[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-June-04, 12:59, said:

OTOH, President Obama voiced that US commitment, but his actions belied that he'd ever act if circumstances demanded it. As a result, he unwittingly became the best agent Putin and some of the other bad actors in this world could have asked for. His reluctance to take any strong action in support of the Ukraine allowed Russian to seize the Crimea. His lip service to going after ISIS resulted in their global expansion.

President Trump, so far, has shown the ability to respond to difficult situations. By launching missiles against Syria after they used chemical weapons and letting his military use the MOAB in Afghanistan, he sent a message that he was unafraid to act. That message wasn't just to the targets of those attacks, it was to all the potential bad actors. It told them they couldn't count on US passivity anymore. It certainly seemed to get China's attention, so that they couldn't disregard Trump saying "If you don't help us with North Korea, we'll take care of them ourselves."

There has never been a perfect American president and Obama was no exception; however, to classify as a reluctance strong military action just because he adopted a model of fighting terrorism closer to the Rand suggestions is silly right-wing bias-speak.

The roots of Isis and al-queda came years before Obama was out of graduate school. Blaming a single person for events out of his control smacks of something smelly. It sounds as if your argument is just: at least he is not Obama.

[RedSpawn]

 awm, on 2017-March-12, 09:56, said:

Okay, let's look at things Trump has actually done. I believe the following show a lack of basic ethics and/or governing competency, regardless of your opinion of his positions:

Appointed a national security advisor who was working as an agent of a foreign government, who then had to resign. Claimed he didn't even know about it (so much for "extreme vetting.")
Discussed a response to a North Korean missile test over dinner in his resort (so much for security).
Received a number of (weirdly expedited) trademarks from the Chinese government and suddenly changed his opinion on One China policy.
Spent taxpayers' money for vacations at a record-setting pace... and unlike Obama a lot of the taxpayer money for his security goes right into his pocket.
Rolled out his "Muslim ban" in a way that was so confusing that border agents did not know whether it applied to citizens, green-card holders, etc.
Still has a huge number of unfilled posts in his government, apparently because he can't find anyone loyal enough to him to fill the positions.
Appointed his son-in-law to a high position in government, has his daughter sit in on meetings with foreign leaders.
He's already being sued for using the presidency to financially benefit himself.

In terms of his campaign promises, he seems to be well on his way to fulfilling the worst of them:

His racist, anti-Latino approach to immigration is well underway, with parents being separated from children, pillars of their community being removed from the country, and DREAMers being rounded up.
His racist, anti-Muslim approach to entering the country has been ordered twice already.
Appointed a white-nationalist to the national security council.
His promise to create jobs has (so far) lead to a series of orders permitting oil, gas, and coal companies to pollute our environment.. as well as one month's job totals which were lauded by Republicans despite being exactly the same as Obama's job totals for the same month each of the last two years.

While the ones that potentially make some sense are pretty much nowhere:

His promise to "drain the swamp" has pretty much gone by the wayside, as he appointed a cabinet full of billionaires and Goldman-Sachs execs.
His promised infrastructure bill is nowhere to be seen.
His promise to replace Obamacare with "something great" where "everyone is covered" has become an endorsement of the House Republican plan which throws millions off their insurance in order to provide tax cuts to the 1%.

 ldrews, on 2017-March-12, 10:21, said:

I think you have valid criticisms. Trump is obviously inexperienced as a politician. He has/is making a number of rookie mistakes.

That said, he is also addressing what I think are sorely needed changes:

• Limiting access to the US by potential terrorists
  
• Improving/enforcing immigration laws
  
• Renegotiating adverse trade agreements
  
• Appointing cabinet members whose job it is to reduce/improve agencies
  
• Initiate programs to reduce/eliminate regulations
  
• Modernize the military
  
• Replace a failing health care system
  
• Initiate new approaches to the educational systems
  
• etc.

As long as he continues to make these kinds of changes, I will continue to support him.

I would also be happy to support any other candidate who has a better persona and better political experience who will also address these issues in a strong manner. Do you have a prospect?

I had to put this back into the discussion. All of this is good stuff; however, we have to be realistic about what Trump can/can't accomplish in just 52 calendar days from his inauguration. He doesn't have a fire-engine red "S" emblazoned on his chest with matching cape and boots.

This is a government bureaucracy so the notion of a complete overhaul can't take place in that short period of time.

However, your discussion about the "billionaires" and "Goldman Sachs" is spot-on and ties into my post about the Financial CHOICE Act which the Senate will vote on this upcoming week===>same week as the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing with Comey. http://www.deathandt...eal-gop-house/. It is mainly designed to benefit Wall Street and was crafted by the investment bank management-types who are primarily responsible for the 2008 housing bubble collapse. I still cringe on how the GOP has marketed this Act because it clearly caters to Wall Street interests to the detriment of Main Street consumers.

https://financialser...ive_summary.pdf
http://online.wsj.co...y06-15-2016.pdf

[RedSpawn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-May-24, 07:17, said:

I always thought Republicans are elitist, uncaring warmongers in the pockets of big business and Democrats are wet, pandering fools promoting a nanny state in the pockets of the unions. Then there are the tea party who are bat-sh!t crazy religious fanatics who want to shut down government except for an enormous military. We could play this same game for the parties of practically any Western democracy, of course.

Please review the Tea Party platform at the following link and please tell me which part of their platform is bat-sh!t crazy. Thanks.
http://www.teaparty-platform.com

Note: There may be shady characters at the Tea Party rallies but the platform seems quite reasonable and sound.

[RedSpawn]

 jogs, on 2017-May-24, 14:22, said:

The meaning of our rights and civil liberties has been a moving target since 1787. When I was a child in San Francisco(the most liberal city in America) Chinese weren't to live north of Boardway or west of Powell. Today illegal immigrants seem to have the same rights as American citizens. Don't forget in 1787 our founding fathers only gave those rights to wealthy white males.

I wonder if the oligarch subscribes to the ideas contained in this opinion piece by Roger Scruton, The Wall Street Journal, 06/03-06/04/2017? If so, it would explain the ambiguous immigration enforcement in the U.S. and the lack of urgency in shoring up the financial solvency of the nation-state. These concerns would be secondary to embracing the demands of a global economy.

Quote

We live in an interconnected world. Globalization and the internet have created new networks of belonging and new forms of social trust, by which borders are erased and old attachments are vaporized. Yes, we have seen the growth of nationalism in Europe, the Brexit vote in the UK and the election of the populist Donald Trump, but these are signs of reactionary sentiments that we should have all outgrown. The nation-state was useful while it lasted and gave us a handle on our social and political obligations. But it was dangerous too, when inflamed against real or imaginary enemies.

In any case, the nation-state belongs in the past, to a family, job, religion and way of life stay put in a single place and are insulated against global developments. Our world is no longer like that, and we must change in step with it if we wish to belong.

[awm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-04, 15:35, said:

Please review the Tea Party platform at the following link and please tell me which part of their platform is bat-sh!t crazy. Thanks.
http://www.teaparty-platform.com

Note: There may be shady characters at the Tea Party rallies but the platform seems quite reasonable and sound.

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes.

This seems reasonable at first look. But keep in mind that the United States has among the lowest taxes of modern democracies! Further, when ALL taxes are considered (including sales tax, state and local tax, social security tax, etc) the middle class is often paying a higher rate than the very wealthy. Yet the Tea Party in practice has focused on lowering the already-low top individual and corporate rates, which is crazy when you consider the membership. Why do they care to reduce the taxes of the super-wealthy (who are not most of the movement, who don't need the extra cash, and whose control of politics they complain about in a later goal) when this group is hardly taxed excessively by the standards of other countries, or the standards of US history, or even the standards of other economic classes in our country today?

2. Eliminate the National Debt.

This is pretty crazy unless considered as a very long-term goal. It is also quite sensible for governments to have a long-term debt provided they are investing in the future. Companies do this all the time too, and a country can operate over a very long time horizon.

3. Eliminate Deficit Spending.

This is completely crazy and will lead to another great depression. The government needs to spend more in times of crisis (whether wars or economic recessions) and spend less in times of plenty. Eliminating deficit spending in times of prosperity is not crazy. Simply disallowing deficit spending is.

4. Protect Free Markets

Again, this depends on how you parse it. But the idea that markets should be "unfettered by government interference" and that "this is what propelled this country to greatness" is crazy. Our "fettering" of the market has lead to ending child labor, limiting work hours, a minimum wage, safe food and water, clean air, etc. All of these things helped to propel our country to greatness, and these regulations did not prevent the period of greatest economic growth in recent history (1945-1980 in the US). We have had a mixed economy for a long time and it has lead to much more prosperity (and much more widely shared prosperity) than the era in the late 1800s to early 1900s that the idea presented here harkens back to. Despite the occasional recession, the economy has also been more stable since we started "fettering" it.

5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility

Neither of these is crazy, but the interpretation can be. For example the way Tea Party folks parse the first amendment is pretty crazy (freedom of religion means freedom to discriminate against others based on race and creed; freedom of the press means freedom to lie and deceive and complain when the media calls you on it).

7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government

Not crazy, but overly simplistic. Everyone agrees that government should be big enough to fulfill its legitimate purposes and not bigger. But there is a lot of disagreement about what those purposes should be, and the general views on this matter promulgated by the tea party ("unfettered markets" and "no deficit spending, ever") are crazy.

8. Believe in the People.

Now that "the people" have elected Trump I have my doubts as to whether this is a good idea. But it's not crazy.

9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics

Not crazy, but given that the Tea Party is funded by a small number of far-right billionaires whose goals are to reduce taxes on billionaires and eliminate regulations that prevent them from poisoning our air and water (i.e. Koch brothers) and have basically become a lobby for their sole benefit, I would judge that they have failed on this mark.

10. Maintain Local Independence

This is a statement that sounds good in principle, but local government is often the source of more "burdensome regulations" than national government. The problem is that for a high profile race like president or senator, the people usually have some idea who they are voting for and the press will hold this person somewhat to account. A race for county executive or sheriff or local school board can be more opaque as to who these people are. The local politicians have less experience and less of a staff, and often end up presenting laws which special interests wrote for them, and don't get called out on this because the local news doesn't have the resources of (say) the New York Times. I would classify this one as naive, but not crazy.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-June-04, 14:08, said:

It's only true of mainstream media from a right-wing pov. A less simplistic answer is that newsprint slant left or right, but in cable news reporting there are so many hours in a day to fill that most of the content is opinion - and that does display bias.

It's disturbingly funny to me to watch these programs try to offer balance by inviting guests from both points of view instead of determining and presenting facts.

Any more I am not sure they would recognize a fact if they met one.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2017-June-04, 14:13, said:

There has never been a perfect American president and Obama was no exception; however, to classify as a reluctance strong military action just because he adopted a model of fighting terrorism closer to the Rand suggestions is silly right-wing bias-speak.

The roots of Isis and al-queda came years before Obama was out of graduate school. Blaming a single person for events out of his control smacks of something smelly. It sounds as if your argument is just: at least he is not Obama.

You forgot that when asked about his plan for fighting ISIS, President Obama grudgingly admitted he had no plan. Of course, he promised to put one together and then never really did. A year later, he still didn't have a plan except to say "no boots on the ground". I recall a point in his last year or two of his presidency when President Obama claimed that ISIS was contained in an interview. That occurred no more than a few days after the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified under oath to Congress that ISIS wasn't contained. Sorry, but I didn't buy the smoke President Obama was blowing.

If ISIS was to be defeated with "no boots on the ground", then the fight would have to be carried out by a coalition of regional forces opposed to ISIS. President Obama said as much, but never provided the leadership to get our allies to act and marshal those forces against ISIS. So he had a chance to control events but choose not to, so he is fully culpable for what happened. The pity is that by essentially ignoring ISIS, he let it metastasize into a world wide organization that is going to be much more of a problem and ultimately cost more lives in battling and in terrorist attacks.

At least you're perceptive in figuring out that part of my position on Trump is "at least he's not Obama".

When you chose to ridicule President Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia, you apparently missed that the President was doing exactly what Obama didn't do -- seeking to get our regional allies to act and marshal their resources against ISIS and Al-Qaeda. In doing so, he also sought to reassure them that America had their back. That was backed up by his recent actions against Syria and against ISIS in Afghanistan. Those actions showed he wasn't just talk, but would act when the situation warranted. So "at least he's not Obama" in this case is a very positive development.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-June-04, 21:51, said:

You forgot that when asked about his plan for fighting ISIS, President Obama grudgingly admitted he had no plan. Of course, he promised to put one together and then never really did. A year later, he still didn't have a plan except to say "no boots on the ground". I recall a point in his last year or two of his presidency when President Obama claimed that ISIS was contained in an interview. That occurred no more than a few days after the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified under oath to Congress that ISIS wasn't contained. Sorry, but I didn't buy the smoke President Obama was blowing.

If ISIS was to be defeated with "no boots on the ground", then the fight would have to be carried out by a coalition of regional forces opposed to ISIS. President Obama said as much, but never provided the leadership to get our allies to act and marshal those forces against ISIS. So he had a chance to control events but choose not to, so he is fully culpable for what happened. The pity is that by essentially ignoring ISIS, he let it metastasize into a world wide organization that is going to be much more of a problem and ultimately cost more lives in battling and in terrorist attacks.

At least you're perceptive in figuring out that part of my position on Trump is "at least he's not Obama".

When you chose to ridicule President Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia, you apparently missed that the President was doing exactly what Obama didn't do -- seeking to get our regional allies to act and marshal their resources against ISIS and Al-Qaeda. In doing so, he also sought to reassure them that America had their back. That was backed up by his recent actions against Syria and against ISIS in Afghanistan. Those actions showed he wasn't just talk, but would act when the situation warranted. So "at least he's not Obama" in this case is a very positive development.

Are you totally bonkers? What group do you think is driving Isis out of Mosul?

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2017-June-04, 18:16, said:

Any more I am not sure they would recognize a fact if they met one.

Agreed.

http://www.americanp...nts-journalism/

Review this link and tell me if you honestly think today's journalism in the U.S. contains the enumerated essentials.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-June-04, 14:13, said:

There has never been a perfect American president and Obama was no exception; however, to classify as a reluctance strong military action just because he adopted a model of fighting terrorism closer to the Rand suggestions is silly right-wing bias-speak.

The roots of Isis and al-queda came years before Obama was out of graduate school. Blaming a single person for events out of his control smacks of something smelly. It sounds as if your argument is just: at least he is not Obama.

In all fairness, there is a bit of right wing bias in the original post, but we have to be intellectually honest about where President Obama fell short diplomatically. Obama's shifting "red line" ultimatum to Syria was a foreign policy debacle and made the U.S. look like an international weakling and waffler.

http://www.politico....evisited-214059

The "red-line" ultimatum to Syria was directly within Obama's span of control and was a diplomatic disaster from an optics standpoint. A world leader should not be in the business of threatening military intervention when he lacks the political currency at home or abroad to deliver on said threat. Those chickens may come home to roost. And they did.

The way President Obama handled the Assad regime and the subsequent shifting of the red line for convenience undermined our international relations credibility.

Failure to enforce the red line emboldened Russia to feel that there weren't any substantial consequences if it were to annex Crimea later. See https://www.forbes.c...ge/#462506222ae .

[barmar]

 rmnka447, on 2017-June-04, 12:19, said:

There's no doubt President Trump has done enough to warrant plenty of negative coverage, but when the reporting reaches the point where it's virtually all negative you have to seriously question its objectivity.

On the lighter side, I liked the quip by Gov. Mike Huckabee during the campaign. He said, "If Donald Trump was out in a boat, got out, and walked on water, the New York Times would report 'Donald Trump can't swim'." Cute remark, but illustrative that one's prejudices can color one's perspective.

Cute, but can you point to some actual positive things Trump has done where they reported it negatively or avoided talking about it?

I'll probably regret asking that, because I think the answers you'll give will be things that we can't actually agree are positives. For instance, if you're a Trump supporter, you probably think the travel ban was a good thing and he's been treated unfairly about it by both the courts that overturned it and the media reporting on it. Or maybe you'll say they should at least give him credit for trying something.

[Winstonm]

I acknowledge mistakes were made by Obama but not necessarily the same mistakes right wing proponents claim - military force has historically been the worst choice for defeating terrorist groups, for example.

For those who are quick to want military action I suggest two reads: First, this article from Rand Corporation that researched the effectiveness of different methods to counter terrorism, and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew Bacevich, retired U.S. Army Major and a Republican.

I understand the emotion of wanting quick and decisive action to eradicate the threat of Isis, but the reality of their defeat is anything but quick and decisive, so we would be utilizing the worst response possible for our long-term goals. This is what Obama knew, and it took tremendous courage for him to refuse the quick, easy direct military answer that would not have produced results but would have given him a bump in the polls.

I can't imagine Donald Trump exercising that kind of integrity.

[Winstonm]

Quote

After Donald Trump’s three-day Twitter rampage over the London attack, as well as his claim that a robbery in the Philippines was a terrorist attack, the AP leads a fact-check with a brutally blunt assessment:

President Donald Trump can’t be counted on to give accurate information to Americans when violent acts are unfolding abroad.

This is a petty, little man who has set a record for making himself irrelevant.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-June-05, 08:44, said:

I acknowledge mistakes were made by Obama but not necessarily the same mistakes right wing proponents claim - military force has historically been the worst choice for defeating terrorist groups, for example.

For those who are quick to want military action I suggest two reads: First, this article from Rand Corporation that researched the effectiveness of different methods to counter terrorism, and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew Bacevich, retired U.S. Army Major and a Republican.

I understand the emotion of wanting quick and decisive action to eradicate the threat of Isis, but the reality of their defeat is anything but quick and decisive, so we would be utilizing the worst response possible for our long-term goals. This is what Obama knew, and it took tremendous courage for him to refuse the quick, easy direct military answer that would not have produced results but would have given him a bump in the polls.

I can't imagine Donald Trump exercising that kind of integrity.

Agreed.

This war theatre is never easy. And quite frankly, I find Trump's impulsiveness a liability when dealing with enemies of the state.

I know this undermines credibility greatly, but read this and tell me if it sounds anything like the Trump we have all grown to know and love.

Quote

Donald Trump takes action, to draw attention on himself, and to make his actions and what he has in mind visible to everyone. Sometimes, without giving a single thought to, and to the detriment of, a richer inner life and a deeper and wiser reflection. Action and communication are inevitable in his opinion, and he tends to think that the only thing that matters is what is seen!

This is not always true, and it is up to him to progress through the development of inner qualities such as meditation, solitude and imagination so as to become stronger.

Trump belongs to the category of people who never give up when they are facing hurdles. On the contrary, challenges stimulate him. He is particularly exhilarated whenever a new element emerges or when he is dealing with an unprecedented context.

Obviously, the danger is that he may rush headlong against a wall of insurmountable difficulties and act impulsively or thoughtlessly. It is important that he moderate his natural impetuosity as often as possible. He should beware of untimely fits of anger!

However, his undeniable frankness prevails and his straightforward and honest character appeals to a good many interlocutors.

I know the "honest character" part is suspect, but I think the remainder is a spot-on description of President Trump.

This would explain the crazy ass tweets in the morning and evening. . .he feels a need to communicate to his audience no matter how crass, ridiculous, or ignorant the message. He values the action of connecting to his audience more than the accuracy or thoughtfulness of the message sent.

Hmmmmm. This promises to be a very interesting roller coaster ride.

[RedSpawn]

Quote

While Trump is a disgrace to both the idea of America, and to the American people we need to leave him in office. Leaving Trump in office until he is ousted in the 2020 election will better serve America. While Trump is an uneducated, narcissist, and bully, the greater danger to America comes from Pence.

If Trump is impeached we will get Pence as president and the consequences will be disastrous. If Trump stays in office, being Trump, Democrats will likely take over the House in 2018, and win both the Senate and Presidency in 2020. Pence is the radical, reactionary, Conservative, the Republican Party and Christian Evangelicals really want and will really support.

If Pence becomes president you can kiss voting rights, income equity, a higher minimum wage, LGBT rights, Medicare and Medicaid, public schools, SNAP, affordable health care for all, and immigration reform, to mention a few issues, good bye. Pence is an ideologue who is supported by the hardest of the hard right evangelicals. If Pence becomes president America will become a Christian nation and the 1st Amendment will disappear. Let Trump serve out his one term and let him (and the Republican Congress) be hobbled into further legislative inaction by his constant lies and misdeeds. America will truly be worse off if Pence becomes president.

--Frank Levy, Co-Founder and Executive Director at One River Foundation & Reader @ Salon.com

What say you?

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-05, 12:36, said:

--Frank Levy, Co-Founder and Executive Director at One River Foundation & Reader @ Salon.com

What say you?

I actually think this is right - but I'm not certain and would listen to arguments both ways. Although Pence or Ryan could push through a conservative agenda, those things can be undone over time. Trump's ill will with the world cannot be so easily undone.

[Zelandakh]

 rmnka447, on 2017-June-04, 21:51, said:

You forgot that when asked about his plan for fighting ISIS, President Obama grudgingly admitted he had no plan. Of course, he promised to put one together and then never really did. A year later, he still didn't have a plan except to say "no boots on the ground".

So I take it you disagree with this article highlighting the (lack of) differences between Obama's plan (yes there was one even if your sources managed to avoid reporting it) and Trump's? Surely the lack of change from a President that promised so much before the election is the biggest compliment to the Obama administration's strategy that Trump could possibly offer.

[ldrews]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-05, 14:58, said:

So I take it you disagree with this article highlighting the (lack of) differences between Obama's plan (yes there was one even if your sources managed to avoid reporting it) and Trump's? Surely the lack of change from a President that promised so much before the election is the biggest compliment to the Obama administration's strategy that Trump could possibly offer.

You are comparing Obama's 8 years to Trump's 5 months?

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2017-June-05, 15:33, said:

You are comparing Obama's 8 years to Trump's 5 months?

That is what is killing me softly. Our confirmation bias is so strong toward Trump that we expect to see miraculous changes in government policy and programs in a mere 5 months. Keep in mind that we all know he is a rookie at this public official role, so we need to give him some breathing space to get his bearings right.

He doesn't need a Hall pass for his mistakes; those can and should be highlighted immediately. However, we should be cautious of issuing him a full condemnation at this early stage of his Presidency.

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-05, 16:58, said:

That is what is killing me softly. Our confirmation bias is so strong toward Trump that we expect to see miraculous changes in government policy and programs in a mere 5 months. Keep in mind that we all know he is a rookie at this public official role, so we need to give him some breathing space to get his bearings right.

He doesn't need a Hall pass for his mistakes; those can and should be highlighted immediately. However, we should be cautious of issuing him a full condemnation at this early stage of his Presidency.

Early presidency; late life. He has earned all the condemnation he receives.