Joe Walsh Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 I've seen the articles. We'll find out whether that was a feature or a bug based on what's done about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 Been seeing some really creative uses of Dr. Seuss cartoons related to the America First movement back in 1941. I'll not post them here out of an abundance of caution, but they're worth a look. Historical context, domestic politics has seen this before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 Resentment and suspicion of new immigrants is nothing new to the United States. Heck, the Pilgrims were regarded with suspicion and distrust by the natives, and that turned out oka...uh, okay, bad example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 Saudi Arabia wasn't included in the ban in immigration from Muslim nations. Reason unknown at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 Petroleum ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hopcroft Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 Saudi Arabia wasn't included in the ban in immigration from Muslim nations. Reason unknown at this time. Even without Trump's investments, we still tend to view Saudi Arabia as at least a semi-ally. The House of Saud has a very firm grasp on power, and there hasn't been a serious insurrection. This actually surprises me, because the Saudi regime is one of the more oppressive ones in the Middle East -- using their status of running Islam's holiest sites to run a theocracy of the sort the Iranians barely dream of. They have also been engaged in a sectarian-inspired cold war with the Iranians, and struggle with them for influence in the rest of the region. Of course, in our new foreign policy the domestic policies of countries we work with are no longer considered an impediment to anything. The King can behead all the dissidents he wants and Trump won't say a word about it. Of course, if someone does somehow overthrow the House of Saud all bets are off. Anyone who does that is unlikely to have fond memories of the involvement of the United States in their country's affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 I'm trying to imagine a way to think without our biases. I don't really think it's possible without abandoning our personalities and beliefs altogether, which is probably a price that isn't worth it. That's true, I know I couldn't to an absolute. That does get back to the problem with the media, as they should separate their biases from the story, and report the truth. They've completely failed at that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241 Trump puts Bannon on security council, dropping joint chiefs Trump is certainly entitled to appoint his advisors wherever he feels they will do him the most good, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the DNI or the Joint Chiefs aren't considered necessary high-level participants in National security discussions. Joe Walsh and Netzilla 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 We're also seeing a Constitutional crisis with Customs and Border Patrol flatly ignoring judicial orders staying Trump's immigration ban. This is what, day 7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241 Trump puts Bannon on security council, dropping joint chiefs Trump is certainly entitled to appoint his advisors wherever he feels they will do him the most good, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the DNI or the Joint Chiefs aren't considered necessary high-level participants in National security discussions. Okay, this is crazy. No POTUS since WW2 has not had the CJS on the National Security Council. I can't even conceive of what he's thinking by doing this, it makes no sense at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 Apres moi, le deluge. --Sarah Palin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hopcroft Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241 Trump puts Bannon on security council, dropping joint chiefs Trump is certainly entitled to appoint his advisors wherever he feels they will do him the most good, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the DNI or the Joint Chiefs aren't considered necessary high-level participants in National security discussions. Okay, this is crazy. No POTUS since WW2 has not had the CJS on the National Security Council. I can't even conceive of what he's thinking by doing this, it makes no sense at all. There's a number in the classic musical The Wiz where the Wicked Witch of the West berates her flunkies saying nobody should dare bring her bad news, and threatening dire consequences if someone does. Needless to say this ignorance costs her as she ends up dying at the hands of Dorothy and company. The President may be thinking much the same thing. The military will have to execute a lot of his demands, and the Joint Chiefs know better than anyone what the practical implications of things like a bombing campaign against Iran would be -- what are the risks? Do we even have the necessary tools to complete the task? What is the intended outcome, and is it achievable? The Joint Chiefs are very much aware of what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush -- impressive initial success followed by a prolonged insurgency that the Americans were ill-equipped to deal with, They have a better grasp than an amateur strategist of what is workable and what isn't. If your sole experience of managing a conflict is based on being a good Labyrinth player, you can;t run a real war and expect to win. It's looking as if the President wants to fail. And with one mutton-headed decision after another it's hard to imagine a good outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armitage Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 The Department of Labor's whistleblower site, for Wells Fargo employees who wanted to report fraud in the ongoing scandal, disappeared shortly after the inauguration. Three guesses who owes roughly $500,000,000 to Wells Fargo. Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasBroot Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 I wonder what we can expect if the Democrats succeed in introducing legislature that overturns this travel ban? Getting an EO overturned in the first two weeks of power when your party controls all levels of government would be something to see. It won't happen, but it would be something to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 Well, Trump is eating his own. Just attacked Graham & McCain on twitter. Might not just be the Dems who get into it with the POTUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 29, 2017 Report Share Posted January 29, 2017 I keep hearing rumblings of discontent over various actions by Trump among a significant minority of Republicans. I have to wonder if the President can really count on Republican block support to implement his agenda. When you get down to it, Donald Trump is Republican in name only. Much of the party disowned him during the nomination process, and even after; while Trump won the presidency without significant backing from the party's electoral machinery. Now they need each other to govern, but I get the feeling they're in a shotgun marriage neither feels much loyalty toward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hopcroft Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 I keep hearing rumblings of discontent over various actions by Trump among a significant minority of Republicans. I have to wonder if the President can really count on Republican block support to implement his agenda. When you get down to it, Donald Trump is Republican in name only. Much of the party disowned him during the nomination process, and even after; while Trump won the presidency without significant backing from the party's electoral machinery. Now they need each other to govern, but I get the feeling they're in a shotgun marriage neither feels much loyalty toward. That subset of Republicans is in a very uncomfortable position. They would have preferred to have one of their own in the White House (Rand Paul would probably have been the most viable alternative), and they have been aware all along that Trump was a chaotic figure who could not be depended on to promote a rational agenda. Indeed, Trump has not shown any sort of consistent ideological identity, despite his prolonged flirtation with the alt-right. Nobody knows what he will do because nobody really knows how he thinks. Which would be a problem if we were in fact a functioning democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 You think being a non-functioning democracy would make it less of a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Well, Trump is eating his own. Just attacked Graham & McCain on twitter. Might not just be the Dems who get into it with the POTUS. I've got to be honest, for what it is worth, many conservatives don't really consider Graham and McCain, their own (which might be the point of the attack). In fact, I've heard it said several times that Graham should just pull a "Specter" and get it over with. (or have the parties make a trade: Graham for Manchin). Feelings towards McCain seems a bit more mixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Well, if Graham and McCain aren't GOP there's a pretty big implication vis a vis the Senate... and if the Trump Administration doesn't actually control congress, a lot of these shenanigans are about to get jerked up short by both other branches. Be interesting to see how that plays out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Okay, this is crazy. No POTUS since WW2 has not had the CJS on the National Security Council. I can't even conceive of what he's thinking by doing this, it makes no sense at all. It would make perfect sense if Trump is a Russian mole. Just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 I dont want to go there. I heard too much about how Obama's foreign policy being evidence he was either a naive idiot or an Iranian mole. (even though I have some serious issues on Obama's FP policy at times, I wouldn't want to go there) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 No, no, W was the Iranian mole, as long as we're trading theories. Everything that man did benefited Iran more than any other country. Obama was shockingly naive though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hopcroft Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 ISIS claims to welcome the immigration decree. Not only does it mean that it gets harder for people to escap0e theyr tyranny in territories they control, but they claim it will be an excellent recruiting tool. I suspect a vicious cycle is imminent -- with every attempt by whatever terror groups are still out there to strike drawing ever more draconian responses, and in turn enabling more attacks. Of course, trump is ignoring the real terrorist threats in America, which are entirely domestic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Walsh Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Republicans in congress will take a lot of abuse from Trump and accept a lot of things they don't like as long as they think they can rewrite the tax code. Undoing Obamacare is an article of faith, but I doubt it's any more important to them than the other things they campaign on perennially. If they can do at least a fig leaf rewrite of Obamacare, decrease Social Security and Medicare benefits a little bit, and do a major rewrite of the tax code to put a greater portion of the burden on the middle class while setting things up for a future budget crisis that will give them a good chance at further entitlement reform....they'll follow Trump at least up to the edge of the cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.