senior voters for years to come if the Democrats capitalize on it and push for a UHC plan that goes beyond "conservative" and "liberal" boundaries.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The State Department is dead.

 

Without a spokesperson, it no longer gives daily briefings that have gone on since the 1950s. Nor could anyone be found to present the annual report on human rights.

This is, of course, all by design.

Gone are the diplomats and experts, who understood the nuances of culture and historyNow Trump's imbecilic son-in-law Jared Kushner is in charge of negotiating with China.

The upcoming meeting with Xi Jingping will be a disaster.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/rex-tillerson-state-department/521793

Quote

At the moment there is no Trump foreign policy doctrine, no coherent explanation of the world as seen by the Trump team, and the broad outlines of their policy for dealing with it. There are threats leveled at North Korea, which will either have to be backed up by force or retreated from in humiliation. There is a far warmer reception for an Egyptian dictator than for a fairly elected German chancellor. There is foreign policy conducted as though the United States government were a Middle Eastern court, where the ruler’s family counts for more than the sovereign’s foreign minister. And there is the invocation of America First, a slogan with a rancid history, as the president knows very well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

I really wonder how embarrassed all the "Crooked Hillary" chanting types are as more and more evidence comes out that this administration is rotten to its core.

While purely anecdotal, from what I've observed, not at all. They just double down on this concept that they aren't finding anything, there's no corruption, it's liberal lies and tantamount to a hissy fit for losing the election. Also whoa check out the Obama wiretaps, it's the REAL story.

There's no fixing that level of dumb so I've just been trying to tune it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bannon was just stripped of his national security council role. Then again, Bannon never attended any meetings; he probably doesn't even believe that the national security council should exist in the first place.

Bannon is still the White House Chief Strategist, which is his primary role in the White House.

2 hours ago, CleverSonicUsername said:

Also whoa check out the Obama wiretaps, it's the REAL story.

Trump is now pivoting towards another story

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

I really wonder how embarrassed all the "Crooked Hillary" chanting types are as more and more evidence comes out that this administration is rotten to its core. The billionaire Cabinet was receiving so much support from the right on the idea that their wealth made them independent from lobbying, but we're quickly discovering they just have corruption tendencies of a different sort.

Donald himself was hardly the paragon of on the level behavior, and that has been common knowledge since the mid-1980s. I'd have to think many (if not most) of the Anyone-But-Crooked-Hilary people had to have known that but were willing to look the other way because, hey, anyone but Hilary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nunes is off the House investigation on Russia, pitching a fit about "leftist activists" on the way out. Unfortunately, Trey Gowdy is taking over, but it's something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just yesterday, Sen. Jeff Merkley spent more than 13 hours explaining how Gorsuch is an arch-conservative from the same mould as Scalia.

Gorsuch will continue to have influence over the country long after the Trump administration is history, pushing his hard-right economic and social agenda.

Let's pray that this will be Trump's only SCOTUS appointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Did they seriously invoke the nuclear option? I hope to God more dems get in in 2018 so they can see what that really means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next Democrat majority in the Senate gets two choices now

A) Go nuclear and receive nowhere near the repercussions they could have.

B ) Abide by traditional rules for S.C. nominees and make McConnell and the current GOP brand be remembered by history as desperate power-seekers.

It's unfortunate it's come to this. But, McConnell had the opportunity to be memorialized as someone who abides by traditional and composed politics, despite his temper tantrum over Garland, while Schumer and Reid got all the blame for starting the mess. McConnell declined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They really have no clue how much that could potentially bite them in the ass in the future, do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US has began launching missiles into Syria, in response to its gassing of innocent civilians:

Quote

The U.S. military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria, NBC News reported.

A U.S. military official told NBC that 59 tomahawks had been fired, which hit an airfield near Homs.

The missiles hit aircraft and infrastructure including the runway, NBC reported. There is no word on casualties yet, but no people were targeted, the official told NBC.

One U.S. official told NBC that the Russians were warned ahead of the strike. Additionally, no Russian assets were targeted, according to the report.

Earlier Thursday, Reuters reported that a British diplomat had said the United Nations Security Council would not vote on Thursday on a draft resolution to condemn a deadly gas attack on Tuesday in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, but will continue negotiations.

Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, warned that day of "negative consequences" if the U.S. carried out military strikes on Syria over the attack.

"We have to think about negative consequences, negative consequences, and all the responsibility if military action occurred will be on shoulders of those who initiated such doubtful and tragic enterprise," Safronkov told reporters when asked about possible U.S. strikes, adding that such consequences could be seen in Iraq and Libya.

Western countries have blamed President Bashar al-Assad's armed forces for Tuesday's attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in a rebel-held area of northern Syria hit by government air strikes. Syria's government has denied responsibility.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio appeared to be tweeting about an American offensive action in Syria, posting at 8:44 p.m. ET, "'Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished' Proverbs 11:21 # SyriaChemicalAttack"

The United States, Britain and France proposed a draft U.N. resolution on Tuesday to condemn the attack and press Syria to cooperate with international investigators. Russia said the text was unacceptable and proposed a rival draft.

In February, Syrian ally Russia, backed by China, cast its seventh veto to protect Assad's government from council action, blocking a bid by Western powers to impose sanctions over accusations of chemical weapons attacks. China has vetoed six resolutions on Syria.

A Security Council resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the United States, Britain, France, Russia or China to pass.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/us-military-has-launched-more-50-than-missiles-aimed-at-syria-nbc-news.html

I'm sure that diving straight into the quagmire that Bush became ensnared in will serve as a great distraction from the drip-fed leaks regarding Russian collusion. But oh, wait, hang on...

85mI6q7.jpg

I also seem to recall Trump or his fans accusing Clinton of wanting to start a (proxy?) war with Russia via the implementation of a No Fly Zone over Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States's lust for regime change and imperialism doesn't make other countries better. More often than not, they make things worse. Iraq, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Iran, Vietnam, Cambodia. Have the U.S. government slaughtered enough people already, or is the taste of human blood too addicting for them?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was 50 Tomahawk missiles, my Twitter list is pretty shook right now, I never expected that level of retaliation, apparently he didn't get Congress' approval before he issued the strike either which is what freaked me out the most, this guy is throwing his power around and getting exactly what he wants, without going through the proper channels and procedures.

So he's against letting Syrian refugees into the USA for protection, but he's all for bombing the shit out of them and their country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russians had previously promised "negative consequences" if the US were to attack Syria. Given that the Russkies have a recent history of bombing military bases which US forces had decamped only hours earlier, sometimes repeatedly, to send a message, I feel like they're going to knock that strategy up a notch now. That, or validate the Steele Dossier - kill his career with super-damaging leaks, rather than permit further escalations of conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahahaha fuck you, you miserable piece of orange garbage pretending to be "president".

Piece of shit suddenly cares so much about "beautiful babies", the same babies he tried to ban from entering the US.

Gotta love how all the Trumpets were loudly screaming how Hillary will start a war with Syria, and how a vote for Trump will avoid WW3.

Newsflash: If war with Syria is unavoidable, I'd much rather the US forces be led by someone with a brain. Idiot Trump will make Bush's Iraq quagmire look like a pleasant picnic.

Thousand of American soldiers will die fighting for a failed casino mogul.

Jesus Christ.

  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is Trump and his fans going to claim they predicted the future because something now did happen in Sweden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump bombed an empty airfield. This whole thing was nothing but empty posturing so far.

How is the US even supposed to wage war against Assad when he's backed up by thousand of Russian soldiers? Because of that, Trump can't do anything without informing Putin first, who'll just pass the info to Assad.

When the US attacked Daesh positions before, the Syrian anti-aircraft systems sat quiet. Will this continue after Trump's latest idiocy?

Russia will now work to kick out the US out of Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Going nuclear:

This is now a nomination fight between the right and left. The justice system should never be politicized and is there to interpret the law, not interpret the way a certain side wants it to. It wouldn't surprise me if either the legislative filibuster went away in the near future or if if the Dems win back control in the future, the GOP puts the filibuster back in place right before the come into power.

Re: Syria:

It's been theorized that Trump is just talking tough and that this will end by some deal being made and sanctions being lifted on Russia. It wouldn't surprise me if this turns out to be case and I find it odd that Russia was warned in advance, thus allowing them to warn Syria enough to move whatever they don't want struck out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kevin said:

It's been theorized that Trump is just talking tough and that this will end by some deal being made and sanctions being lifted on Russia. It wouldn't surprise me if this turns out to be case and I find it odd that Russia was warned in advance, thus allowing them to warn Syria enough to move whatever they don't want struck out of the way.

A deal which would include the US removing sanctions on Russia in return for Russia telling Assad to not use chemical weapons wouldn't surprise me at all. It's definitely something that Putin would love to see.

However, I don't think it's odd that Russia was warned in advance. Syria is right now crawling with thousands of Russian soldiers. Before the airfield was abandoned there was significant Russian presence in there mixed in with Assad's troops. The US is forced to warn Russia about any attack, if it wants to avoid killing Russian soldiers.

Russia is right now suspending the deal that prevented mid-air incidents. They're doing it to ensure that US aircraft will stay away in fear of causing an incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly can't see how people("the left") could possibly be misinterpreting this shit going down with Syria and how people are overblowing this. The guy is doing the very things he was against. The things that got him the presidency. People's lives on both sides are now in danger. This man is clasrly fucking not even ready to lead a successful business let alone the country. If people wanna try downplaying this, or claim it's. not that big a deal, go ahead, but goes to show a lot about you, and how much concern for people outside yourself you have.

oh and regarding the SC pick, yeah not shocked, but fuck. Gonna be that much easier for shit to pass by now I assume with him there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Volphied said:

A deal which would include the US removing sanctions on Russia in return for Russia telling Assad to not use chemical weapons wouldn't surprise me at all. It's definitely something that Putin would love to see..

Not just that, it allows Trump to use his whole "make a deal" thing his followers thinks he's good at, Putin "agrees" to the "deal", both get heralded for "stopping" WW3 and both get huge boosts in popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PSI Wind said:

Not just that, it allows Trump to use his whole "make a deal" thing his followers thinks he's good at, Putin "agrees" to the "deal", both get heralded for "stopping" WW3 and both get huge boosts in popularity.

We might see very soon if this is how things turn out: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/07/us-russia-relations-syria-military-strikes-putin-trump

Quote

...the Pentagon is attempting to revive a critical military communications hotline between the US and Russia that has become the first geopolitical casualty of Trump’s abrupt decision to attack Assad in Syria.

By shutting down the so-called deconfliction channel after the missile strike on Russia’s Syrian client, Vladimir Putin has dared Trump to choose between attacking Assad and attacking Islamic State, Trump’s priority.

Trump’s missile barrage, reversing his previous indifference to continued Assad rule, now faces conflicting demands from Congress to escalate militarily and from Russia to back down.

Humanitarians, meanwhile, are demanding evidence of a strategy to end the conflict peacefully.

The first big diplomatic test comes as Tillerson is scheduled to travel to Moscow next week in an attempt to impose an elusive peace on Syria, though its terms have for years been thwarted by Putin’s insistence that Assad remain in power.

The military channel is pivotal for ensuring US and Russian pilots avoid accidentally colliding, confronting one another in midair or attacking each other’s forces or proxies in north-eastern Syria. It also has a significant political component, according to former defense officials: to ensure competing air wars in Syria do not accidentally spiral into a confrontation between two nuclear powers.

Even with the channel in operation since late 2015, several near misses have resulted. The US military repurposed it on Thursday night to warn Russian military forces at the Shayrat airfield that its Tomahawk missile strike was imminent.

[...]

An opportunity for Russia and the US to stop the slide toward confrontation will come on Tuesday, when Tillerson is due to make his first trip to Moscow as secretary of state. He has signalled that the air strikes had limited objectives – to deter the use of chemical weapons – and that the US priority remained fighting Isis first, and dealing with political transition later.

In the days before Tillerson’s visit there are expected to be urgent efforts to repair the suspended deconfliction channel.

The Pentagon would not address whether its airstrikes on Isis have already been reduced in response, nor if it had anticipated Russia’s move to abandon the channel before Mattis, the defense secretary, briefed Trump on options for the missile strike. But the Pentagon left little doubt it wants Moscow to reopen military-to-military communications.

It appears that the Russians were right when they said that Trump's idiotic missile strike was extremely weak, with only 23 of the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles reaching the airbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real scary thing about the nuclear option and the last two years: it's being normalized to oppose an opposition President's appointments. If we end up in another situation where the President and Senate are controlled by different parties, we could end up with thousands of vacancies in federal offices. Historically, most Presidential nominees received very broad support due to the respect and decorum of the chamber. That is rapidly deteriorating between Obama and Trump's terms.

Just think about it. Say a court position opens up in 2020 and Democrats have the Senate. Democrats will very likely say the next President gets to appoint a replacement as revenge for Garland. And why stop there? You'll notice the vast majority of Obama's Cabinet appointments were made before the GOP took the Senate in late 2014; what appointments were made after that date were slim majorities. A few reasonable Republican voices prevailed then, but that could very well go away with the Democrats' current obstruction.

And the worst part is, each Party's base is screaming for cramdowns and obstruction if they are in the majority or minority, respectively. We are becoming the Divided States of America, whether we like it or not. Understandably so, because any Democrats willing to compromise have a huge issue: if they do play nice with Trump and the GOP, who is to say that the GOP won't just obstruct again under the next Democrat? There's a serious perverse incentive to throw centuries of tradition out the window because to adhere to tradition leaves one at a disadvantage.

TBH though, this is where Trump could actually build his credentials as an alternative candidate. He could surprise everyone by nominating Garland in the face of Democrat obstruction in a final year, likely scoring him some much-needed points close to Election Day and keeping this from becoming a trend. But that's a very big maybe.

I don't think we need to fear the filibuster going away for regular legislation. For starters, neither Party really has an interest in that. For two, legislation is a very broad category, as opposed to a simple appointment, and you have dozens of state interests going into it. Reinforcing that is the fact the House has to also pass legislation, and this means creating a bill with a broad base of support is even more important (especially if the President or House are controlled by different Parties).

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-alt-right-fans-bail-syria-strikes-130839954.html

You know you're screwed when David Duke, Richard Spencer, Ann Coulter, and countless other mainstream and alternative right wing darlings are pulling away from you.

We'll have to see the impact of this. They might end up falling in line due to party loyalty and the lesser evil mentality, but Trump's actions might just alienate enough of his base to decrease their turnout (key: white turnout was increased in many states in 2016) and allow a Democratic sweep.

On 4/5/2017 at 10:24 AM, CleverSonicUsername said:

While purely anecdotal, from what I've observed, not at all. They just double down on this concept that they aren't finding anything, there's no corruption, it's liberal lies and tantamount to a hissy fit for losing the election. Also whoa check out the Obama wiretaps, it's the REAL story.

I wonder at what point "you lost" will stop being the go to defense for Trumpism. It's really obnoxious.

On 4/6/2017 at 5:11 PM, Conando said:

...Did they seriously invoke the nuclear option? I hope to God more dems get in in 2018 so they can see what that really means.

That's a big if. Democrats will need some solid turnout to flip the chamber, as Arizona and Nevada are the only likely pickups. This says nothing about the numerous seats they must defend. 50-50 is an incredibly optimistic divide with this in mind, while 51 or more will be difficult.

It really depends how strong the Democrats' 50 state strategy is and how awful Trump is over the next year and a half.

Even 2020 could be tough bet assuming Trump loses, as a lot of the seats there are in GOP territory. The Democrats might need to wait until 2022 to regain the Senate without a change in strategy.

The importance of the state races cannot be understated though. Democrats need to win big in the Governor races in 2018 to make the House more competitive.

On 4/6/2017 at 5:15 PM, -Robin- said:

The next Democrat majority in the Senate gets two choices now

A) Go nuclear and receive nowhere near the repercussions they could have.

B ) Abide by traditional rules for S.C. nominees and make McConnell and the current GOP brand be remembered by history as desperate power-seekers.

The main issue is what the Democratic base feels. After the unprecedented obstruction of the Obama era, it's likely a lot of Democrats won't tell Senate Democrats to be the bigger people. Indeed, this is the issue we are facing now; any Democrat who isn't from a red state is solidly opposing Trump because it's what the base wants as vengeance.

I can see the Senate becoming partisan for the long term short of some miracle.

On 4/6/2017 at 10:59 PM, Lady Soniko said:

It was 50 Tomahawk missiles, my Twitter list is pretty shook right now, I never expected that level of retaliation, apparently he didn't get Congress' approval before he issued the strike either which is what freaked me out the most, this guy is throwing his power around and getting exactly what he wants, without going through the proper channels and procedures.

There is no proper channel as you describe. The President is free to send military forces wherever he pleases for up to 60 days without Congressional approval. The only requirement is that he give 48 hours notice before he sends them. The real scandal will be if we find out there was no notification.

Congress not signing off on unilateral military orders is a tradition. Presidents rarely face any repercussions for it, though.

Most Presidents - Clinton and Obama included - routinely violated the 60 days limit with airstrikes. They argue that airstrikes don't fall under the provisions of the War Powers Act, and while Congress grumbles, it rarely does anything.

Where Trump would really get in trouble is if he didn't give the 48 hour notification. As it stands, most members of Congress are protesting that he did it or claiming that it was illegal to do it without their say so (the law says otherwise), rather than claiming he never let them know.

Given the Russians on base were tipped off to the attack, it's not unreasonable members of Congress were as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.