We Need To Talk About Donald

[Scot Dutchy]

It is just too obvious except to 45's supporters. "Hey Vlad just firing off some old tomahawks at that old base in an hour or so. Have to make a response"."Ok dont hit anything".

[Brian Peacock]

Looks like the average Joe and Jolene are starting to figure out that the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare are the same thing...

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fifty-five percent of Americans now support the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a major turnaround from five months ago when 42% approved and 53% disapproved. This is the first time a majority of Americans have approved of the healthcare law, also known as Obamacare, since Gallup first asked about it in this format in November 2012.

Since the ACA's passage without a single Republican vote in its favor, the law has been a significant political issue in each of the past four national elections. Republicans' opposition to the ACA helped them win control of the House in 2010, control of the Senate in 2014 and the presidency last year. However, Republicans' plan to repeal and replace the healthcare law foundered last month, as House leaders' replacement bill ran into stiff opposition within the party.

Republicans, Democrats and independents are all more likely to approve of the ACA now than in November, a few days after Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election left Republicans in control of the legislative and executive branches. Independents have led the way in this shift toward approval, increasing by 17 percentage points compared with 10-point changes for both Republicans and Democrats. When including "leaners" (independents who lean toward either the Republican or Democratic Party) in the totals for both major party groups, Democratic approval has increased by 16 points, compared with eight points for Republicans.

Although the ACA never garnered majority support in Gallup polling before this month, nearly half of Americans (48%) approved of it the first time the current version of the question was asked in November 2012. In response to a previous version of the question that asked whether Americans thought passing the healthcare law was a good thing or a bad thing, 49% said it was a good thing when the question was first asked in early 2010. However, support was a few percentage points lower each of the next two times it was asked....

More...

[Hermit]

An air strike which supposedly targeted weapons dumps and planes but which also, somewhat surprisingly, left the runway and most of the hangers intact.

No surprise at all. The purpose was not to strike against Assad. Had Trump meant to inflict meaningful military damage to the dictator he would not have given the Russians advance warning of the impending "attack", the runway would have looked like the worst days of Verdun and Assad would not have been given the opportunity to remove all his aeroplanes that were not grounded for repairs from the targeted area. The real purpose was to divert attention from Trump's latest series of faux pas, and that worked exceedingly well. The media's reportage is focused on Syria instead of the goings on at the White House, and the plebs are preoccupied with patriotic flag waving while deliriously shouting "Rahh, rahhh, rahhh, USA, USA, USA."

Stand by tor 4 point 2 arguing that there's nothing wrong with any of that. He'll start by seizing on Trump's tweet procaiming that the "attack" does not constitute a change in policy while ignoring the several tweets he made immediately after the 2013 sarin attacks in which he told Obama not to get militarily involved with Syria.

[Brian Peacock]

Mitch McConnell, enemy of democracy, shifts the blame for Republican's 'going nuclear' over Supreme Court nominee Goursh onto Democrats - basically lambasting them for not doing what he'd told them to do. He has justified his own turpitude on the turpitude of the opposition who, it seems, have no business opposing the Republican party, telling them, "This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee."

But that's exactly what you've been doing over the nomination of Merrick Garland since March 2016 Mr McConnell. From now on nominations to the Constitutional Court of the US will proceed by simple majority, but what are you going to say about that when you're party is not in power I wonder? I can guess. I'm sure we all can.

There's a reason for the rule requiring a 2/3rds vote for for-life judges to the Supreme Court - it's so no unsuitable and/or partisan appointments are forced through on the nod by the majority party. You Sir, have undermined your own constitutional in order to favour your preferred candidate. You Sir, extracted from your rectum the condition that Presidents shouldn't be able to nominate to the Supreme Court in an election year, and in so doing abused your position as oversee of procedural rectitude. You Sir, are a massive, self-serving, undemocratic hypocritical bullshitter who has succumbed to rampant partisanism, and place that transient, personal urge before the constitution and all obligations you have to the citizens of the republic. You Sir, are a disgrace.

mitch_mcconnell_enemy_of_democracy.jpg (20.99 KiB) Viewed 4875 times

[pErvinalia]

Galaxian liked my post. I've hit rock bottom.

I guess the only way is up now.

______________________

I just want to flag up something about this week's shenanigans. On Thursday last, in a joint press conference with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Rex Tillerson said: "" think the longer term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.” This was echoed by the US Ambassador to the UN, the fragrant Nikki Haley, the same day: "You pick and choose your battles, and when we're looking at this, it's about changing up priorities - and our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out."

The previous administration made al-Assad's removal a condition of a negotiated peace in Syria - a peace all except Russia and China considered necessary as a pre-condition to effectively addressing the problems posed by Jihadists such as ISIS feeding on the scraps of the civil war. The Trump administration, through Tillerson and Haley, sent a clear signal to Damascus: US Syria policy has changed - we're no longer interested in removing you from office; the war is an internal Syrian matter now. The following weekend the usual stooges did the rounds of the politics programmes to drive the point home: 'We have no quarrel with al-Assad.'

Four days later al-Assad used nerve agents against his own people.

On the following Thursday, seven days after Tillerson and Haley's remarks, amid considerable outrage from world leaders over the gas attack, al-Assad heavily bombed the same area again, not only targeting the civilian population but also, according to some reports, targeting the impact sites of the attack from two days before. It was too late by then though, citizen journalists had photographed the sites and collected samples.

That evening Trump ordered a strike on the air base the gas attack was launched from. An air strike which supposedly targeted weapons dumps and planes but which also, somewhat surprisingly, left the runway and most of the hangers intact. Machinery, feul and weapons are military resources that can be replaced easily and quickly. Also the Russian-operated air defence network seemed to be down the pub that evening. While some have championed the US air strike as a right, and righteous response, and an example of Trump's moral independence, in itself it carries another very clear message: carry on as you were, just don't use chemical/biological weapons - supported by the fact that Syrian planes were taking off to bomb and strafe from the base the very next day.

Now then. It's unthinkable to assume that Syria would not have launched a gas attack without tacit Russian approval. After all, Russian military advisers are running al-Assad's military campaign; Russia is providing weapons and logistical support, as well as political cover. Yet on the night of the US strike the Russian-operated air defence network was turned off, almost as if they knew the strike was coming or chose not to response once the Tomahawks were on their way. Some equipment and supplies were destroyed by the US strike but the base's capacity to operate was largely unaffected.

Without getting all GALAXIAN! about this, doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? Doesn't it seem that Putin, Trump, and al-Assad have all done rather well out of this particular war crime? Isn't it all a bit too tidy? Doesn't it seem rather, for want of a better term, well, co-ordinated? Trump gets a boost to his flagging ratings, Putin gets a free hand in Syria, al-Assad gets to stays in power. Everyone's a winner - except the people of Syria of course. But then again, let's face it, they're mainly an incidental means to these three egomaniacs holding onto the reigns of power.

I don't know about the conspiracy theories, but the US gave Russia notice that they were going to bomb that base. That's good sense, as bombing Syrian infrastructure is one thing, but bombing Russians is another thing. I don't know why the air defense was turned off, but perhaps the US has a way of destroying russian air defences. In that case, it was probably an agreement not to make this a much bigger incident than it had to be.

[pErvinalia]

An air strike which supposedly targeted weapons dumps and planes but which also, somewhat surprisingly, left the runway and most of the hangers intact.

No surprise at all. The purpose was not to strike against Assad. Had Trump meant to inflict meaningful military damage to the dictator he would not have given the Russians advance warning of the impending "attack", the runway would have looked like the worst days of Verdun and Assad would not have been given the opportunity to remove all his aeroplanes that were not grounded for repairs from the targeted area. The real purpose was to divert attention from Trump's latest series of faux pas, and that worked exceedingly well. The media's reportage is focused on Syria instead of the goings on at the White House, and the plebs are preoccupied with patriotic flag waving while deliriously shouting "Rahh, rahhh, rahhh, USA, USA, USA."

Stand by tor 4 point 2 arguing that there's nothing wrong with any of that. He'll start by seizing on Trump's tweet procaiming that the "attack" does not constitute a change in policy while ignoring the several tweets he made immediately after the 2013 sarin attacks in which he told Obama not to get militarily involved with Syria.

The Trump admin is now calling for the removal of Assad. So much for a non-interventionist foreign policy. They've also sent a bunch of warships to the coast off Nth Korea. Maybe they are going to concentrate on the draining of the Washington swamp..

[Scot Dutchy]

Does 45 have a clue about what he is doing? When are they going to remove him before he does something serious? He goes down to Florida wasting $7 million of America's tax payers' money and nobody says a thing about it and also his wife in New York is wasting even more money staying in that tower which is also now being maintained by the American tax payer. It is just amazing: ONLY IN AMERICA

[Forty Two]

An air strike which supposedly targeted weapons dumps and planes but which also, somewhat surprisingly, left the runway and most of the hangers intact.

No surprise at all. The purpose was not to strike against Assad. Had Trump meant to inflict meaningful military damage to the dictator he would not have given the Russians advance warning of the impending "attack", the runway would have looked like the worst days of Verdun and Assad would not have been given the opportunity to remove all his aeroplanes that were not grounded for repairs from the targeted area. The real purpose was to divert attention from Trump's latest series of faux pas, and that worked exceedingly well. The media's reportage is focused on Syria instead of the goings on at the White House, and the plebs are preoccupied with patriotic flag waving while deliriously shouting "Rahh, rahhh, rahhh, USA, USA, USA."

Stand by tor 4 point 2 arguing that there's nothing wrong with any of that. He'll start by seizing on Trump's tweet procaiming that the "attack" does not constitute a change in policy while ignoring the several tweets he made immediately after the 2013 sarin attacks in which he told Obama not to get militarily involved with Syria.

If missiles are used to "divert attention" from a domestic scandal, then absolutely there is something wrong with that. However, your theory is just speculation. Assad, apparently, did use chemical weapons against civilians, including children. However, if it was meant to divert attention, it did a bad job of it, since none of the major networks have let up going after Trump on all fronts.

As for his flip flop on Syria, all I would say is that my take on it is that Trump should not have launched any attack without Congressional approval, and I oppose the attack 100%. I have sympathy for the civilians killed by Assad, and Assad is a brutal dictator who deserves, in my view, to be taken out, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not much different, if at all, than the US spilling the Vietnam War over into Cambodia and such.

So, I oppose the attack, but I would not go so far as to say he fired 30 Tomahawk missiles and killed people just to divert attention from a domestic issue. He's been under constant attack from the Democrats and the media since he announced his candidacy. The Russia thing is not a significant departure or increase in heat.

[Forty Two]

The Trump admin is now calling for the removal of Assad. So much for a non-interventionist foreign policy. They've also sent a bunch of warships to the coast off Nth Korea. Maybe they are going to concentrate on the draining of the Washington swamp..

Bad move. Assad is actually fighting ISIS over there. He should concentrate on eliminating ISIS and worry about Assad later. Assad is a brutal dictator, but knocking him out will either start a war with Trump's "pal" Putin, or allow ISIS and another set of Islamic fundamentalists to grab hold of yet another middle eastern country.

[Forty Two]

Mitch McConnell, enemy of democracy, shifts the blame for Republican's 'going nuclear' over Supreme Court nominee Goursh onto Democrats - basically lambasting them for not doing what he'd told them to do. He has justified his own turpitude on the turpitude of the opposition who, it seems, have no business opposing the Republican party, telling them, "This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee."

This is what a lot of Democrats were screaming for previously. Remember all the stuff about how the filibuster is antidemocratic? Now the Democrats want things to require 60 votes out of 100 in order for it to be more democratic, and getting rid of the filibuster is antidemocratic? LOL. Well, I find that a bit humorous.

Nevertheless, on the substantive issue of getting rid of the filibuster, I think the GOP made a mistake and it will regret it. I like the filibuster rule, even though it is less than democratic.

That being said, it's not "turpitude" to get rid of it. It's not required by law or constitutional provision - it's a Senate rule. The Senate is free to make rules, or get rid of rules. So, there is nothing immoral or evil about being for or against the filibuster rule. I'm for it, and a year or two ago, lots of Democrat supporters would have taken me to task for pages and pages here because of that support. Now ever Democrat supporter and their brother is up-in-arms about getting rid of the filibuster.

But that's exactly what you've been doing over the nomination of Merrick Garland since March 2016 Mr McConnell. From now on nominations to the Constitutional Court of the US will proceed by simple majority, but what are you going to say about that when you're party is not in power I wonder? I can guess. I'm sure we all can.

Hypocrisy on both sides. The Democrats were railing against the filibuster rule last year. Now they love the filibuster. Last year, Republicans were hailing it as a bastion of the hallowed halls of the Senate and keystone of democracy. Now they're getting rid of it. They're all acting in their political interests.

What am I going to say? I'm going to say to the GOP "I told you so." Nobody will care, but I'll say it anyway. They will rue the day they did this.

There's a reason for the rule requiring a 2/3rds vote for for-life judges to the Supreme Court - it's so no unsuitable and/or partisan appointments are forced through on the nod by the majority party. You Sir, have undermined your own constitutional in order to favour your preferred candidate.

I get the purpose of the rule, but it's note part of the constitution. It's not undermining the constitution to be against the filibuster rule.

[Hermit]

If missiles are used to "divert attention" from a domestic scandal, then absolutely there is something wrong with that. However, your theory is just speculation. Assad, apparently, did use chemical weapons against civilians, including children. However, if it was meant to divert attention, it did a bad job of it, since none of the major networks have let up going after Trump on all fronts.

Why are liberals now cheerleading a warmongering Trump?

So now we know what it takes for an unhinged, bigoted demagogue to win liberal applause: just bypass a constitution to fire some missiles. It had seemed as though there was consensus among those in the anti-Trump camp. This man was a threat to US democracy and world peace. The echoes of 1930s fascist leaders were frightening. “This republic is in serious danger,” declared conservative writer Andrew Sullivan on the eve of Trump’s triumph. That this megalomaniac “pussy-grabbing” ban-the-Muslims ex-reality TV star would soon control the world’s most lethal military arsenal was chilling. Opposition would be uncompromising, a reflection of the Republican intransigence that Barack Obama faced from day one.

It has taken less than three months for these illusions to be shattered. A man widely castigated as a proto-fascist only needed to drop bombs without observing due process.

Let’s examine what is being said about Trump now. A press he denounced as liars and “enemies of the people” are eating out of his hands, tiny or otherwise. “I think Donald Trump became president of the United States,” cooed CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria in response to the bombing. Trump “reacted viscerally to the images of the death of innocent children in Syria,” declared Mark Sandler in the New York Times. The original headline on that article, since amended? “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First.”

So the man who once bragged to a baying audience that he would tell five-year-old Syrian refugees to their faces that the US would not offer them safety, is now driven by his heart. Touching indeed. The “moral dimensions of leadership” had penetrated Trump’s Oval Office, declared the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. MSNBC’s Brian Williams described the missile launches as “beautiful” three times in the space of 30 seconds.

I am not looking forward to seeing the results of the next few popularity surveys.

And if the missile strike was genuinely meant to be a meaningful military response, Russia would not have been notified of it beforehand. That, in turn, enabled to clear the airfield of any actually valuable material. Or do you think the Russians would not have passed the message on to Assad? Or more pertinently, that trump did not think they would? It's a charade meant for domestic consumption, and it works. So, yeah, from that point of view it is technically not a change of policy. Just Trump doing whatever seems to him a good idea at the time. I'm not sure which is worse.

...

[Forty Two]

If missiles are used to "divert attention" from a domestic scandal, then absolutely there is something wrong with that. However, your theory is just speculation. Assad, apparently, did use chemical weapons against civilians, including children. However, if it was meant to divert attention, it did a bad job of it, since none of the major networks have let up going after Trump on all fronts.

Why are liberals now cheerleading a warmongering Trump?

So now we know what it takes for an unhinged, bigoted demagogue to win liberal applause: just bypass a constitution to fire some missiles.

This is what I don't get - The Guardian now reports that it is a constitutional requirement for the President to launch missiles like Trump just did? Where were the articles saying that when Obama launched missiles into several countries during his tenure, and other air strikes. The Obama Administration argued that no congressional approval was required for Libya, for example. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 79bb040b72

So, now, after a chemical weapons attack on civilians, including little kids, firing a strike on their behalf is constitutionally required to have congressional approval?

I agree, but then again, I agreed last year, and the year before, too. I agreed in 2003.

It has taken less than three months for these illusions to be shattered. A man widely castigated as a proto-fascist only needed to drop bombs without observing due process.

Let’s examine what is being said about Trump now. A press he denounced as liars and “enemies of the people” are eating out of his hands, tiny or otherwise. “I think Donald Trump became president of the United States,” cooed CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria in response to the bombing. Trump “reacted viscerally to the images of the death of innocent children in Syria,” declared Mark Sandler in the New York Times. The original headline on that article, since amended? “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First.”

Yes, indeed, these same folks had to say that, because they said too many times how humanitarian needs warrant military intervention by the Obama administration, and hardly any of them questioned the Obama administration in the issue and when they did it was muted, at best. If folks like those you mentioned came out against Trump on this, they wouldn't be able to get around the bias accusations. And, this was an easy one for them to throw an attaboy at Trump -- hardly anyone was killed, it was against an evil dictator, and most of the damage was property damage. It will have no effect on anything.

So the man who once bragged to a baying audience that he would tell five-year-old Syrian refugees to their faces that the US would not offer them safety, is now driven by his heart. Touching indeed. The “moral dimensions of leadership” had penetrated Trump’s Oval Office, declared the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. MSNBC’s Brian Williams described the missile launches as “beautiful” three times in the space of 30 seconds.

[/quote]

Williams was referring to the images, and not the nature or propriety of the attack.

I am not looking forward to seeing the results of the next few popularity surveys.

And if the missile strike was genuinely meant to be a meaningful military response, Russia would not have been notified of it beforehand. That, in turn, enabled to clear the airfield of any actually valuable material. Or do you think the Russians would not have passed the message on to Assad? Or more pertinently, that trump did not think they would? It's a charade meant for domestic consumption, and it works. So, yeah, from that point of view it is technically not a change of policy. Just Trump doing whatever seems to him a good idea at the time. I'm not sure which is worse.

...

This I don't agree with, because Syria is a client state of Russia. Bombing the shit out of Syria without giving Russia the courtesy of a "hey howdy" beforehand would be an act of war and perhaps one that Russia simply could not ignore. It would be like Russia just going ahead and bombing targets in Iraq without giving the US a heads up.

The purpose in coordinating with Russia was to allow Russia to clear any men and munitions from the area, so it doesn't become an attack on Russia itself.

We warned Russia ahead of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, for example. The reason being is if you start dropping bombs in their sphere of influence, they need to be able to handle it politically on their end or they start looking like they're on the "pay-no-mind-list." They can't have that. There are certain international no-nos that are widely recognized as hair triggers for war. Bombing on someone's border or near it, bombing someone's client state, and attacking vessels on the high seas are 3 that come to mind.

I'll reiterate, I oppose the missile strike, but if you're going to do it, unless you're prepared to have the big dick contest with Russia, it would be irresponsible not to discuss it with them. This way, Russia can move some ships around, take some symbolic actions to show that they can't be walked on, and then we can all move on. If Trump destroys that airfield without involving Russia, there would a new Russian fleet steaming to the Eastern Mediterrenean, and Russian a flotilla delivering Russian "military trainers" and some armor, artillery and missile batteries.

[Tero]

Some 44 per cent of Americans view China favourably but as little as 34 per cent feel the same about their commander-in-chief

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

Such a humanitarian crisis.... http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bor ... story.html - border crossings from Mexico to the US down to their lowest level in 17 years.... so horrible. So terrible. Such an atrocity. Shame, Trump. Shame.