U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[jake]

22 hours ago, bobsharp said:

If there is armed conflict with Iran the U.S. because of superior numbers and weaponry will win. However the International repercussions would be strong, and the probable flag covered coffins arriving home would be not only very sad, but also a condemnation of a President who sent young people to their death, when it no doubt will be mentioned that he avoided servicein the war of his time.

Trump will do as he is told Bob.

 

[Sharpie]

45 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

An American friend in Tampa told me that if I ever go drinking in a bar, never get into a discussion with another patron about anything. He said that lots of people are carrying and, if you say something they object to, will use it to settle the argument.

 

He was an ex-cop.

 

I have related the story before, but it is a perfect example of the U.S.attitude towards guns.

While waiting with a number of candidates outside the F.B.I building in Washington it was decided to go across the street to get a coffee. I was walking with a Sheriff from Arizona, and he asked "are you hot", meaning was I armed. He then explained that the clientele in the cafe looked rough..

On getting to Quantico we at reception were told that all weapons had to be handed in, I was absolutely astounded at what some of the candidates presented, one main weapon, a couple of what could only be described as concealed, on an ankle holster, in the back at the waist, and even some with military type knives. This I suspect was an indication of the areas in which they served to protect the public

[Cade]

The day after the New York Times whistleblows on the CIA hacking the Russian power grid, half of south america suddenly goes dark.

May also explain the ongoing power problems in Venezuela?

[Francis Albert]

Another illustration of the American attitude to guns which I have related before. Visiting the Top of the Rock viewing point in the Rockefeller Centre I was handed a leaflet which included a very short list of Frequently Asked Questions. The second question was "Can I carry a firearm on the tour?". Answer: "Unfortunately not". It is the "Unfortunately" that gets me.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Sharpie]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

The day after the New York Times whistleblows on the CIA hacking the Russian power grid, half of south america suddenly goes dark.

May also explain the ongoing power problems in Venezuela?

 

What is also apparently stated is that Trump has not been told of the cyber actions against Russia as he cannot be trusted not to say something or tell someone. He has history having in the White House told a Russian visitor about a covert operation in Syria. And yet there are people even on here who will defend him and in the States who will vote for him.

[ri Alban]

I like the sketch of jre, when he brings Thomas Jefferson into the now. And he says" You haven't added any new shit"

[Maple Leaf]

42 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

What is also apparently stated is that Trump has not been told of the cyber actions against Russia as he cannot be trusted not to say something or tell someone. He has history having in the White House told a Russian visitor about a covert operation in Syria. And yet there are people even on here who will defend him and in the States who will vote for him.

 

His approval rating in the US is at 42%, roughly the same as it was 12 months ago. If the election was held today, he'd probably lose, but not by much.

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

[Space Mackerel]

[Maple Leaf]

2 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Well, that settles that.  Irrefutable evidence. Just imagine, one of those Iranian criminals leaving his passport at the scene of the crime. The hawks in the Trump administration were right after all.  

[The Real Maroonblood]

9 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Trump you must do better.

[Space Mackerel]

5 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Well, that settles that.  Irrefutable evidence. Just imagine, one of those Iranian criminals leaving his passport at the scene of the crime. The hawks in the Trump administration were right after all.  

 

And there's more...

 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Trump you must do better.

 

Sad to say, it's not a real headline in this instance, but it was in 2001. And people fell for it.

[ri Alban]

15 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Sad to say, it's not a real headline in this instance, but it was in 2001. And people fell for it.

Really?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 14/06/2019 at 15:34, Justin Z said:

 

Ignore it? Nah. Making bigots' lives as uncomfortable as possible and calling out their bullshit at any opportunity is the way to go.

 

11 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

FWIW I'm glad you don't ignore it, when reasonable Christians call out the lunatic fringes it make me think there maybe are some decent values and positivity in what usually seems a spiteful and nasty church.

 

Cheers to you both.

 

As to hoping for war with Iran, just **** off, Francis. The point is that Bolton has been an Iran hawk since the 90s and everyone should know that and treat all such news this week with a huge amount of suspicion.

 

Hell, who knows, maybe Iran was dumb enough to fire on or try to mine a Japanese oil tanker. But in the long run of who stands to benefit, well, it's Trump's good pall Mohammed bin "I feed journalists into chipper-shreaders" Salmon.

[Sidelight]

On 14/06/2019 at 19:19, Ugly American said:

 

I should ignore it but folk coming on here ignoring the crimes against God and humanity happening at the border at the explicit direction of this oaf and then sneering at Buttigieg for being gay and Christian get my blood hot.

I sneer at no one.

Your comments I find demonstratively sad.

The course language and anger which sequent your catalogue is your choice.

 

Western democratic societies held the view that the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman. This has now changed.

 

Therefore, how long will we have to wait before polygamous or paedophiliac relationships become accepted, which some no doubt call for already? Who is there to say ‘No’ this is wrong, if the majority says ‘Yes’?

 

It is clear that as more people in our societies Christian or other-wise believe in their own way regardless of what God’s Word appears to plainly teach, the more we can look forward to man’s corruptible ideas used as a basis for determining the truth and moral validity  of that society and over-riding the Bible’s authority.

 

Not my original thoughts, but ultimately the Word of Jesus. The Word of God.

What does scripture have to say on the subject? Its text and answers are very clear.

Genesis 2:18-25 / Leviticus 18:22 / Mark 10:6 / Romans 1:26-27 / 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 / 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Edited June 17, 2019 by alfajambo

[Cade]

Israel names an illegal settlement in the Golan Heights "Trump Heights".

 

Donny over the moon.

[The Real Maroonblood]

14 minutes ago, Cade said:

Israel names an illegal settlement in the Golan Heights "Trump Heights".

 

Donny over the moon.

That’s where he should be.

[ri Alban]

As Chris Rock once said. Make bullets $5000 each.

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

6 hours ago, alfajambo said:

I sneer at no one.

Your comments I find demonstratively sad.

The course language and anger which sequent your catalogue is your choice.

 

Western democratic societies held the view that the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman. This has now changed.

 

Therefore, how long will we have to wait before polygamous or paedophiliac relationships become accepted, which some no doubt call for already? Who is there to say ‘No’ this is wrong, if the majority says ‘Yes’?

 

It is clear that as more people in our societies Christian or other-wise believe in their own way regardless of what God’s Word appears to plainly teach, the more we can look forward to man’s corruptible ideas used as a basis for determining the truth and moral validity  of that society and over-riding the Bible’s authority.

 

Not my original thoughts, but ultimately the Word of Jesus. The Word of God.

What does scripture have to say on the subject? Its text and answers are very clear.

Genesis 2:18-25 / Leviticus 18:22 / Mark 10:6 / Romans 1:26-27 / 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 / 1 Timothy 1:9-10

 

The scripture also is very clear on other things, clothing for example.

 

Staying with Leviticus19:19 "Neither shall a garment mingled with linen and woollen come upon thee".  When people start complaining about socks as much as they complain about gays, I'll accept it's for religious reasons.  Until then, they're just cherry-picking to suit an agenda.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

Wasn't it the churches that changed the rules of marriage when they allowed divorcees to remarry? 

[Cade]

Launches his re-election campaign by openly spouting conspiracy theories, the same old attacks against the same old targets as last time and plenty of blatant lies.

 

 

[Justin Z]

15 minutes ago, Cade said:

Launches his re-election campaign by openly spouting conspiracy theories, the same old attacks against the same old targets as last time and plenty of blatant lies.

 

To be fair he really blew Hillary Clinton's 2020 campaign to bits with some of that.

[Sharpie]

I watched part of Trumps presentation last night, had company so had to switch off TV.  So did not watch it all. What I did see that was different was that when c ameras panned to the crowd when they were cheering a point made, for the first time I saw a lot of people with hands on knees arms crossed and not participating in the hysteria. There were also incidence of people turning and whispering it could be negative points about his comments.  I was getting the impression that there are some who are questioning, and may not be so gullibly accepting everything as the truth, and positive. As his campaign progresses I will concentrate more on audience reactions rather than the rhetoric.

[Maple Leaf]

18 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

I watched part of Trumps presentation last night, had company so had to switch off TV.  So did not watch it all. What I did see that was different was that when c ameras panned to the crowd when they were cheering a point made, for the first time I saw a lot of people with hands on knees arms crossed and not participating in the hysteria. There were also incidence of people turning and whispering it could be negative points about his comments.  I was getting the impression that there are some who are questioning, and may not be so gullibly accepting everything as the truth, and positive. As his campaign progresses I will concentrate more on audience reactions rather than the rhetoric.

 

I didn't watch it either, so I can't make any comment on the audience reaction.

 

But all those people in Florida probably voted for him last time, and will probably vote for him in 2020. It might be satisfying for Trump to look out on all those cheering people, but the fact is that he has lost, not gained in, popularity since 2016 and that should be a concern for the Republicans.  He has been hovering around the 40-42% are in popularity for about a year, and that will not be enough for him to win in 2020, even with the daft Electoral College.

 

There's a long way to go, of course, and anything can happen, but banging on about draining the swamp and Crooked Hilary isn't going to win him any new votes, and that's what he needs to do..

[Justin Z]

20 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I didn't watch it either, so I can't make any comment on the audience reaction.

 

But all those people in Florida probably voted for him last time, and will probably vote for him in 2020. It might be satisfying for Trump to look out on all those cheering people, but the fact is that he has lost, not gained in, popularity since 2016 and that should be a concern for the Republicans.  He has been hovering around the 40-42% are in popularity for about a year, and that will not be enough for him to win in 2020, even with the daft Electoral College.

 

There's a long way to go, of course, and anything can happen, but banging on about draining the swamp and Crooked Hilary isn't going to win him any new votes, and that's what he needs to do..

 

There is too the nightmare scenario where Trump loses the popular vote by a solid five or six million this time (not just three million), with gains for the Democrats in California and New York, a closing of the margin but not quite a reversal in Texas, and a couple of states from last time flipping, like Wisconsin and Michigan, and maybe even Arizona, but Trump still wins the electoral college by a bawhair.

 

The democratic deficit would only grow. Keep in mind that with the exception of 2004 (W running for a second term after the first never should have even happened) the Republicans have not won a presidential election in terms of popular vote since 1988, and yet they will have had a president in office for twelve of the twenty-eight years since 1993. It arguably should have been zero based on the mandate created by popular sentiment through those votes, but instead there are now six conservative justices on the Supreme Court as just one knock-on effect of this deficit in honouring the will of the populace.

[Justin Z]

[Maple Leaf]

The very mention of the term 'concentration camp' gets the Trump fans all puffed up with indignation. puir wee souls.

 

 

[trotter]

4 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

There is too the nightmare scenario where Trump loses the popular vote by a solid five or six million this time (not just three million), with gains for the Democrats in California and New York, a closing of the margin but not quite a reversal in Texas, and a couple of states from last time flipping, like Wisconsin and Michigan, and maybe even Arizona, but Trump still wins the electoral college by a bawhair.

 

The democratic deficit would only grow. Keep in mind that with the exception of 2004 (W running for a second term after the first never should have even happened) the Republicans have not won a presidential election in terms of popular vote since 1988, and yet they will have had a president in office for twelve of the twenty-eight years since 1993. It arguably should have been zero based on the mandate created by popular sentiment through those votes, but instead there are now six conservative justices on the Supreme Court as just one knock-on effect of this deficit in honouring the will of the populace.

 

I think your last point is an interesting one. There is a lot of hair pulling about the Supreme Court and what people may or may not got on certain subjects. But I was reading the other day (can't remember what it was) that two decisions have been made in the last few months on areas that conservatives would typically circle the wagons, but there was a 6-3 majority in terms of the 'liberal' outcome. 

 

 

Just because they are from a conservative background, doesn't necessarily mean they harness that belief when making judicial decisions. 

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, trotter said:

Just because they are from a conservative background, doesn't necessarily mean they harness that belief when making judicial decisions. 

 

It's certainly going to vary a lot depending on the issue. Gorsuch has been a pleasant surprise in terms of civil liberties. The most liberal justice on the Court not too long ago was John Paul Stevens, who was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford, Nixon's VP (who then became president). But an absolute ^^^^ like Brett Kavanaugh? Forget about it.

[Maple Leaf]

55 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

It's certainly going to vary a lot depending on the issue. Gorsuch has been a pleasant surprise in terms of civil liberties. The most liberal justice on the Court not too long ago was John Paul Stevens, who was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford, Nixon's VP (who then became president). But an absolute ^^^^ like Brett Kavanaugh? Forget about it.

 

After all the tears and snotters from Kavanaugh during his nomination hearing, I suspect that he will have a score to settle with Democrats.

 

Nevertheless , as you say, I think it will depend on the issue.  For example, the hard-right want to get a case before the Supreme Court to challenge Roe v Wade, assuming that the new conservative court will overturn it.  I'm not so sure that Kavanaugh and others will do that. Roe v Wade seems like a good balanced decision to me, and hopefully even the conservatives on the SC will see it the same way.

 

But you never can tell.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

19 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

It's certainly going to vary a lot depending on the issue. Gorsuch has been a pleasant surprise in terms of civil liberties. The most liberal justice on the Court not too long ago was John Paul Stevens, who was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford, Nixon's VP (who then became president). But an absolute ^^^^ like Brett Kavanaugh? Forget about it.

 

Gorsuch, even when he was nominated, was so obviously a better choice than Kavanaugh. I'm glad the Democrats opposed him anyway, if for nothing else than for the shameful Merrick Garland fiasco, but he was clearly a serious thinker.

 

Kavanaugh is a naked political operative in addition to being an aging petulant fratboy and almost certainly an attempted rapist. I'm holding onto some hope that he gets impeached for lying to Congress in the next few years.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Ugly American

[Maple Leaf]

The timing couldn't be more embarrassing for Trump and his cult followers.

 

At his rally on Tuesday, he declared that "Thanks to my tariffs, the American steel industry is roaring back to life."  And the cultists cheered the lie.

 

The next day, US Steel announced that it is closing two of its mills, one in Michigan and one in Indiana, due to dramatically reduced demand for steel.

 

Poor Donald, he should stick to talking about crooked Hilary.  Spoiler-alert Donald, ... she's not running in 2020.

 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

The timing couldn't be more embarrassing for Trump and his cult followers.

 

At his rally on Tuesday, he declared that "Thanks to my tariffs, the American steel industry is roaring back to life."  And the cultists cheered the lie.

 

The next day, US Steel announced that it is closing two of its mills, one in Michigan and one in Indiana, due to dramatically reduced demand for steel.

 

Poor Donald, he should stick to talking about crooked Hilary.  Spoiler-alert Donald, ... she's not running in 2020.

 

I heard on BBC world news (The 0545 segment) That the economy, jobs, etc... etc... hasn't been better. 

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

I heard on BBC world news (The 0545 segment) That the economy, jobs, etc... etc... hasn't been better. 

 

The US economy is doing extremely well (as is the world economy) and unemployment rates in the US are at historic lows as a result.

[PnG]

6 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The US economy is doing extremely well (as is the world economy) and unemployment rates in the US are at historic lows as a result.

 

Trump will win again because of this. At the end of the day people only truly care about their bank balance.

[Maple Leaf]

12 minutes ago, PnG said:

 

Trump will win again because of this. At the end of the day people only truly care about their bank balance.

 

You might be right.

[Justin Z]

[milky_26]

In the radio this morning's by it said trump had ordered an air strike on Iran last night then quickly rescinded it

[DETTY29]

13 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The US economy is doing extremely well (as is the world economy) and unemployment rates in the US are at historic lows as a result.

Zero hour contracts and 40-50 million folks taken out of affordable health care, and personal bankruptcies up because.

 

Go Trump go.

 

Go Farage, go.

 

It's the immigrants fault, wink, wink......

[Watt-Zeefuik]

9 hours ago, milky_26 said:

In the radio this morning's by it said trump had ordered an air strike on Iran last night then quickly rescinded it

 

His explanation -- and these are his words on Twitter -- are that 10 minutes before the strike was to happen, a General told him that 150 people would likely die, so he called it off.

 

He was 10 minutes from starting a war over a the loss of a very expensive robot, but backed off because he found out someone might get hurt in it.

 

Absurd doesn't even begin to cover it.

 

I honestly think he's panicking. He'd been saying for weeks that all the polls they'd done internally showed him ahead in every state they polled. The pollsters who ran those (including one founding by Kellyanne Conway herself) apparently thought they'd better save their reputations and it leaked that in fact he was well behind several possible challengers in 11 important states. So he fired all the pollsters, most of whom had been with him since the campaign started.

 

Now he's announced a plan to round up millions of immigrants, despite the fact that ICE is already over capacity and running concentration camps where -- and the administration is currently arguing that they should be allowed to do this in court -- they're not providing cleaning products or places to sleep to children.

 

It would be comical if it weren't so horrifying.

[Maple Leaf]

3 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

His explanation -- and these are his words on Twitter -- are that 10 minutes before the strike was to happen, a General told him that 150 people would likely die, so he called it off.

 

He was 10 minutes from starting a war over a the loss of a very expensive robot, but backed off because he found out someone might get hurt in it.

 

Absurd doesn't even begin to cover it.

 

I honestly think he's panicking. He'd been saying for weeks that all the polls they'd done internally showed him ahead in every state they polled. The pollsters who ran those (including one founding by Kellyanne Conway herself) apparently thought they'd better save their reputations and it leaked that in fact he was well behind several possible challengers in 11 important states. So he fired all the pollsters, most of whom had been with him since the campaign started.

 

Now he's announced a plan to round up millions of immigrants, despite the fact that ICE is already over capacity and running concentration camps where -- and the administration is currently arguing that they should be allowed to do this in court -- they're not providing cleaning products or places to sleep to children.

 

It would be comical if it weren't so horrifying.

 

And the only thing that Republicans are objecting to is some people's use of the word "concentration".

 

[DETTY29]

Bomb Iran and I might release what you knew about overseas interference in last election.

 

But only after we release what we know about your illegal business dealings and various golden showers.

 

Yours.

 

VP

 

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by DETTY29

[Seymour M Hersh]

Saved 150 lives last night. What a guy. 

[JackLadd]

Trump trying to make himself look good with BS on why he aborted air strike. A typical week of BS from him, including the lie about rounding up millions of illegal migrants and his 'sold out' with thousands outside maga Orlando rally that had hundreds of empty seats.   

[Maple Leaf]

8 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Saved 150 lives last night. What a guy. 

 

True enough. He's a hero. 

 

It reminds me of the time my wife went on a shopping spree then announced that she had saved me $150. She said "I saw a pair of shoes that I liked, but I decided not to buy them!"

 

[Sharpie]

I watched a woman who is alleging 1st degree rape by Trump twenty years ago. I have no use for Trump but this woman struck me as not being totally truthful.She states she was wearing a Donna Karan coat and tights, at the time. It was all so trautamatic that she tells the reporter the clothes are still hanging in her closet. Twenty years she never wore them again but kept them all this time. I admit I was a bit confused the way she reported it but the full incident she alleges took about three minutes.

I am no proponent of rapists or indecent acts against women,  memory fails but something tells me I may have exacted street justice on the odd occasion, but I just think its wrong to make unjust allegations against anyone. Even a non human being.

[Maple Leaf]

3 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

I watched a woman who is alleging 1st degree rape by Trump twenty years ago. I have no use for Trump but this woman struck me as not being totally truthful.She states she was wearing a Donna Karan coat and tights, at the time. It was all so trautamatic that she tells the reporter the clothes are still hanging in her closet. Twenty years she never wore them again but kept them all this time. I admit I was a bit confused the way she reported it but the full incident she alleges took about three minutes.

I am no proponent of rapists or indecent acts against women,  memory fails but something tells me I may have exacted street justice on the odd occasion, but I just think its wrong to make unjust allegations against anyone. Even a non human being.

 

Is this the same woman?  Yet another accusation of sexual assault by Trump, an admitted sexual predator.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/trump-new-york-magazine-assault-e-jean-carroll/index.html

[Sharpie]

2 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Is this the same woman?  Yet another accusation of sexual assault by Trump, an admitted sexual predator.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/trump-new-york-magazine-assault-e-jean-carroll/index.html

 

Yes its the same woman, she was not quite as direct in her TV interview, so much so that the guy on MSNBC commented that her written story was in much more detail than the one she was relating tonight.  She made quite a point about her laughter thinking that may reduce Trumps ardor, I have to say I have never heard a sexual assault victim state that they laughed at any point in the incident. I agree Trump is a predator, has history, but even he deserves not to be falsely accused. This all comes out at the same time as her book, if she is not being truthful she is then no better in my assessment than Trump. She was asked if she would prefer charges there being no statute of limitation on the type of charge involved. She stated she would not in respect for the women at the border who are being detained and being raped regularly. Quite saintly, she also hesitated when asked if she would make available the clothing for testing for any evidence I assume DNA, she declined to do that also.

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

True enough. He's a hero. 

 

It reminds me of the time my wife went on a shopping spree then announced that she had saved me $150. She said "I saw a pair of shoes that I liked, but I decided not to buy them!"

 

 

So you equate not buying a pair of shoes to not killing 150 people. 

[Justin Z]

 

"Trump derangement syndrome" will be the refrain, but the words they are looking for are actually "basic human decency".