(02-07-2017 03:42 AM)JOwl Wrote:  That's a thoughtful response, so thanks for that. And it's a cute thing you did there, as of course "Alinskiyite" was Fox and the right's favorite vague epithet for painting Obama a dirty, dirty radical. Frankly, I didn't know anything about Alinsky other than 60's organizer, but reading up on wikipedia it sounds like he was granddaddy of all trolls, and spiritual forebear of what Yiannoupolis described as the "meme team" contingent of the alt right. So you're spot on there.

You keep running down the same logical hole, though. I believe Bannon is dog whistling the anti-Semitic and white nationalist subset of the alt right, so yeah, he's a racist. Trump picked him as his guy, so Trump gets tyo wear it too. But that doesn't mean everyone else in the alt-right is racist, any more than it makes all conservatives racist. Sure they're willing to make common cause with racists, and not call them on their racism, so that tars them some in my mind, but I'm not going to call them all racists. I reserve that for those who actually are.

And here's where your firewall between the 1488ers and the non-racist "other" portion of the alt-right really falls down. Spencer is a 1488er, and so Yiannopoulos's alt-right primer puts the lie to the idea that 1488ers are some minor fringe subset of the alt-right; as I noted earlier, it states: "The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought."
Does that mean the entire alt-right is composed of white nationalists? Again, no. But it puts them directly at its center.

Quote:CPAC says Richard Spencer doesn't represent their views and so he can't be here even though he bought a ticket

(02-23-2017 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perhaps the more mainstream republicans are recognizing the threat that these un-apologetic provocateurs could do in the upcoming election with the apparent rise of a fired up left?

(02-23-2017 02:01 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perhaps the more mainstream republicans are recognizing the threat that these un-apologetic provocateurs could do in the upcoming election with the apparent rise of a fired up left?

The Republicans are sitting pretty when it comes to midterm elections, which means the Democrats will need to be fired up way beyond their usual midterm apathy if they want to do anything. 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2018 are currently occupied by Democrats (plus the two Independents that usually caucus with the Democrats), so the Democrats will have to win 27 out of 33 Senate races to draw even with the Republicans in the Senate (if you include the Independents on the side of the Democrats). Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

(02-23-2017 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 02:01 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perhaps the more mainstream republicans are recognizing the threat that these un-apologetic provocateurs could do in the upcoming election with the apparent rise of a fired up left?

The Republicans are sitting pretty when it comes to midterm elections, which means the Democrats will need to be fired up way beyond their usual midterm apathy if they want to do anything. 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2018 are currently occupied by Democrats (plus the two Independents that usually caucus with the Democrats), so the Democrats will have to win 27 out of 33 Senate races to draw even with the Republicans in the Senate (if you include the Independents on the side of the Democrats). Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

That is kind of my point. The Dems are exhibiting Tea Party levels of activism, which if funneled to 2018 would break their normal mid-term woes.

Looking at the senate list, if Dems can hold their seats, I could see Nevada (Heller) and maybe Arizona (Flake) switching, but you're right that the Senate would be a tough order to flip. But who knows, maybe Ted Cruz's smarminess finally catches up with him.

I think the House results are likely to be the one that evens out the most. But those are way too numerous to keep track of casually. But only 25 seats need to switch to up-end the current balance. A swing like that has occurred on a semi-regular basis.

(02-24-2017 09:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 02:01 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perhaps the more mainstream republicans are recognizing the threat that these un-apologetic provocateurs could do in the upcoming election with the apparent rise of a fired up left?

The Republicans are sitting pretty when it comes to midterm elections, which means the Democrats will need to be fired up way beyond their usual midterm apathy if they want to do anything. 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2018 are currently occupied by Democrats (plus the two Independents that usually caucus with the Democrats), so the Democrats will have to win 27 out of 33 Senate races to draw even with the Republicans in the Senate (if you include the Independents on the side of the Democrats). Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

That is kind of my point. The Dems are exhibiting Tea Party levels of activism, which if funneled to 2018 would break their normal mid-term woes.

Looking at the senate list, if Dems can hold their seats, I could see Nevada (Heller) and maybe Arizona (Flake) switching, but you're right that the Senate would be a tough order to flip. But who knows, maybe Ted Cruz's smarminess finally catches up with him.

I think the House results are likely to be the one that evens out the most. But those are way too numerous to keep track of casually. But only 25 seats need to switch to up-end the current balance. A swing like that has occurred on a semi-regular basis.

Yeah, the Dems are actually more likely to take back the House than the Senate. Which is to say they have a really tough map in 2018. In places like Texas, I've wondered if in some cases it makes more sense for Dems to register as Republicans and support moderates in the primary. Hell, I'd take back Kay Bailey in a second over Cruz....

(02-24-2017 10:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 09:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 02:01 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perhaps the more mainstream republicans are recognizing the threat that these un-apologetic provocateurs could do in the upcoming election with the apparent rise of a fired up left?

The Republicans are sitting pretty when it comes to midterm elections, which means the Democrats will need to be fired up way beyond their usual midterm apathy if they want to do anything. 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2018 are currently occupied by Democrats (plus the two Independents that usually caucus with the Democrats), so the Democrats will have to win 27 out of 33 Senate races to draw even with the Republicans in the Senate (if you include the Independents on the side of the Democrats). Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

That is kind of my point. The Dems are exhibiting Tea Party levels of activism, which if funneled to 2018 would break their normal mid-term woes.

Looking at the senate list, if Dems can hold their seats, I could see Nevada (Heller) and maybe Arizona (Flake) switching, but you're right that the Senate would be a tough order to flip. But who knows, maybe Ted Cruz's smarminess finally catches up with him.

I think the House results are likely to be the one that evens out the most. But those are way too numerous to keep track of casually. But only 25 seats need to switch to up-end the current balance. A swing like that has occurred on a semi-regular basis.

Yeah, the Dems are actually more likely to take back the House than the Senate. Which is to say they have a really tough map in 2018. In places like Texas, I've wondered if in some cases it makes more sense for Dems to register as Republicans and support moderates in the primary. Hell, I'd take back Kay Bailey in a second over Cruz....

If someone like Julain Castro (ex-mayor of SA runs), I wonder if he would have a chance to unseat Cruz. He can point directly to his stewardship of SA (which flourished under him) as direct experience of being pragmatic and leading, which I think would potentially pair well against Cruz's polar opposite approach in the Senate.

(02-24-2017 10:31 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 09:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 02:01 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The Republicans are sitting pretty when it comes to midterm elections, which means the Democrats will need to be fired up way beyond their usual midterm apathy if they want to do anything. 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2018 are currently occupied by Democrats (plus the two Independents that usually caucus with the Democrats), so the Democrats will have to win 27 out of 33 Senate races to draw even with the Republicans in the Senate (if you include the Independents on the side of the Democrats). Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

That is kind of my point. The Dems are exhibiting Tea Party levels of activism, which if funneled to 2018 would break their normal mid-term woes.

Looking at the senate list, if Dems can hold their seats, I could see Nevada (Heller) and maybe Arizona (Flake) switching, but you're right that the Senate would be a tough order to flip. But who knows, maybe Ted Cruz's smarminess finally catches up with him.

I think the House results are likely to be the one that evens out the most. But those are way too numerous to keep track of casually. But only 25 seats need to switch to up-end the current balance. A swing like that has occurred on a semi-regular basis.

Yeah, the Dems are actually more likely to take back the House than the Senate. Which is to say they have a really tough map in 2018. In places like Texas, I've wondered if in some cases it makes more sense for Dems to register as Republicans and support moderates in the primary. Hell, I'd take back Kay Bailey in a second over Cruz....

If someone like Julain Castro (ex-mayor of SA runs), I wonder if he would have a chance to unseat Cruz. He can point directly to his stewardship of SA (which flourished under him) as direct experience of being pragmatic and leading, which I think would potentially pair well against Cruz's polar opposite approach in the Senate.

Either Castro or Rep. Beto O'Rourke (the Congressional rep from El Paso who has said it will be extremely likely that he runs for Senate in 2018 - and, like Cruz, is a fierce advocate for term limits) will probably be the Democratic challenger. Rick Perry also encouraged Rep. Michael McCaul (the Congressional rep for the area between Houston and Austin) to run against Cruz in the Republican primary. I think a former W. Bush political advisor (the name escapes me right now) is considering a run as an independent.

(02-18-2017 10:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 10:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 08:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Nothing has stuck, yet, what did you expect to stick in the first month against the Party of No?

But he has started, and on several fronts. This seems like something I have not seen before - a president keeping his promises starting from Day One. I know Obama mad e a stab at closing Gitmo the first day, but eight years later, still open. What other promises did Obama move on his first month? Or Bush or Clinton or anybody else? I may have forgotten.

I was talking about doing, not conducti. I care more about things getting done or not done than the niceties. Keeping campaign promises is about doing.
I don't care about the frills, and when the history is written, it will be the things done or not done, not the manner in which they are done or not done, that will be featured.

So you're patting someone on the back for not accomplishing anything yet and just sticking his campaign rhetoric? What a high bar to cross, and what a strange thing to praise someone for while at the same time professing to not care about what someone is talking about...

As I've argued before, I am not yet on board with the whole "Party of No" (the title I guess that has now been passed from the Reps) because Trump has not had any time to do anything yet. In keeping with that line of thinking, I'd argue that there is absolutely nothing to pat him on the back yet with regards to keeping his promises. There just hasn't been time for Trump to actually do anything consequential.

He has started keeping his promises, and multiple promises at that. How does this compare to previous Presidents?

If by patting on the back you mean giving credit where credit is due, yes I am patting him on the back for making efforts to keep his promises. What do you find wrong with that? Did you wait for the finished product to give Obama high fives for healthcare and closing Gitmo, neither of which happened in the first month, by the way.

I am really interested in the comparison with other President's first months and with them keeping their promises. Maybe I have given him too much credit. Set me straight. I will assign Obama to you. Maybe JAAO can help you with that.

So how deep does your hatred of Trump run that you cannot even grudgingly give him credit for trying to keep his campaign promises? I would certainly have no trouble giving credit to Clinton if she tried to keep her promises, whatever they were.

OO, it's getting a little much for you to be typing things like what is bolded - it's moving a bit past a civilized conversation, when you're making some large leaps into that territory IMO.

I don't have some deep seeded hatred for Trump that is blinding me. I am not avoiding giving him credit for trying to keep his campaign promises (please point out where I did that - if I did, I misspoke).

What I was trying to do was highlight the irony of someone basically saying they don't care what someone says, only what they do, when Trump has, if anything, not yet had time to actually DO anything. It's early, all he has is talk, which is what makes that ironic to me.

I can give Trump credit for the fact that he has not changed and has been fairly consistent with his campaign self. I had hoped he would somehow pivot into respectability, but alas, he has not.

I can give him credit that he has pushed forward, to the best of his ability, to accomplish a lot of his campaign promises right out of the gate. There is no doubting that. He has not exactly been successful at it (immigration EO struck down by courts, no viable replacement for the ACA yet, no bill/funding for The Wall), but he has killed the TPP, and has leveraged his time in the spotlight to continue to focus on those topics (and a few more). Trump throughout the campaign, and still to this day, is very skilled at keeping the media spotlight shining on him, through the good, bad, and ugly. I can give him credit for that.

I think you may be confusing my criticisms for him with my evaluation of him. In most of our discussions we haven't really talked about the nuances of the first month-ish of the Trump administration and what I have felt he has done well and what I have felt he has completely crapped the bed on. Instead, it's mainly been focused on the parts of Trump's first few weeks that me and other posters don't agree on - which are the parts I find to be unmitigated disasters, and it appears that you and other posters either completely disagree with or would prefer to look the other way on/not care about.

I think once we see some real, sustained action, we can start comparing Trump to Obama and Bush. After all, we need all three branches of government to work together in order to make things stick, as Trump so angrily found out when his EO was struck down by the courts.

On a side note, maybe I should have watched Trump's first re-election campaign rally tonight to get a better idea of what his accomplishments have been. Speed for first campaign rally and # of trips to Florida are definitely some things he has on Obama and his other predecessors.

I guess I wasn't clear, but then this a Rice board.

So here it is, as clearly as I can:

Trump has taken more actions to start keeping his campaign promises early in his Presidency that any other President I can remember.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I and/or President Trump thought any of the projects had been completed.

So, to make it fair, compare his actions in starting on keeping his promises with any and all other Presidents starting to keep their promises in the same time period, and show me if I am wrong.

As I said, I do not like all of his promises, and therefore not all of his actions, but at least I can give him credit for trying to keep his promises.

Fareed Zakaria Wrote:We are witnessing a rocking horse presidency

(02-24-2017 05:52 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Worth a read... Zakaria: Trump has "hardly done anything" - CNNPolitics.com

Fareed Zakaria Wrote:We are witnessing a rocking horse presidency

Quote: Asked about the matter during an interview with Fox News’ “Fox ‘n’ Friends,” Trump repeatedly said “they” were responsible for the outcome of the mission, in reference to the military.

“This was a mission that was started before I got here. This was something they wanted to do,” he said. “They came to me, they explained what they wanted to do ― the generals ― who are very respected, my generals are the most respected that we’ve had in many decades, I believe. And they lost Ryan.

“I can understand people saying that. I’d feel ― ‘What’s worse?’ There’s nothing worse,” he added. “This was something that they were looking at for a long time doing, and according to [Defense Secretary Jim] Mattis it was a very successful mission. They got tremendous amounts of information.”

(02-28-2017 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-ryan-owens-seal-raid_us_58b58852e4b0780bac2d58c6?l4u6jemi

No Mr. Trump, you lost Ryan. Take responsibility for it as the Commander in Chief. Raids fail sometime and lives are lost, it's the unfortunate cost of doing military operations, but our Commander in Chief cannot, and should not, try to off load the burden of losing soldiers onto his subordinates.

Looks like the Trump Administration is one that is unwilling to take responsibility for its actions.

(02-28-2017 05:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So Trump has figured out this wave of bomb threats and vandalism against synagogues, JCCs, and Jewish cemeteries. It's the Jews doing it to make him look bad!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-suggests-jewish-community-spreading-anti-semitic-threats-article-1.2984866

FFS

(02-28-2017 05:14 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-ryan-owens-seal-raid_us_58b58852e4b0780bac2d58c6?l4u6jemi

No Mr. Trump, you lost Ryan. Take responsibility for it as the Commander in Chief. Raids fail sometime and lives are lost, it's the unfortunate cost of doing military operations, but our Commander in Chief cannot, and should not, try to off load the burden of losing soldiers onto his subordinates.

Looks like the Trump Administration is one that is unwilling to take responsibility for its actions.

Pretty unbelievable, even for Trump.

(02-28-2017 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-ryan-owens-seal-raid_us_58b58852e4b0780bac2d58c6?l4u6jemi
No Mr. Trump, you lost Ryan. Take responsibility for it as the Commander in Chief. Raids fail sometime and lives are lost, it's the unfortunate cost of doing military operations, but our Commander in Chief cannot, and should not, try to off load the burden of losing soldiers onto his subordinates.
Looks like the Trump Administration is one that is unwilling to take responsibility for its actions.

(03-01-2017 03:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-ryan-owens-seal-raid_us_58b58852e4b0780bac2d58c6?l4u6jemi
No Mr. Trump, you lost Ryan. Take responsibility for it as the Commander in Chief. Raids fail sometime and lives are lost, it's the unfortunate cost of doing military operations, but our Commander in Chief cannot, and should not, try to off load the burden of losing soldiers onto his subordinates.
Looks like the Trump Administration is one that is unwilling to take responsibility for its actions.

The people making such a huge issue out of this either have no understanding of how military operations work, or are totally disingenuous.

This is described as a botched operation. Why and how was it botched? Because one SEAL unfortunately lost his life? That's what happens in military operations. Some people get killed. Others get hurt. You pick operations where the intel says that the potential reward is worth the risk. The loss of one SEAL is incredibly tragic, but that doesn't mean that the operation was botched any more than the loss of a helicopter meant that the raid to kill Osama bin Laden was botched.

(03-01-2017 03:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree to an extent, but that wasn't the point of my post.
The point of my post was that the Commander in Chief was not taking responsibility for his decision to green light the operation.
I too agree that those trying to point to the death of a SEAL as a sign that the raid was botched must misunderstand that a casualty doesn't always equate to success/failure. However, as more information comes out about the raid (last I read, no useful intelligence was gathered from the raid) it sounds like it was botched in the sense that there was no net positive from the raid.
Again, that wasn't what I wanted to highlight - I wanted to highlight the rather dishonorable nature of the Commander in Chief's suggestions that the buck apparently stops with someone else.