Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Igotadose

Water John wrote: »

I think a Ted Cruz and a Jeb Bush POTUS would be very diff from each other.
Many non GOP would have little difficulty with Jeb as POTUS. Ted, on the other hand would be worse than Donald.

Worse in that he'd actually accomplish the evil he'd set out to do. We're to a large extent saved from Donald's worse because he's so massively incompetent and lacking any obvious skills - not oration, not logic, not intelligence. Cruz on the other hand has trained for the job for decades and would've really fouled things up. I doubt he'd waste time on walls, but he'd be all over eliminating abortion, messing around in the Middle East, prayer back in schools, etc etc. Compare what the erstwhile BillyBob posted earlier as Trump's accomplishments in 9 months as POTUS - very little obviously, versus how much havoc a President Cruz might have caused in his first 9 months.

Scary thing is, President Cruz might be who we get in 2020. He's not gone away and he's toned it down "some." Plus he's milking the Harvey disaster for all it's worth.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but at the core of it is a wiling populace. No matter how often you point out facts, many people (and I am using Trump supporters as they are the clearest example but it is clear that the same exists on the left) refuse to listen. They bend 'facts' to suit their own agenda, even though within their 'facts' is an opposite 'fact'.

Information has been weaponised to turn cultural differences into gaping chasms. Regulating media traditional and social for honesty and transparency will stop bad actors from turning people into characatures of their worst prejudices.

It is very akin to religious fundamentalists (cringingly called evangelists if they are christian). Climate change is the same. They start off with a conclusion and simply look for evidence to support it.

24% of the US electorate are religious fundamentalists. The CNP has been organising since the early 80s. This organisation although deep in the WH, may suffer from a commission.

Given that, it is hard to see how any commission, or impeachment or whatever, would actually change anything. They will simply call it a conspiracy, fake news, the swamp out to get him. As a previous poster pointed out there is actually a certain % of Trump voters that said that nothing would change their mind.

Fake news would cease to exist after a commision installed regulations on media: so they would not have alternative facts to point to or be persuaded by.

I am not saying a commision will solve this. But it will initially make it less acute. Removing propaganda and lies from the media will reduce the power of the propagandist and liars. Reducing corruption similarly. This is at least creates the tools to sort the issues which is a start.

BuilderPlumber

demfad wrote: »

I wouldn't give up hope yet.

A 9/11 style commission into Russian interference is needed and seems likely now. This would identify the underlying weaknesses and what was used as weapons. Amongst other things information was weaponised and corruption was weaponsied. Solving these takes away the ability of a foe foreign or domestic to make mountains out of molehills, canyons out of cracks and to control corrupt people.

The problem here is if Russia helped rig the US election, then it backfired. Trump may or may not be bailed out by Russian government allied interests but I do not think Putin is foolish enough to help the hardline very anti-Russia Republican party into power somehow. If Trump got Russians to help him, I am sure they would be on a solo run and not working for Putin.

Trump may or may not be a friend of Putin but Trump is the defacto figurehead of a hardline, anti-Russian American regime that also wants to cause massive trouble for Russian allies like Iran and North Korea. BUT whoever caused this illegal and rigged result is academic: this false American government needs to be folded and a fresh election called ASAP. And Trump is probably the nicest man in that regime: those behind him who are really making the policies and also did so during the Bush years are a threat to the entire world. Already, they have delivered to us ISIS and a world recession during their 2000-2008 tenure.

Zubeneschamali

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I do not think Putin is foolish enough to help the hardline very anti-Russia Republican party into power somehow.

The Republican party is not hardline anti-Russian.

Billy86

So now Trump has gone from Fake Nooz to Fake Countries.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/21/africa/trump-nambia-un-africa-trnd/index.html

"In Guinea and Nigeria, you fought a horrifying Ebola outbreak," Trump told African leaders gathered Wednesday. "Nambia's health system is increasingly self-sufficient."

Trump mentioned Nambia twice during the session attended by leaders of several nations, including Ghana, Namibia and Uganda.

BuilderPlumber

Igotadose wrote: »

Worse in that he'd actually accomplish the evil he'd set out to do. We're to a large extent saved from Donald's worse because he's so massively incompetent and lacking any obvious skills - not oration, not logic, not intelligence. Cruz on the other hand has trained for the job for decades and would've really fouled things up. I doubt he'd waste time on walls, but he'd be all over eliminating abortion, messing around in the Middle East, prayer back in schools, etc etc. Compare what the erstwhile BillyBob posted earlier as Trump's accomplishments in 9 months as POTUS - very little obviously, versus how much havoc a President Cruz might have caused in his first 9 months.

Scary thing is, President Cruz might be who we get in 2020. He's not gone away and he's toned it down "some." Plus he's milking the Harvey disaster for all it's worth.

The Republican party in any guise is totally unfit for office. The Democrats are not perfect either and American government in general is anything but perfect. The Republicans are far more hardline though and this current horrid regime and the Bush regime set the world back so much. Legacy of Republicans in recent years are a mess in Iraq, increased global terrorism, ISIS as a state and the world's worst recession since the Great Depression. Yet, despite overseeing all that, they have not apologised or moderated their vile agendas and rhetoric after years of reflection from 2008 to 2016. Plus they cannot even win an election without rigging the vote and plus they even have to have a Democrat businessman and friend of Bill Clinton to front for them. The sooner the Republican party is put out of business forever the better.

BuilderPlumber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Republican party is not hardline anti-Russian.

Of course they are not. Bush gave so much support to Russia against Georgia didn't he? Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire but really meant Canada didn't he? And the current thing is offering so much love and friendship to Russian ally Iran that has not been since between America and Iran since 1977. You gotta love the moderate and friendship seeking Republicans!

Billy86

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Of course they are not. Bush gave so much support to Russia against Georgia didn't he? Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire but really meant Canada didn't he? And the current thing is offering so much love and friendship to Russian ally Iran that has not been since between America and Iran since 1977. You gotta love the moderate and friendship seeking Republicans!

You should go and look up the recent connections, and in particular Dana Rohrabacher. The GOP spent decades telling us Russia is basically the devil, and they've shown over the last year or two how happily and even eagerly they will make a deal with the devil to get in power. Those not involved by and large also seem fine to just sit back and watch it happen, presumably under the reasoning of "nobody like a rat" (see: Paul Ryan & Kevin McCarthy last year).

The near unanimous approval of the increased sanctions would make it seem that they're more just inclined to overlook those among them who are doing bidding on Russia's behalf, but there are people in there good as definitely implicated. I would expect it is more of an issue in the house of reps with the likes of Rohrabacher and Devin Nunez, but there's a lot to come out on that front over the course of the investigation, it would appear.

demfad

Serious meeting in Kremlin this afternoon:
Igor Sechin head of Rosneft, Roman Abramovich friend of Trump kids and Kushner, Also Trump/Russia related VTB bank CEO Andrei Kostin; Herman Gref, who helped with 2013 Trump Agalarov meet up and.......
Manafort pal........Oleg Deripaska. (below)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/manafort-offered-to-give-russian-billionaire-private-briefings-on-2016-campaign/2017/09/20/399bba1a-9d48-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html?utm_term=.86dc06494168

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/351675-manafort-used-trump-email-to-contact-ukrainian-operative-report

Wonder why Kremlin released this information? (linked by Sarah Kendzior on twitter)

Noel82

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The Republican party in any guise is totally unfit for office. The Democrats are not perfect either and American government in general is anything but perfect. The Republicans are far more hardline though and this current horrid regime and the Bush regime set the world back so much. Legacy of Republicans in recent years are a mess in Iraq, increased global terrorism, ISIS as a state and the world's worst recession since the Great Depression. Yet, despite overseeing all that, they have not apologised or moderated their vile agendas and rhetoric after years of reflection from 2008 to 2016. Plus they cannot even win an election without rigging the vote and plus they even have to have a Democrat businessman and friend of Bill Clinton to front for them. The sooner the Republican party is put out of business forever the better.

You are hysterical. Tell me, which Government was responsible for the overthrow of Libya which led to the onset of groups like ISIS or intervention in Syria which has led to such problems coming to our shores? The Democrats and liberal media were creaming their pants when Trump bombed the Syrian air bases, your stance is complete hypocritical nonsense.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/

"U.S. military forces have been at war for all eight years of Obama’s tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

"President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.

Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day."

You might want to go back and look the individuals who voted in favor of the Iraq war.

And AFAIK, the only "rigged" election was Sanders losing to Hillary Clinton. Cop yourself on, it might be ok to spout nonsense in this echo chamber forum but to any rational person you sound like a blundering fool.

Nody

Noel82 wrote: »

You are hysterical. Tell me, which Government was responsible for the overthrow of Libya which led to the onset of groups like ISIS or intervention in Syria which has led to such problems coming to our shores? The Democrats and liberal media were creaming their pants when Trump bombed the Syrian air bases, your stance is complete hypocritical nonsense.

ISIL originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and participated in the Iraqi insurgency following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces.

Who was president in 2003 USA again? And what did the group do? Well...

In January 2006, AQI joined with several smaller Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups under an umbrella organisation called the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC). According to counterterrorism researcher Brian Fishman, the merger was an attempt to give the group a more Iraqi flavour, and perhaps to distance al-Qaeda from some of al-Zarqawi's tactical errors, such as the 2005 bombings by AQI of three hotels in Amman.[220] On 7 June 2006, a US airstrike killed al-Zarqawi, who was succeeded as leader of the group by the Egyptian militant Abu Ayyub al-Masri.[221][222][223]

On 12 October 2006, MSC united with three smaller groups and six Sunni tribes to form the Mutayibeen Coalition, pledging "To rid Sunnis from the oppression of the rejectionists (Shi'ite Muslims) and the crusader occupiers ... to restore rights even at the price of our own lives ... to make Allah's word supreme in the world, and to restore the glory of Islam".

A day later, MSC declared the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), comprising Iraq's six mostly Sunni Arab governorates,[226] with Abu Omar al-Baghdadi its emir[227][228] and al-Masri Minister of War within ISI's ten-member cabinet.[229]

But clearly it's all Obama's fault for invading Iraq twice and leaving a power vacuum there... Exactly like how Obama dealt so poorly with the Orleans disaster compared to Trump...

Rjd2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Republican party is not hardline anti-Russian.

I am old enough to remember the days when the Dem Party, media and Obama mocked Romney for saying Russia was the biggest threat facing Russia.

The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

were the exact words from Obama.:)

Christy42

Rjd2 wrote: »

I am old enough to remember the days when the Dem Party, media and Obama mocked Romney for saying Russia was the biggest threat facing Russia.




were the exact words from Obama.:)

It is nearly like something has changed in the last year or two.

Seriously Russian actions have changed how people Russia, as they should. Unfortunately Obama did not get on good terms with Russia and Russia has gone on the offensive in terms of the propoganda side of things.

Hande hoche!

Trump's approval rate bumped a bit after the recent hurricanes. Fairly surprised that he has a higher rate than Macron at this stage.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/trump-approval-40-percent-hurricanes-north-korea/index.html

aloyisious

demfad wrote: »

Serious meeting in Kremlin this afternoon:
Igor Sechin head of Rosneft, Roman Abramovich friend of Trump kids and Kushner, Also Trump/Russia related VTB bank CEO Andrei Kostin; Herman Gref, who helped with 2013 Trump Agalarov meet up and.......
Manafort pal........Oleg Deripaska. (below)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/manafort-offered-to-give-russian-billionaire-private-briefings-on-2016-campaign/2017/09/20/399bba1a-9d48-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html?utm_term=.86dc06494168

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/351675-manafort-used-trump-email-to-contact-ukrainian-operative-report

Wonder why Kremlin released this information? (linked by Sarah Kendzior on twitter)

Pot-stirring and/or some-one in back office reaching out a "friendly" hand to committees and investigators???

While googling Sarah, found new NYT report on F/B turning over 3,000 Ads to congress committees.... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/technology/facebook-russian-ads.html

BuilderPlumber

Noel82 wrote: »

You are hysterical. Tell me, which Government was responsible for the overthrow of Libya which led to the onset of groups like ISIS or intervention in Syria which has led to such problems coming to our shores? The Democrats and liberal media were creaming their pants when Trump bombed the Syrian air bases, your stance is complete hypocritical nonsense.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/

"U.S. military forces have been at war for all eight years of Obama’s tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

"President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.

Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day."

You might want to go back and look the individuals who voted in favor of the Iraq war.

And AFAIK, the only "rigged" election was Sanders losing to Hillary Clinton. Cop yourself on, it might be ok to spout nonsense in this echo chamber forum but to any rational person you sound like a blundering fool.

I specifically said that the Democrats are not great either and specifically said that there is a lot wrong with American government and politics in general. The Republicans are merely the worse of two very bad political entities who have more or less ruled America jointly for years (one wins the presidency and one the midterm). I am well aware of ALL these wars and the mess they created and know full well Clinton (Bill) was at the same old craic Bush 2 was at. America is obsessed with war and arms.

Hilary Clinton was not a good candidate and yes I am fully aware of her support for the Iraq war. Is it really the only thing that can be offered to the American people? 2 sets of corrupt warmongers, one who pretends to be more moderate than they actually are and the other who does not hide racist hardline warmongering. If I was American, I would have to vote Clinton back then NOT because I liked her but because she was marginally better than a Republican party packed with even viler individuals and with the likes of racist hate spouter Steve Bannon involved.

ISIS began long before Obama and the disaster that was the so-called 'Arab Spring'. The Iraq war had given them and their kind a massive boost and Bush fell hook line and sinker for their 9/11 bait. Ever before 9/11, America's initial support for extreme Islamic nationalism when it confronted Russia and Arab nationalist allies of Russia embolded them and they came back and turned on America later on.

America needs to acknowledge that it has caused a lot of hatred, misery and pain in the world. Obama at the very least tried to change some things, but the current regime is not interested at all in making friends with anyone and is 100% confrontational and hate fueled to the excess. The Democrats are the better of the two parties but that is hardly praise. It is just confirmation of what a vile, hatred fueled and negative set of cretins the Republican party has become. So far, there has not been one redeeming feature of the current American government. Not one. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Obama and even Bush 2 had some redeeming feature but this crowd are the pits: plus they cannot even govern in their own name and have to hide behind a businessman who gets paid to front for them. Sad. Truly sad.

rossie1977

Obama now created the Arab spring and isis...

The funny thing is those on the right bought hook, line and sinker that Trump was some kind of isolationist who wouldn't be like every other Republican candidate regarding supremacy of the military.

Also funny the so called 'liberal media' haven't reported that us ramped up attacks in the middle east since January

Manic Moran

Unless the US military is somehow responsible for those civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria, and I would wager that any proportion would be really, really, small, I think that graph is noting correlation, not causation. There have been a couple of large offensives in both countries this year, which is quite able to increase civilian death tolls without any significant US involvement. Or should Trump have prevented the Iraqi government from undertaking the Battle of Mosul to liberate the town from IS?

Afghan president seems happy enough with the new plan. http://www.npr.org/2017/09/21/552530548/afghan-president-is-in-favor-of-trumps-strategy-to-end-the-war

Zubeneschamali

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Trump's approval rate bumped a bit after the recent hurricanes.

Nah - nothing he did there could impress anyone but his base. The poll did not have a baseline for that question (there were no hurricanes to ask about last time.)

I think what bumped his numbers was reaching out to the Dems to get something done after months of doing nothing.

Peregrinus

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Trump's approval rate bumped a bit after the recent hurricanes.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nah - nothing he did there could impress anyone but his base. The poll did not have a baseline for that question (there were no hurricanes to ask about last time.)

I think what bumped his numbers was reaching out to the Dems to get something done after months of doing nothing.

Either way, I wouldn't want to overstate the achievement. He has clawed his way, more or less, back to the popularity ratings he was enjoying around about in early July. Which is to say, dismal ratings

Itssoeasy

I don't Kim Jung un has helped in the international Micky measuring contest between himself and trump with his statement from last night some time.

Peregrinus

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I don't Kim Jung un has helped in the international Micky measuring contest between himself and trump with his statement from last night some time.

I dunno. The kind of people who find Trump's posturing impressive - we have a couple contributing occasionally on this board - should find Kim Jong Un's posturing equally impressive. The two men have so much in common, after all.

Hande hoche!

Can't really say it's particularly surprising to see the differences in civilian casualties. The Obama administration had the battle for Mosul in its final months. In contrast the current administration had both it and the ongoing battle for Raqqa to contend with. More fighting tends to result in more casualties.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. The kind of people who find Trump's posturing impressive - we have a couple contributing occasionally on this board - should find Kim Jong Un's posturing equally impressive. The two men have so much in common, after all.

It is funny that one is treated as a crazy man, hell bent on suicide and the other, at least due to history, is seen as sane and a person the world should listen to.

One of them is threatening to destroy the other with nuclear weapons and the other is...well doing exactly the same.

two wheels good

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the contrary. Circumstances like the present test the US's reputation as a great democracy; it's only now that we get to see how great it is (or isn't).

In many other countries a man in Trump's position and with Trump's character, values, attitudes, etc would be well on the way to entrenching himself as an authoritarian dictator. What we're going to find out over the next couple of years is how well the famous "checks and balances" that characterise, and almost define, US democracy really work, and how deep-rooted the people's democratic instincts really are. But early results are promising; Trump has achieved virtually nothing.

If this keeps up, if Trump can be contained and neutralised so that the country emerges from the Trumpish era (a) still a functioning democracy and (b) relatively unscathed then, yeah, the robustness of US democracy will have been convincingly demonstrated.

I'd say the fragility of the US democracy has already been demonstrated before Trump appeared on the scene. The corporate influence (or take-over) of govt. e.g. by the likes of ALEC and the Koch brothers, de-regulation of finance as far back as Bill Clinton, G-Sachs holding sway in the Fed -still!, the failure of "reputable" media to hold the govt to account, militarisation of police forces
Popular opinion seems to expect the Republican Party to act as a brake on Trump. Apart from the health care vote - a close call - I don't belive this the case at all. Paul Ryan, the caring face of Republicanism? Ha! He's a snake in the grass.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is funny that one is treated as a crazy man, hell bent on suicide and the other, at least due to history, is seen as sane and a person the world should listen to.

Sorry, which is supposed to be the sane one again?

Billy86

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unless the US military is somehow responsible for those civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria, and I would wager that any proportion would be really, really, small, I think that graph is noting correlation, not causation. There have been a couple of large offensives in both countries this year, which is quite able to increase civilian death tolls without any significant US involvement. Or should Trump have prevented the Iraqi government from undertaking the Battle of Mosul to liberate the town from IS?

Afghan president seems happy enough with the new plan. http://www.npr.org/2017/09/21/552530548/afghan-president-is-in-favor-of-trumps-strategy-to-end-the-war

Drone strikes are also up massively under Trump, which can hardly be helping...

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

Drone strikes are also up massively under Trump, which can hardly be helping...

Indeed though to be fair the graph should have shown some sort of breakdown in this. I am sure they must have estimates of civilian casualties from the battles in both terms and could remove them for a more accurate graph. It would work well for the new king of drones.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/911175246853664768

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole for breakfast!

Btw - if Kim Jong Un is Rocket Man, does that make Trump Tiny Handser?

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

Indeed though to be fair the graph should have shown some sort of breakdown in this. I am sure they must have estimates of civilian casualties from the battles in both terms and could remove them for a more accurate graph. It would work well for the new king of drones.

The real point is that both Obama and now Trump are in reality only dealing with the mess created by W Bush. If one wants to blame Obama then Trump must be blamed and vice versa.

How any right wing supporter can honestly use this as a stick to beat Obama with is beyond me. W Bush, and is right wing crazies, got the US into a disaster of a war. US has been trying to deal with it ever since. And clearly Obama could have handled certain things differently, but at the core is a republican president.

NyOmnishambles

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/911175246853664768

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole for breakfast!

Btw - if Kim Jong Un is Rocket Man, does that make Trump Tiny Handser?

If Kim is a madman for starving and killing his people what does that make Trump for wanting to remove his peoples health care which could also result in massive hardship and deaths?

Leroy42

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

If Kim is a madman for starving and killing his people what does that make Trump for wanting to remove his peoples health care which could also result in massive hardship and deaths?

A republican!

Igotadose

everlast75 wrote: »

Btw - if Kim Jong Un is Rocket Man, does that make Trump Tiny Handser?

Madman across the water.

BoatMad

we have the " War of the asylums " , both inmates are now running the show .......

eire4

two wheels good wrote: »

I'd say the fragility of the US democracy has already been demonstrated before Trump appeared on the scene. The corporate influence (or take-over) of govt. e.g. by the likes of ALEC and the Koch brothers, de-regulation of finance as far back as Bill Clinton, G-Sachs holding sway in the Fed -still!, the failure of "reputable" media to hold the govt to account, militarisation of police forces
Popular opinion seems to expect the Republican Party to act as a brake on Trump. Apart from the health care vote - a close call - I don't belive this the case at all. Paul Ryan, the caring face of Republicanism? Ha! He's a snake in the grass.

I would agree with you there on your take on US "democracy" it is arguable that the US is already an oligarchy rather then a fully fledged democracy as it stands right now. But certainly while that is a debatable point the idea that the US is a robust strong democracy is laughable.

aloyisious

It seems the latest health bill will die before it has a chance to draw breath. The Irish Times and New York Times are running similar stories on the G.O.P healthcare bill. 2nd sentence below will upset G'O'P and probably get Don tweeting about his fav senator.

Mr Mc Cain, who is continuing to work and vote in the Senate despite being diagnosed with a brain tumour during the summer, said that he could not “in good conscience” support the Bill.

“I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried,” he said. “Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will affect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/mccain-deals-potentially-fatal-blow-to-latest-healthcare-bill-1.3231039

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/politics/mccain-graham-cassidy-health-care.html

The W/P has a GOP vote table and graph showing how the GOP senate vote will [probably] sink the bill by two NO votes, leaving it with only 48 YES votes at best. There may be more NO's.

Samaris

I feel for the old guard Republicans, you know. Their party, beliefs and ideals were taken over by the tinpot tea-party insurgence in 2010 and repeatedly sh*t on since.

Looking at the US, as neither R or D, and trying not to think too much from a left or right-wing perspective what have we seen from this cycle?

- A president with clear conflicts of interests in terms of financial dealings and gains.
- A cheap pretense at ensuring there are no such conflicts using the president's children and a supposedly blind trust that the president still retains financial control over and can remove money from, regardless of where it came from.
- Foreign dignitaries openly saying that they patronise his hotels, etc.
- Pay-for-access nonsense at Mar-A-Lago
- Scandals. Scandals over everything. Remarkable amount of them are ridiculously blatant at that.
- A president who keeps saying wild, unsubstantiated rubbish over Twitter.
- Connected to the last, repeated, scurrilous, wild lies, over and over. Attempts to legitimise them through sophistry and flat, face-to-face lying (alternative facts? Really? Any normal spokesperson would have been fired for such a disgraceful gaffe by anyone with a modicum of integrity. 'course anyone with a modicum of integrity would not have their spokespeople having to defend their lunacy that flatly contradicts reality)
- A horrendous move to legitimise the wants of the few rather than the good of the many. Enforcing divisions and trying to delegitimise entire sectors of American citizens because they did not vote for him. That is sickening.

Moving to the party that supports him;
- Truly insane approaches to policy. Attempting to rearrange a sixth of the US' economy while deliberately refusing debate on it, refusing to allow it to be costed effectively, blatant attempts to punish states and their own citizens who use Obamacare by taking money from them to move to states that support the president/party.
- Almost blind voting by party lines rather than by a modicum of goddam sense (two and a half honourable exceptions)
- Scandals swirling around various members - to give the party it's vague due, many of them are more directly linked to Trumpists than Republicans.
- Blatant disregard for fiscal conservatism, especially if to be practiced by oneself (many honourable exceptions, but a bit disgraceful that the party won't take any responsibility to comment on it).
- Urging, enforcing, divisions within the country.
- Can I raise again the truly insane, irresponsible, misguided, 2c-of-actual-thought approach to policies that affect the lives of millions of people?
- Cowardly, lying attempts to get around normal goddam democracy because no sane person would vote for some of these bits of legistlation, so the best thing to do is to try force them through without debate at all (anyone remember the running around the White House looking for the AHCA bill rubbish? What is this, kindergarten?)


This isn't Republicanism, although it's been drifting this way for a while. This is the tinpot tea-party approach that drags every Republican ideal to its maddest limits and then claims it is Conservativism. It's no more Conservatism than anarchists are mainstream liberals or Democrats.

david75

‪If Trump nukes North Korea would we even know about it? Or would the Chinese respond? ‬in which case we'd all know about it quite quickly. And painfully.

Harika

david75 wrote: »

‪If Trump nukes North Korea would we even know about it? Or would the Chinese respond? ‬in which case we'd all know about it quite quickly. And painfully.

Sure, 5minutes later on twitter. Some minutes later south Korea will go dark then China will retiliate and we will have World War 3 at hand.

david75

Harika wrote: »

Sure, 5minutes later on twitter. Some minutes later south Korea will go dark then China will retiliate and we will have World War 3 at hand.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Just hoping to get to Christmas so I can see the new Star Wars. Guess that won't be happening at the rate this is going.

Nice knowing yis

Harika

david75 wrote: »

Exactly what I was thinking.

Just hoping to get to Christmas so I can see the new Star Wars. Guess that won't be happening at the rate this is going.

Nice knowing yis

Kim won't attack first and US won't attack either. Nuclear would mean millions of dead people but no guarantee of exclusion of retaliation and conventional also, with the difference that it would take the US quite some time to get enough troops to the area, everyone else in the world would oppose that. Two big cry babies having a tantrum.

Itssoeasy

So, because the Golden State Warriors are hesitating on whether to go to the white house as is now tradition, it seems that Donald Trump has uninvited the team. Jesus what a petty man he is.

david75

Harika wrote: »

Kim won't attack first and US won't attack either. Nuclear would mean millions of dead people but no guarantee of exclusion of retaliation and conventional also, with the difference that it would take the US quite some time to get enough troops to the area, everyone else in the world would oppose that. Two big cry babies having a tantrum.

US troops are already training with SK forces on the border though. So invasion at least looks likely

Nody

david75 wrote: »

US troops are already training with SK forces on the border though. So invasion at least looks likely

Sure if you don't mind having Seoul disappearing from the map. The border is heavily fortified for a reason on the NK side and they got more than enough artillery to wipe out Seoul once the invasion starts. NK may not have the most modern weapons but static targets can be hit as far back as WW2 esp. if you start talking thousands of artillery pieces to lay down the pain in a 5x5 km area.

Harika

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So, because the Golden State Warriors are hesitating on whether to go to the white house as is now tradition, it seems that Donald Trump has uninvited the team. Jesus what a petty man he is.

You are not breaking up with me, I am breaking up with you!!!

TheDoctor

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So, because the Golden State Warriors are hesitating on whether to go to the white house as is now tradition, it seems that Donald Trump has uninvited the team. Jesus what a petty man he is.

Pulling the invitation of people unlikely to go anyway.

Power move

Nody

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So, because the Golden State Warriors are hesitating on whether to go to the white house as is now tradition, it seems that Donald Trump has uninvited the team. Jesus what a petty man he is.

Trump did the same with his various councils as well; they agreed to cancel it and Trump tweets that he cancelled them (no, it was a joint decision) but his supporters will only see the fake news version of him being "strong".

Harika

david75 wrote: »

US troops are already training with SK forces on the border though. So invasion at least looks likely

There are one million soldiers in north Korea, to attack them you need enough bombs to destroy all artillery stations, where most of them are highly fortified. Then you will need to kill 10% of soldiers to break them and millions of civilians in the process. Really hard to sell that to the public and all in fear of a tiny fat man
EDIT and massive losses of US and south Korean lives.

david75

Harika wrote: »

There are one million soldiers in north Korea, to attack them you need enough bombs to destroy all artillery stations, where most of them are highly fortified. Then you will need to kill 10% of soldiers to break them and millions of civilians in the process. Really hard to sell that to the public and all in fear of a tiny fat man
EDIT and massive losses of US and south Korean lives.

Good point. Don't forget about air assault by the US though. NK can in no way answer that if it happens. Or the nuke option.

The thing is the Chinese have that deal with NK and won't sit on their hands if US invade or if there's a nuke used.

Harika

david75 wrote: »

Good point. Don't forget about air assault by the US though. NK can in no way answer that if it happens. Or the nuke option.

The thing is the Chinese have that deal with NK and won't sit on their hands if US invade or if there's a nuke used.

I missed to add that to defeat that many enemy soldiers you will need far more than the 30000 US personal stationed atm in south Korea. Also will the south Korean government agree to the slaughter of tens of thousands of their citizens?