Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

04-14-2017 , 11:00 AM
Trump Is Just George W. Bush But Racist

Quote:
The Bush presidency was the most comprehensive governing failure of any administration since at least Herbert Hoover, and it ought to have poisoned the party’s national brand as deeply as it did Hoover’s GOP (which did not win another presidential election for twenty years). But the Republican Party managed to largely skirt the reputational fallout from the Bush catastrophe. It did so, in part, through the tea party: Conservatives hailed right-wing protests against Barack Obama as a call for ideological purity, cleansing the supposed big-government, cronyist tendencies of the Bush administration. The Republican Party of the Obama era insisted it had learned the lessons of the Bush years, when its agenda had devolved into little more than shoveling cash to K Street. The post-Bush GOP was allegedly sadder and wiser and filled with righteous abhorrence for the temptations of lobbyists and deficit spending.”

Those lessons have all been forgotten. The Republican government, under Trump, has retraced the steps it took under Bush — from the obsession with tax cuts for the rich, to the vanishing line between the party’s paid lobbyists and its public servants. The reality is that, contrary to the willful misreading of conservatives elites, the tea-party revolution was not fundamentally a reaction against deficits or crony capitalism: It was a heavily racialized backlash against social change. And that spirit — the true animating spirit of the grassroots right — has lived on in Trump’s presidency.
As Trump lurches to the neo-con corporatism right wing with a mix of alt-right white grievance nationalist habbadashery, we should bear in mind the last 8 years was a preview for all of it, not a drastic departure on the right from the Bush years. I don't think anyone other than Beltway pundits treated the Tea Party as anything but that, but it's worth repeating that Breitbart Republicanism is a useful campaign tool but couldn't survive governance even haphazardly implemented for 100 days and that the return to bombs and bankers with a mix of racism is basically the Tea Party wet dream and only a slight deviation away from Bushism.
04-14-2017 , 11:41 AM
'Fox & Friends' cheers Afghan bomb video
Quote:
"Fox & Friends" on Friday admiringly aired a government video showing a massive bomb being dropped in Afghanistan, with one host touting it as "what freedom looks like."

...

Fox News's morning show on Friday aired the video of the bombing to the sounds of Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue." The country song, written in 2002 amid calls for military action after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, famously contains the line "We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way."

...

Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera noted his joy at being able to see the video of the bomb.

"One of my favorite things in the 16 years I've been here at Fox News is watching bombs drop on bad guys," he said.
Exactly what I was ranting about last night. Thumping idiots.
04-14-2017 , 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
'Fox & Friends' cheers Afghan bomb video


Exactly what I was ranting about last night. Thumping idiots.
I was wondering last night what the line is on cheering this, like basically Trump can invoke national security and bomb anyone he wants within the 90-day window before he gets Congressional authorization. How far can he go while 30-50% of the country blindly cheers it? How many countries could he get away with bombing?

I suspect the list of countries is longer than we would like to even think about. I think there are upwards of 20 countries Trump could bomb that most of the country and the media would patriotically cheer, and that's the low end of my guess.

I fear we may find out for sure on some of them if he keeps getting ratings bumps from it.
04-14-2017 , 01:00 PM
Could you imagine the rhetoric coming out of the right if Russia, Syria, and Iran had issued a joint warning to the Obama administration?
04-14-2017 , 01:03 PM
The guys out here at the AFB I'm working at were all excited yesterday.
04-14-2017 , 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
'Fox & Friends' cheers Afghan bomb video


Exactly what I was ranting about last night. Thumping idiots.
It's ****ing grotesque at this point.
04-14-2017 , 01:12 PM
The MOAB was dropped on a "tunnel and cave network" that was hyped when Osama bin Laden was abiding there. According to the wiki page, it didn't turn out to be all that impressive. I doubt the MOAB was really needed here. At least there's no evidence the 36 dead guys would be any more dead. But the since the intended effect is more psychological, the strike was clearly a bigly success... on awval.
04-14-2017 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder
I was wondering last night what the line is on cheering this, like basically Trump can invoke national security and bomb anyone he wants within the 90-day window before he gets Congressional authorization. How far can he go while 30-50% of the country blindly cheers it? How many countries could he get away with bombing?

I suspect the list of countries is longer than we would like to even think about. I think there are upwards of 20 countries Trump could bomb that most of the country and the media would patriotically cheer, and that's the low end of my guess.

I fear we may find out for sure on some of them if he keeps getting ratings bumps from it.
20 way too low, write down every country people couldn't place on a map to start. Would we cheer bombing UK/Canada/Germany is the real question and definitely 30% would approve of that anyway as trump ran on the "america **** everybody else" platform and they still support him so that's whatever at this point. Nothing america loves more than bomb dropping on people, obama bombed people, clinton bombed people, bush bombed people, we're still in afghanistan/iraq and etc. Ofc Trump is gonna bomb more people, and bigger bombs and maybe some people are tired of it, but majority seem PUMPED so yeah.

Poll #'s gotta be back up in the 40's since we haven't been told those lately I see.
04-14-2017 , 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop
Here's a good graphic I remember from a few days ago.
Of course it is a very misleading graph. having a cloture vote does not equal a filibuster. Reid Senate the % of cloture votes failing was extremely low compared to predecessors.

https://journals.law.stanford.edu/st...ors-made-60-51
04-14-2017 , 01:24 PM
The MOAB was probably a show of force but we drop bombs in Afganistan probably every day so the media really just needs to stfu on this one.
04-14-2017 , 01:29 PM
https://www.propublica.org/article/d..._medium=social

Quote:
DeVos Pick to Head Civil Rights Office Once Said She Faced Discrimination for Being White
Quote:
Although her limited background in civil rights law makes it difficult to infer her positions on specific issues, Jackson’s writings during and after college suggest she’s likely to steer one of the Education Department’s most important — and controversial — branches in a different direction than her predecessors. A longtime anti-Clinton activist and an outspoken conservative-turned-libertarian, she has denounced feminism and race-based preferences. She’s also written favorably about, and helped edit a book by, an economist who decried both compulsory education and the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Normies don't know who that is, but every 2p2 politard doesn't even need to click through. The conservative intellectual movement is such a ****ing joke but it has real consequences.
04-14-2017 , 01:29 PM
From field tests in this forum I think making Murray Rothbard the Reverend Wright of 2018 might pay some real dividends. These people cannot help themselves.
04-14-2017 , 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder
I was wondering last night what the line is on cheering this, like basically Trump can invoke national security and bomb anyone he wants within the 90-day window before he gets Congressional authorization. How far can he go while 30-50% of the country blindly cheers it? How many countries could he get away with bombing?

I suspect the list of countries is longer than we would like to even think about. I think there are upwards of 20 countries Trump could bomb that most of the country and the media would patriotically cheer, and that's the low end of my guess.

I fear we may find out for sure on some of them if he keeps getting ratings bumps from it.
Oh I think that's a very low number...at least for the first few times it happens. We've become experts at rationalizing what our government does and make it fit into the 'we're not the baddies' worldview
04-14-2017 , 01:32 PM
it's weird how the USA dropping a bomb on jihadis* in the Afghan desert persuant to the 2001 AUMF leads to leftist tears, maybe the right-wing had a point re. "virtue signaling"

*these dudes want an Islamic caliphate and sharia law, they don't hate America because of what an average person would consider American wrongdoing, they hate America because it's existence is opposed to fundamentalist Islam
04-14-2017 , 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheatrich
20 way too low, write down every country people couldn't place on a map to start. Would we cheer bombing UK/Canada/Germany is the real question and definitely 30% would approve of that anyway as trump ran on the "america **** everybody else" platform and they still support him so that's whatever at this point. Nothing america loves more than bomb dropping on people, obama bombed people, clinton bombed people, bush bombed people, we're still in afghanistan/iraq and etc. Ofc Trump is gonna bomb more people, and bigger bombs and maybe some people are tired of it, but majority seem PUMPED so yeah.

Poll #'s gotta be back up in the 40's since we haven't been told those lately I see.
I said 30-50% AND the media though. I think the line where the media stops cheering is pretty different. I agree the 30% number is way, way higher and basically includes all of Africa, all of the Middle East, a lot of Asia, and some of Eastern Europe. The media is key, as that plays into his approval ratings.
04-14-2017 , 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by th14
it's weird how the USA dropping a bomb on jihadis* in the Afghan desert persuant to the 2001 AUMF leads to leftist tears, maybe the right-wing had a point re. "virtue signaling"

*these dudes want an Islamic caliphate and sharia law, they don't hate America because of what an average person would consider American wrongdoing, they hate America because it's existence is opposed to fundamentalist Islam
no you dumb ****, they hate america because we invade their lands for oil, kill their leaders, and drop bombs(drones) on them at will.
04-14-2017 , 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by th14

*these dudes want an Islamic caliphate and sharia law, they don't hate America because of what an average person would consider American wrongdoing, they hate America because it's existence is opposed to fundamentalist Islam
This is such a fantasy that is sadly held by so many. Ask yourself, why is America the target of their ire more than other nations. Hint: it's not because of all your "freedom".

Hint number 2: see my earlier post today.
04-14-2017 , 01:41 PM
America makes agreements with the leaders of those countries to have American military in the area
Islamists oppose this because they want to control the area entirely for Sharia

They hate the military presence because it pushes back against their desire for a caliphate, not because those American military are otherwise harming the people
04-14-2017 , 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by th14
America makes agreements with the leaders of those countries to have American military in the area
Islamists oppose this because they want to control the area entirely for Sharia

They hate the military presence because it pushes back against their desire for a caliphate, not because those American military are otherwise harming the people
American logic.

Someone killed an American. It's time to bomb their part of the world off the face of earth no matter the cost on lives and treasure.

America kills someone from another nation. They have no justification for retaliation or even ill-will. American is obviously a force for good.
04-14-2017 , 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHip41
no you dumb ****, they hate america because we invade their lands for oil, kill their leaders, and drop bombs(drones) on them at will.
They would hate us regardless of our actions because we are apostates.

The actions you list above motivate more people to join their cause.
04-14-2017 , 01:55 PM
Guess who is off on another vacation? This scumbag works less than I do.
04-14-2017 , 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUberBob
They would hate us regardless of our actions because we are apostates.

The actions you list above motivate more people to join their cause.
You are correct and incorrect.

Of course, jihadists would hate America no matter what like they hate Canada and most of Europe. That is not the point. The reason there has been 20 years of active terrorism and war at this point is directly do to US history of intervention.

Had the US done nothing in the Middle East over the past 20 years there is a strong case to be made that the world would be far better off and Islamic terrorism would be an uncommon occurrence like it was for decades.
04-14-2017 , 02:09 PM
I'm a non violent person, but if some random middle eastern country was constantly dropping bombs on the USA, I would join the cause to **** them up.


Now reverse the roles, thats why they hate us.
04-14-2017 , 02:17 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-visitor-logs/

Quote:
The Trump administration announced Friday that it would discontinue former president Barack Obama's policy of voluntarily disclosing the names of most visitors to the White House complex, citing “grave national security risks and privacy concerns.”


Instead, the Trump administration said it would release information only under far more limited circumstances: for those visiting*components of the White House classified under the law as separate agencies, such as the Office of Management and Budget. Under the new policy, it will be up to the White House to decide whether to release names of visitors coming to meet with the president, vice president and their senior staff.
04-14-2017 , 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHip41
I'm a non violent person, but if some random middle eastern country was constantly dropping bombs on the USA, I would join the cause to **** them up.


Now reverse the roles, thats why they hate us.
America wasn't bombing Afghanistan before the attacks of 9/11.

America isn't indiscriminately destroying the Muslim world, check the cities here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...mber_countries USA is attacking jihadis hiding in deserts and mountain caves before they can mount further terror attacks all over the world

If you were a moderate person in a city and fundamentalist terrorists were killed in the remote wilderness maybe you should try to discern whether or not they deserved it for reasons beyond simple nationalism

      
m