[mikeh]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-06, 08:24, said:

What I find truly disheartening is that after 100+ days 35 out of 100 people surveyed still approve of Donald Trump's performance as president. I really thought as a country we were better than that.

If your sources of information were Fox, Limbaugh, Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc, you'd be convinced that Trump was the greatest President since Lincoln.

[y66]

From Bye bye Bannon. Hello global capitalism? by John Cassidy:

Quote

Bashar al-Assad’s forces appear to have used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians again; Kim Jong-un’s North Korea has fired off another intermediate-range ballistic missile; and Xi Jinping, the President of China, has arrived in the United States for a summit meeting with Donald Trump. Big news all, you might think. But inside the political bubble, the main topic of conversation and speculation at the moment is how and why Steve Bannon, Trump’s senior political adviser, got booted from the National Security Council.

Some accounts portrayed Bannon’s eviction as the housecleaning work of H. R. McMaster, the three-star Army general who replaced the controversial Michael Flynn as Trump’s national-security adviser. Bannon himself tried to suggest that he had only been on the N.S.C. in the first place to keep an eye on Flynn. But there may well be more to the story than that. On Wednesday, the Times reported that “blunders by Mr. Bannon’s team—especially the first immigration order, which was rejected by multiple courts—have undermined his position” in the White House. The Times story goes on:

Quote

Mr. Bannon has also been at odds with Gary Cohn, the president’s national-economics adviser. Mr. Cohn is close with Mr. Kushner, who has said privately that he fears that Mr. Bannon plays to the president’s worst impulses, according to people with direct knowledge of such discussions.

Moreover, Mr. Bannon’s Svengali-style reputation has chafed on a president who sees himself as the West Wing’s only leading man. Several associates said the president had quietly expressed annoyance over the credit Mr. Bannon had received for setting the agenda—and Mr. Trump was not pleased by the “President Bannon” puppet-master theme promoted by magazines, late-night talk shows and Twitter.

For students of White House infighting, dynastic regimes, and Trump’s mental makeup, there is enough material in those two paragraphs to support several interpretations of what’s happening. One is that the Crown Prince, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, has had enough of Bannon’s right-wing-revolutionary shtick; while Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs, never had much sympathy for it to begin with. And Papa Don has never have gotten over the February 13th cover of Time magazine, which featured a close-up shot of Bannon and the headline “The Great Manipulator.”

Other readings could be offered, of course, and some of them may be more accurate. But the real import of Bannon’s departure from the N.S.C. goes beyond personalities and palace intrigue. It confirms a trend we’ve seen developing for weeks now: the Trump Administration’s globalists, such as Kushner and Cohn, are growing in influence, while the nationalists—led by Bannon—are on the defensive.

To most members of the Washington foreign-policy establishment, regardless of party affiliation, that will come as an immense relief. It suggests that business as usual—Atlanticism, free trade, American economic and military engagement across the globe—will ultimately prevail. Bannon has embraced an alternative vision, which he calls “economic nationalism.” Many of his critics have identified it as a desire to upend the international order that was established after the Second World War, and to replace it with a protectionist, ethnocentric model—one in which the United States, Russia, and nationalist-led European countries join together to fight Islam and confront a rising China. During the campaign, and even during the transition, Trump sometimes seemed to be leaning in Bannon’s direction. But since he has taken office, the actions of his Administration have indicated otherwise.

[y66]

From Other Things Mike Pence Cannot Be Alone In A Room With By Ethan Kuperberg

Quote

In 2002, Mike Pence told the Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife. —the Washington Post.

Two women who are not his wife

One woman who is not his wife, and one man who is short

Photographs containing women who are not his wife

Men who have the same name as his wife

Dictionary open to the page containing “wife,” “sex,” or “vagina”

Curvy lampshade

The Temptations’ “Greatest Hits” album

Sofa with more than two pillows

Sofa with one long, buxom pillow

Peanut butter (smooth)

Shag rugs

“Will & Grace” DVDs


Legislation that benefits women other than his wife

Paintings of ripe fruit

Jared Leto

Garlic, a crucifix, direct sunlight, or a vampire hunter other than his wife

Windows with views of hills that, if you squint, look sort of like sideways breasts

Dogs that are not German shepherds

A blank white wall where an image of a woman other than his wife could be projected

Peanut butter (chunky)

An empty tissue box that he could stick his dick in

Poor people

He probably doesn't dine with Moonies either.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2017-April-05, 20:46, said:

McConnell and McCain in friendly disagreement:

https://www.washingt...m=.bc32f4d5828c

You forgot to quote the part where it says that McCain will vote for McConnell's rule changes abolishing judicial filibuster. And indeed he did.

As always, McCain cares about domestic issues as long as they provide an opportunity for opportunistic posturing. The only thing he ever truly cared about is sending more US troops to war.

[nige1]

The gassing of Syrian rebels is a war-crime but, so far, it isn't clear who made or deployed the weapons. Given US paranoia about Russia and US weapons-lobby propaganda, Trump's premature popular reaction is understandable but, IMO, ill-considered and risky.

[kenberg]

nige1, on 2017-April-06, 20:14, said:

The gassing of Syrian rebels is a war-crime but, so far, it isn't clear who made or deployed the weapons. Given US paranoia about Russia and US weapons-lobby propaganda, Trump's premature popular reaction is understandable but, IMO, ill-considered and risky.

I might contest being called paranoid but I agree with the ill-considered and risky. But it falls into the Trump pattern. On Wednesday he learned, apparently for the first time, that children, even babies (!), were dying in Syria so on Thursday he ordered a strike. Sometimes it is a good idea to consider an entire hand before banging down your aces. Trump would love speedball tourneys. I don't.

Correction: I gather now that Trump actually learned about children dying in Syria on Tuesday. I thought it was on Wednesday. my error.

[andrei]

nige1, on 2017-April-06, 20:14, said:

The gassing of Syrian rebels is a war-crime but, so far, it isn't clear who made or deployed the weapons.

It can't be Assad.
Obama made a deal with Putin to destroy Assad's chemical weapons.

[nige1]

andrei, on 2017-April-07, 06:47, said:

It can't be Assad. Obama made a deal with Putin to destroy Assad's chemical weapons.

Syria is the likely culprit but there are other possibllities. The complication is that the Russian air-force is helping Syria to fight Isis rebels. When Russia focussed on the worst baddies, it seemed the grown-ups had arrived, at last. Now we must pray that assessment was correct.

[Trinidad]

Is there anybody who still thinks that Trump shouldn't apologize to the Swedes?

Stupidity is not merely stupid and/or funny. It has consequences.

Rik

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2017-April-06, 17:40, said:

You forgot to quote the part where it says that McCain will vote for McConnell's rule changes abolishing judicial filibuster. And indeed he did.

Is the "nuclear option" the craziest parliamentary hocus-pocus ever? How can it possibly be allowed that a simple majority can vote to overturn a rule that requires a supermajority on something? It effectively nullifies the point of requiring a supermajority in the first place. It's like a website that requires passwords, but also allows anyone to change someone else's password without first entering their password.

At a minimum there should be some kind of waiting period before the rule change takes effect, so you can't just change the rules opportunistically like this. Although given that the Senate was willing to postpone even considering a Supreme Court nominee until after the new President took over, they'd probably be OK with waiting a couple of months between changing the rule and voting on Gorsuch. But at least this would allow time for constituents to express their feelings, so maybe some minds could be changed.

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2017-April-06, 20:14, said:

The gassing of Syrian rebels is a war-crime but, so far, it isn't clear who made or deployed the weapons. Given US paranoia about Russia and US weapons-lobby propaganda, Trump's premature popular reaction is understandable but, IMO, ill-considered and risky.

If the agent was sarin, then the alternate explanation, proffered by the Syrian government and Russia, that the release of the gas was due to a bomb striking a rebel chemical weapons facility, seems implausible. Sarin is a binary agent, in that to create the actual toxin, one must combine two chemicals in a fairly precise way. The resulting chemical reaction creates the sarin.

Imagine having tanks or canisters of these two chemicals in close physical proximity and then blowing them up. It would be a very unusual event for enough of those chemicals to interact with each other and generate sarin, instead of escaping into the atmosphere with minimal mixing.

Meanwhile, at least 3 nations apparently maintain very close air surveillance, to the point of being able to track individual planes....the US, Russia and Turkey. Note that Syria essentially admits to dropping munitions on the area at the right time. So: did a regime that used sarin to kill 1400 civilians in Damascus a few years ago use the same chemical in this attack, or did a one-in-a-million (just a figure of speech..I have no idea as to the likelihood but it seems highly implausible) event occur in which two chemicals were simultaneously released due to an explosion, and despite those circumstances (with all of the blast, heat, randomness involved) were able to mix in such quantities as to cause the generation of a significant volume of nerve toxin?

I know where logic takes one on this.

Btw, I am NOT a fan of Trump, and I found his wrapping himself in god and babies nauseating to watch. This is a man who has barred all of those babies from the US because of their parents' religion. I suspect that the reality is that he saw an opportunity to boost his abysmal ratings while also playing soldier with big, shiny, expensive weapons.

That raid cost more money than the federal funding of meals on wheels, which he has of course proposed be abolished. Yes, this man oozes compassion, doesn't he?

[ldrews]

mikeh, on 2017-April-07, 09:31, said:

If the agent was sarin, then the alternate explanation, proffered by the Syrian government and Russia, that the release of the gas was due to a bomb striking a rebel chemical weapons facility, seems implausible. Sarin is a binary agent, in that to create the actual toxin, one must combine two chemicals in a fairly precise way. The resulting chemical reaction creates the sarin.

Imagine having tanks or canisters of these two chemicals in close physical proximity and then blowing them up. It would be a very unusual event for enough of those chemicals to interact with each other and generate sarin, instead of escaping into the atmosphere with minimal mixing.

Meanwhile, at least 3 nations apparently maintain very close air surveillance, to the point of being able to track individual planes....the US, Russia and Turkey. Note that Syria essentially admits to dropping munitions on the area at the right time. So: did a regime that used sarin to kill 1400 civilians in Damascus a few years ago use the same chemical in this attack, or did a one-in-a-million (just a figure of speech..I have no idea as to the likelihood but it seems highly implausible) event occur in which two chemicals were simultaneously released due to an explosion, and despite those circumstances (with all of the blast, heat, randomness involved) were able to mix in such quantities as to cause the generation of a significant volume of nerve toxin?

I know where logic takes one on this.

Btw, I am NOT a fan of Trump, and I found his wrapping himself in god and babies nauseating to watch. This is a man who has barred all of those babies from the US because of their parents' religion. I suspect that the reality is that he saw an opportunity to boost his abysmal ratings while also playing soldier with big, shiny, expensive weapons.

That raid cost more money than the federal funding of meals on wheels, which he has of course proposed be abolished. Yes, this man oozes compassion, doesn't he?

Is there any response by Trump you would approve of?

What do you think a proper, appropriate response should be?

[Winstonm]

Not everyone agrees with Paul Krugman, but this time I think he nails it.

Quote

Anyway, one thing the interviewees often say is that Mr. Trump is honest, that he tells it like is, which may seem odd given how much he lies about almost everything, policy and personal. But what they probably mean is that Mr. Trump gives outright, unapologetic voice to racism, sexism, contempt for “losers” and so on — feelings that have always been an important source of conservative support, but have long been things you weren’t supposed to talk about openly.

In other words, Mr. Trump isn’t an honest man or a stand-up guy, but he is, arguably, less hypocritical about the darker motives underlying his worldview than conventional politicians are.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-07, 11:04, said:

Not everyone agrees with Paul Krugman, but this time I think he nails it.

You are right, I seldom do.

[jogs]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-07, 11:04, said:

Not everyone agrees with Paul Krugman,

Krugman is an idiot. None of his economic ideas work in the real world.

[jogs]

Trinidad, on 2017-April-07, 08:57, said:

Is there anybody who still thinks that Trump shouldn't apologize to the Swedes?

Will the Swedes apologize to all the Swedish women who have been raped and sexually harassed by Muslim men?

[andrei]

barmar, on 2017-April-07, 09:15, said:

Is the "nuclear option" the craziest parliamentary hocus-pocus ever? How can it possibly be allowed that a simple majority can vote to overturn a rule that requires a supermajority on something? It effectively nullifies the point of requiring a supermajority in the first place. It's like a website that requires passwords, but also allows anyone to change someone else's password without first entering their password.

At a minimum there should be some kind of waiting period before the rule change takes effect, so you can't just change the rules opportunistically like this. Although given that the Senate was willing to postpone even considering a Supreme Court nominee until after the new President took over, they'd probably be OK with waiting a couple of months between changing the rule and voting on Gorsuch. But at least this would allow time for constituents to express their feelings, so maybe some minds could be changed.

Your outrage comes 3.5 years too late.

https://www.washingt...m=.ca2af23d707a

[awm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-07, 10:35, said:

Is there any response by Trump you would approve of?

What do you think a proper, appropriate response should be?

The Syrian civil war is a tough situation and I'm sure none of us really know what the right response is. None of our generals nor politicians seem to have really good ideas.

Honestly Trump's response of bombing an airfield seems okay, although I think we should be working with other countries to come up with a long term solution (which maybe we are).

The odd thing about this is the whiplash from the sudden change in position. Assad has been killing civilians for years with conventional weapons, and in 2013 he launched an even worse chemical weapons attack against his own people. Through all of this, both Trump and Republican congressional leadership insisted we should not get involved, refused to authorize retaliatory strikes, etc. Now suddenly they have all changed their minds! What changed? Again, this chemical weapons attack was awful but awful stuff has been going on there for a very long time...

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-April-07, 13:09, said:

Will the Swedes apologize to all the Swedish women who have been raped and sexually harassed by Muslim men?

Moderators - isn't this about enough hateful, spiteful spewing of alt-right garbage?

[ldrews]

awm, on 2017-April-07, 14:19, said:

The Syrian civil war is a tough situation and I'm sure none of us really know what the right response is. None of our generals nor politicians seem to have really good ideas.

Honestly Trump's response of bombing an airfield seems okay, although I think we should be working with other countries to come up with a long term solution (which maybe we are).

The odd thing about this is the whiplash from the sudden change in position. Assad has been killing civilians for years with conventional weapons, and in 2013 he launched an even worse chemical weapons attack against his own people. Through all of this, both Trump and Republican congressional leadership insisted we should not get involved, refused to authorize retaliatory strikes, etc. Now suddenly they have all changed their minds! What changed? Again, this chemical weapons attack was awful but awful stuff has been going on there for a very long time...

Color me highly skeptical. Assad has never impressed me as being insane; a tyrant, yes, but not insane. He would surely know that using gas would provoke the world to retaliate. And he was already winning the war. And if I remember correctly, a couple of years ago Syria/Assad relinquished all of their chemical weapons, under the supervision of the Russians. So theoretically Syria should have no such weapons. This smells to me like a False Flag incident. I would like to see some actual evidence/proof to substantiate the claim that Assad was the perpetrator.