The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
sglowrider said:
Apparently it was reported that the Iraqi government will retaliate and ban all americans civilians including private contractors and maybe troops.
Click to expand...
that...and supposedly a lot of the military brass was against it for a number of reasons - ex soldiers who served providing testimony of Iraqi comrades...those still serving saying it would hurt Iraqi morale etc etc.

But - these are 'reports' - best to wait till we see the actual EO. Because removing Iraq wouldn't be cosmetic change - it would be a significant change, and we were told repeatedly, there wouldn't be significant change.

also...

 
Neutral said:
that...and supposedly a lot of the military brass was against it for a number of reasons - ex soldiers who served providing testimony of Iraqi comrades...those still serving saying it would hurt Iraqi morale etc etc.

But - these are 'reports' - best to wait till we see the actual EO. Because removing Iraq wouldn't be cosmetic change - it would be a significant change, and we were told repeatedly, there wouldn't be significant change.

also...

Click to expand...



I guess when the bar has been set so low, expectations are that of a performance artist rather than to be judge as a president.
 
senorgregster said:
Iraq off? So they are most worried about ISIS? Have they renamed it to ISS.
Click to expand...

If they remove Iraq it will be because of the interpreters who translate[d] for the US military there. They have special immigrant visa access to come to the US in exchange for all their work, which the original Trump plan from a few weeks ago would've squashed.
 
Raoul said:
If they remove Iraq it will be because of the interpreters who translate[d] for the US military there. They have special immigrant visa access to come to the US in exchange for all their work, which the original Trump plan from a few weeks ago would've squashed.
Click to expand...

Yep that was a fairly bad oversight
 
PedroMendez said:
Well, democracy can be a son of a bitch, if you don’t win elections.
Click to expand...

TBF to him, in 2012 the Dems won the popular Congressional vote and had a senate majority, but because of the way districts are drawn and because of the filibuster he could not take advantage (2 spells: 2009-11, 2013-15). There's subjective stuff like the nature of the GOP campaign from 2009 onwards, focusing on voter ID, ACA death panels, and blaming him for bailouts supported and implemented by Bush and in response to a crisis during the Bush era, but sticking with the bare facts the system (not "democracy") did feck him over in 2012.

That said, thank god for GOP primaries since they stopped his grand bargain 10:1 cuts:taxes because that tax increase was unacceptable.
 
Despite widespread media reports that Trump has somehow turned over a new leaf simply by learning to read a teleprompter, the president that spoke before Congress cited just as many lies and promoted the same xenophobic, pro-corporate, war-hungry policies as the Trump we’ve seen over the last few months. What gave the speech a different flavor, however, was the administration’s signaled intent to refocus on and refine a populist image following a chaotic, politically damaging month.

That he largely seems to have succeeded should worry us.
Click to expand...

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/...eech-presidential-xenophobia-navy-seal-voice/
 
Pexbo said:
I think they're definitely moving from all talk and bold gestures towards less talk and more underhand gestures, which is definitely something to worry about.

So far it's been the things he's ran his mouth off about and then followed up on that have caused the greatest drama and built the biggest opposition.
Click to expand...

The thing is, despite all the righteous indignations, the press aren't prepared to wage a full on war on this administration's untruths and regressive nature. The moment they are provided access again (or not even that, just temporarily ceasing hostility, as evidenced by the reaction to the speech), they are happy to fall back to both sides-ism and discussing politics through a prism of infotainment.

Don't expect this to change. The resistance will have to come from a nucleus of activist groups keeping their members motivated to constantly putting the issues to public attention.
 
Neutral said:
I want people to watch Obama give his 1st address to a joint session of congress - compare and contrast and of course look for similarities in theme and rhetoric with Trump. Also note the difference in substance (look out for the details - actual figures)

And while this is a bit harsh...look at it in hindsight in terms of the stated goals and where we are 9 years down the line. How much of what he discussed/touted came true and how much was complete bullshit.

Click to expand...


The difference is night and day: both in terms of delivery but more importantly in strategy and details for execution. As I wrote before, Trump has lowered the bar of intellect and created so much hostility, when he speaks coherently and without offence, its become notable, as evidenced last night.

A lot of Trump's 47% are older less educated men who probably struggled to empathise with Obama's expert diagnosis and intellectual solutions. This is what frustrates me most: Most of Trumps manifesto ideas are simply continuation of Obama policies: I think Trump's healthcare solution will end up being closer to ObamaCare than what existed before.

I keep saying this: democrats and neo liberal media have to find a way to connect with the 47% as Trump bashing does not work. If they don't or fail, Trump will woo enough people with his once a month toned down rhetoric like last night. He has already remade many new 'normals' and will continue to do so.
 
Last edited:
langster said:
:lol:



As Cenk says here, and many of us in here said also, only because Trump has set such a low bar previously AND, because he actually reined it in a bit and didn't go off on rants against the media or the insanity about being the biggest win of all times etc. It was basically his inauguration speech polished up a little more, but it was still full of shitloads of lies, falsehoods, misleading statements and hyperbole. It was also totally devoid of substance regarding how anything he said he was going to do would actually be done. No facts, figures or explanations of how he would raise the money for anything etc, so when you look at it like that, it wasn't very good at all, but because he's set the bar so low previously.................
Click to expand...

This is a big gaping hole and i find it weird that the media don't push him more on this. Yeah, he is going to give taxcuts to EVERYONE, including the big companies and his pals on Wall Street, but at the same time he looks ready to spend money like a drunken sailor on infrastructure, military and not to mention that fecking wall

The US has been hemorrhaging money for years and it's not going to get any better with that kind of backwards ass logic.
 
These are the things that matter...and that decide supposedly 'free and fair' elections

US top court says electoral maps must be reviewed for racial bias

AFPMarch 1, 2017
Part-GTY-633210786-1-1-1.jpg.cf.webp

The high court found that a lower court had erred in finding that race was not a dominant factor in drawing Virginia's electoral map (AFP Photo/Drew Angerer)
Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court on Wednesday came down on the side of Democrats who charged that certain US electoral districts in Virginia were drawn to dilute the influence of black voters elsewhere in the state.

The high court found that a lower court had erred in deciding that race was not a dominant factor in drawing Virginia's electoral map.


Democratic lawyers had argued that racial criteria were used to pack 11 districts with African American voters, thereby increasing the proportion of white majorities in other districts.

Specifically, in drawing the disputed districts, the Virginia legislature set as a target populations with 55 percent African American voters.

Black voters tend to vote Democratic, while majority white districts are more likely to go Republican.

Swayed by the Democrats' argument, the justices instructed the lower court to review its decision, taking into account whether Virginia's method of drawing the electoral map is constitutional.

The ruling is particularly noteworthy as civil rights organizations fear a tightening of voting rights for minorities under President Donald Trump.

- Voter suppression -

The United States has a long history of efforts to suppress the black vote, even though discrimination by race is illegal under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion that dissented in part with the majority.

The Voting Rights Act says states should use racial demographic data to enable minority representation but it should not be the main factor guiding redistricting.


But Republican state legislators have used such data to concentrate black voters in districts already represented by minority candidates, so as to weaken the African American base in other districts.

During a Supreme Court hearing in December, Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the court's liberal members, pointed to the changes in one Virginia district.

"They moved 11,293 people out and 17,000 in. So let's look at those people," he said.

"The ones they moved out were three-quarters or something white, and the ones they moved in were three-quarters or something black. So that's pretty similar," he said.

"It seems to me they paid a lot of attention to race."

North Carolina Republicans also have been accused of employing the same racial sorting in drawing electoral districts after Democrats lost their majority in the state's House of Representatives.

- Texas law -

This week, the Trump administration took a 180-degree turn from the previous Democratic administration on a Texas election law that a federal appeals court found was discriminatory.

The 2011 law requires voters to present certain types of photo identification, but not other types of official identification, when they go to vote.

For instance, a weapons permit or a military identification are accepted, but not a federal identification document or a student ID.

Opponents of the law say the objective is to exclude black and Hispanic voters, an interpretation that the previous administration shared.

The new administration, however, has submitted a brief defending the Texas law as merely seeking to combat voter fraud, and not an attempt to place obstacles to voting by certain categories of people.

Known as "gerrymandering," the science of electoral redistricting is a staple of partisan political competition that dates back to the early 19th century.

It is named after Eldridge Gerry, a Massachusetts governor, who carved out a district in Boston that was said to be in the shape of a salamander.
Click to expand...
 
Bobcat said:
This is a big gaping hole and i find it weird that the media don't push him more on this. Yeah, he is going to give taxcuts to EVERYONE, including the big companies and his pals on Wall Street, but at the same time he looks ready to spend money like a drunken sailor on infrastructure, military and not to mention that fecking wall

The US has been hemorrhaging money for years and it's not going to get any better with that kind of backwards ass logic.
Click to expand...

That's the GOP since Reagan for you. Which is why they're useless for a fiscal conservative like myself, regardless of what they say about being so themselves.
 
Senior Chief Ryan Owens is a household name, and his wife, Carryn, is the subject of national admiration and sympathy. But the overwhelming majority of Americans do not know, and will never learn, the name of even a single foreign victim out of the many hundreds of thousands that their country has killed over the last 15 years. This imbalance plays a massive role in how Americans understand themselves, the countries their government invades and bombs, and the Endless War that is being waged.

None of this is to say that the tribute to Owens and the sympathy for his wife are undeserved. Quite the contrary: When a country, decade after decade, keeps sending a small, largely disadvantaged portion of its citizenry to bear all the costs and risks of the wars it starts — while the nation’s elite and their families are largely immune — the least the immunized elites can do is pay symbolic tribute when they are killed.

Nor is it to say that this obsessive, exclusive focus on our own side’s victims while ignoring the victims we create is unique to the U.S. Again, the contrary is true. This dynamic is endemic to nationalism, which in turn is grounded in tribalistic human instincts: paying more attention to the deaths of those in our tribe than those we cause other tribes to suffer.

BUT UNIQUE OR not, this is an incredibly consequential tool of war propaganda. By dramatizing the deaths of Americans while disappearing the country’s victims, this technique ensures that Americans perpetually regard themselves as victims of horrific, savage, tragic violence but never the perpetrators of it. That, in turn, is what keeps Americans supporting endless war: These savages keep killing us, so we have no choice but to fight them.

More importantly, this process completely dehumanizes the people the U.S. government bombs, attacks, and kills. Because they’re never heard from, because we never learn their names, because we never experience their family’s suffering, all of their human attributes are stripped from them and their deaths are thus meaningless because they’re barely human.

This dehumanization — the suppression of any humanity on the part of the U.S.’ foreign war victims — is the absolute key to sustaining popular support for war. Nobody knew that better than Gen. William Westmoreland, the U.S. Commander of the Vietnam War, which is why he insisted that “Orientals” do not experience death and suffering the way that Westerners do.
...
There’s a reason the iconic photo of a South Vietnamese police official summarily executing a Vietcong suspect during the 1968 Tet Offensive resonated: Violence and suffering are much more easily tolerated when their visceral reality need not be confronted.

The ritualistic tribute to dead or wounded U.S. soldiers has other purposes as well: It attempts — not using rational formulas but rather emotional impulses — to transfer the nobility of the slain soldier onto the war itself; after all, how unjust could a war be when such brave and admirable American soldiers are fighting in it? And it is also intended that the soldier’s nobility will be transferred to his commander in chief who is so solemnly honoring him.
Click to expand...

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/01...ll-the-key-ingredients-of-u-s-war-propaganda/
 
Bobcat said:
This is a big gaping hole and i find it weird that the media don't push him more on this. Yeah, he is going to give taxcuts to EVERYONE, including the big companies and his pals on Wall Street, but at the same time he looks ready to spend money like a drunken sailor on infrastructure, military and not to mention that fecking wall

The US has been hemorrhaging money for years and it's not going to get any better with that kind of backwards ass logic.
Click to expand...

The mad thing is, this was known during the election when impartial economists ran up calculations for the budgets for the two candidates plans. Didn't his run to 130% or something? Sounds like nothing has changed.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
The mad thing is, this was known during the election when impartial economists ran up calculations for the budgets for the two candidates plans. Didn't his run to 130% or something? Sounds like nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

He's probably got plans to leverage US debt with Russian banks.
 
This is a frustrating presidency if you're a 'stupid conspiracy enthusiast wanker' in that Alex Jones has basically proclaimed this guy to be a knight on a white horse, and in doing so seems to have gotten a lot of the alternative media convinced that all will be well so long as they just let Trump get on things. I was never really a viewer of Infowars, but they just seem like mouthpieces and unconditional supporters of Trump now.
 
Bobcat said:
This is a big gaping hole and i find it weird that the media don't push him more on this. Yeah, he is going to give taxcuts to EVERYONE, including the big companies and his pals on Wall Street, but at the same time he looks ready to spend money like a drunken sailor on infrastructure, military and not to mention that fecking wall

The US has been hemorrhaging money for years and it's not going to get any better with that kind of backwards ass logic.
Click to expand...
He thinks GDP growth will offset it.
 
This actually doesn't belong in here...but, with the potential US Ambassador to Israel saying the State Department has been antisemitic for 70 years....I thought this was an interesting POV.

Please note, I'm not saying this is the only POV one should have or that it's completely accurate

 
Neutral said:
This actually doesn't belong in here...but, with the potential US Ambassador to Israel saying the State Department has been antisemitic for 70 years....I thought this was an interesting POV.

Please note, I'm not saying this is the only POV one should have or that it's completely accurate

Click to expand...

Beautiful message. He'll probably have 'an accident', though.
 
2cents said:
Can't read it.
Click to expand...

Copy the title, open an incognito window, search for the title.
Didn't want to post the full text because of the Telegraph thing.
Basically it's saying that so many attacks in such a short spell, with intensified online hate, is novel.
 
berbatrick said:
Copy the title, open an incognito window, search for the title.
Didn't want to post the full text because of the Telegraph thing.
Basically it's saying that so many attacks in such a short spell, with intensified online hate, is novel.
Click to expand...

Nah still no dice. In any case the article I posted was more a criticism of the NYT than anything else. But yeah, given that element of Trump's base it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this kind of thing continues to escalate.
 
Omar Little said:
Oh, nothing much, just the whole thing about it not being wise to criticize the the current regime in Israel.
Click to expand...
So you think the Israeli government is killing critics among the Israeli public? What examples do you have for that in the recent past?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.