CSNbbs
Trump Administration - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html)
+------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 01-03-2020 09:55 AM

Interesting. I thought the attack on the Iraqi embassy was based on mob being enraged about a youtube video.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 01-03-2020 09:59 AM

Seriously, did anyone notice that the strike that killed the general was on Iraqi soil, and also killed the deputy commander of an Iran-backed militia in Iraq? Does anyone really think that Soleimani and al-Musahni were simply sharing yoga schedules, talking about grandkids, and eating crumpets when they were together?


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-03-2020 10:11 AM

(01-03-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Seriously, did anyone notice that the strike that killed the general was on Iraqi soil, and also killed the deputy commander of an Iran-backed militia in Iraq? Does anyone really think that Soleimani and al-Musahni were simply sharing yoga schedules, talking about grandkids, and eating crumpets when they were together?

I don't think anyone thinks that - have you seen otherwise? The news I've listened to/read indicates the strike was predicated on an imminent threat posed by Soleimani to US citizens in the region. From what I have heard, the imminent nature of the threat allows POTUS to act unilaterally.

I've been seeing Soleimani compared to one of the Joint Chiefs or the VP, which is why the strike is so consequential. Iran will almost certainly respond in some manner.


RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 01-03-2020 10:44 AM

It's cool everyone, we'll be greeted as liberators.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-03-2020 10:46 AM

(01-03-2020 10:44 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  It's cool everyone, we'll be greeted as liberators.

[Image: giphy.gif]


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-03-2020 10:53 AM

(01-03-2020 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 10:44 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  It's cool everyone, we'll be greeted as liberators.

[Image: giphy.gif]

So much hate...


RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 01-03-2020 10:57 AM

Where?


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-03-2020 11:01 AM

(01-03-2020 10:57 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Where?

Wherever you are, look to your left.


RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 01-03-2020 11:05 AM

I always had a suspicion that my water bottle was harboring bigoted thoughts.


RE: Trump Administration - Hambone10 - 01-03-2020 11:06 AM

Sorry... my 'quote' feature again not working....

responding to Mr Big here
Quote:7 Republicans in the House Ofer to pass the DACA fix and it is widely believed that at least 51, and likely 60, Senators would vote in favor. But because McConnell says Trump will veto it, he refuses to even bring it to the floor. And personally, I think that would be a political win for Trump that the Dems are willing to give him.

.....
There are plenty of others.

These are all examples of legislation. We're talking about corruption charges. Not remotely the same thing, other than as a political as opposed to a legal tool. You're essentially admitting here what I've been saying. If Trump has committed a crime, I want him to be held accountable for it. That's not a political position. Whether or not or more importantly, how to fix DACA is a political position.


Responding to Lad here

Quote:I disagree with that analysis, because that analysis relies on Senators caring about what "the middle" thinks. I don't believe either party is motivated by what "the middle" thinks, and they are operating primarily based on what their supporters think. And in that case, Dems overwhelmingly support impeachment, and Reps overwhelmingly don't.

Furthermore, we should be looking at support for impeachment at this stage, not removal from office. Independents (those we can use as a proxy for "the middle") are pretty split about whether or not Trump should have been impeached. Most polling shows them around 50% for (with polls a few pts on either side). Just look at 538, regarding impeachment: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

So I think Pelosi is holding on to articles until the Senate explains how their hearings will occur, to try and get as favorable of an outcome as possible, so that moderate Republicans have a chance to influence the procedures. I think that because, even if Independents favored impeachment 70-30, there are enough Republicans in safe seats that Pelosi would still be worried about getting, what she views, as a fair trial.

You say you disagree and then you demonstrate my point precisely.

By Favorable, you mean one that agrees with her position.... You DON'T mean 'just'. If she felt she could get a conviction, she would move forward, but she doesn't so she isn't. She's known all along that Republicans held the Senate... this isn't 'new' news.

There are perhaps enough safe seats to keep him from being removed from office, but as you note... if 59 Democrats and moderate or vulnerable Republicans supported his removal and 41 'safe' Republicans didn't... ignoring of course those evangelicals who would be happy to have Pence sworn in... THAT would still be a MASSIVE victory for the left and he would be a lame duck. You know this.

I think it clear that because as you note, independents are split on impeachment... that there is no Political pressure on moderate senators to convict...

You ignore that you have an even split on impeachment because you haven't made a strong enough case for it. If you'd made a strong case, independents wouldn't be evenly split, and moderates wouldn't be safe in their upcoming re-election hiding behind the party.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-03-2020 11:10 AM

(01-03-2020 10:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 10:44 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  It's cool everyone, we'll be greeted as liberators.

[Image: giphy.gif]

So much hate...

Lol, seriously?

I thought the GIF was a fitting complement to the initial comment. Sorry for chuckling at political gaffes.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-03-2020 11:16 AM

(01-03-2020 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sorry... my 'quote' feature again not working....

responding to Mr Big here
Quote:7 Republicans in the House Ofer to pass the DACA fix and it is widely believed that at least 51, and likely 60, Senators would vote in favor. But because McConnell says Trump will veto it, he refuses to even bring it to the floor. And personally, I think that would be a political win for Trump that the Dems are willing to give him.

.....
There are plenty of others.

These are all examples of legislation. We're talking about corruption charges. Not remotely the same thing, other than as a political as opposed to a legal tool. You're essentially admitting here what I've been saying. If Trump has committed a crime, I want him to be held accountable for it. That's not a political position. Whether or not or more importantly, how to fix DACA is a political position.


Responding to Lad here

Quote:I disagree with that analysis, because that analysis relies on Senators caring about what "the middle" thinks. I don't believe either party is motivated by what "the middle" thinks, and they are operating primarily based on what their supporters think. And in that case, Dems overwhelmingly support impeachment, and Reps overwhelmingly don't.

Furthermore, we should be looking at support for impeachment at this stage, not removal from office. Independents (those we can use as a proxy for "the middle") are pretty split about whether or not Trump should have been impeached. Most polling shows them around 50% for (with polls a few pts on either side). Just look at 538, regarding impeachment: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

So I think Pelosi is holding on to articles until the Senate explains how their hearings will occur, to try and get as favorable of an outcome as possible, so that moderate Republicans have a chance to influence the procedures. I think that because, even if Independents favored impeachment 70-30, there are enough Republicans in safe seats that Pelosi would still be worried about getting, what she views, as a fair trial.

You say you disagree and then you demonstrate my point precisely.

By Favorable, you mean one that agrees with her position.... You DON'T mean 'just'. If she felt she could get a conviction, she would move forward, but she doesn't so she isn't. She's known all along that Republicans held the Senate... this isn't 'new' news.

There are perhaps enough safe seats to keep him from being removed from office, but as you note... if 59 Democrats and moderate or vulnerable Republicans supported his removal and 41 'safe' Republicans didn't... ignoring of course those evangelicals who would be happy to have Pence sworn in... THAT would still be a MASSIVE victory for the left and he would be a lame duck. You know this.

I think it clear that because as you note, independents are split on impeachment... that there is no Political pressure on moderate senators to convict...

You ignore that you have an even split on impeachment because you haven't made a strong enough case for it. If you'd made a strong case, independents wouldn't be evenly split, and moderates wouldn't be safe in their upcoming re-election hiding behind the party.

I think your overall theory doesn't line up with history. Clinton very clearly should have been impeached (IMO) because there was no question he lied under oath. However, public opinion generally remained against impeached (staying at around 60% against impeachment).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-disapproved-of-clintons-behavior-but-not-enough-to-impeach-him/

So the point is that a strong case for impeachment doesn't necessarily translate to overwhelming public support of impeachment.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 01-03-2020 11:16 AM

(01-03-2020 01:24 AM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - feel free to provide your examples of Reid refusing to put legislation that passed the House with some support from both parties on the senate floor. I am genuinely curious what you come up with, but unwilling to do the legwork for you.

This was sorta where I was going back in late 2010, after republicans retook the house, when I said that the first two things I would have the house do, if I were Boehner, would be to pass Bismarck health care to replace Obamacare, and to pass Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or some combination of the best practices of both (including the D-R consumption tax), and force Reid and Obama to deal with them. Bismarck is so far superior to Obamacare, and easily demonstrably so, that it would have been hard for democrats not to vote against Obama's star achievement in good conscience. And showing that they sere serious about reducing the budget deficit (which obviously now nobody is) would have seized the high ground on that issue. I think Reid would have had to block votes on both, which would have them set up the 2012 election.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-03-2020 11:41 AM

(01-03-2020 02:21 AM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - we were having a discussion on passing (or refusing to even bring up for a vote) legislation. What does this article on voting on Presidential appointments have to do with legislation?

Also, to answer your question, and as described in the article you cited, Reid felt compelled to do it because of heightened levels of obstructionism by the Senate minority (aka McConnell).

Also also, from reading the article you cited, I can’t tell whether the journalist author is a Republican or Democrat. Can you help me with that?

Also also also, my comment about you not being able to change my mind was a comment about journalists and had nothing to do with who in Washington was primarily responsible for obstructionism at a specific point in time. So I am open to changing my mind on this topic. Let the evidence and citations flow forth! Just don’t cite any of them pesky Republican or Democratic journalists you do abhor!



You made this statement:

"But McConnell made it a goal to give Obama as few "wins" as possible,", as though it was something new. I think it was business as usual, but you make the claim based on Democrats being nice and Republicans mean. Truth is, Mac has done only one thing that is "unprecedented" - holding up a SCOTUS nomination until after an election.

I just get so tired of the belief, common among lefties, that their side has been noble and good, the other is, well, deplorables. Doesn't matter if their flag is blue or red, they are are all politicians.

In 2024, if the Senate is controlled by Dems, and President Trump nominates somebody to fill a SCOTUS seat, I would fully expect the majority leader to hold up that appointment until after the election. The Dems are not so morally perfect as to NOT advance their party's interests, or to adavance the other party's interests (giving them "wins") and precedent has been set. Reid set a precedent, and Mac is using it. No different.

I abhor any journalist who slants his reporting without giving notice. By comparing Fox reporting with CNN, I am able to discern examples of biased reporting. Fox has several people they bring in to balance the panels, people like Marie Harf and Juan Williams, people who will present the other side. CNN is more often like an antiTrump pep rally. I want discussions that are not just a bunch of people effectively nodding and saying "What he said". I suggest you try to compare.

Fifty years ago, I was a liberal. As I moved into the real world, I slowly figured out that I did not like some of the things the left advocated. As I slowly built up my businesses, I became less enamored of taxing the rich, and I came to realize there was nothing inherently evil about success. I finished crossing over to the right during the Carter Administration. Never seen a reason to cross back.

That doesn't mean I support everything on the right. I supported gay marriage. I oppose the death penalty. I support sensible taxation. I think people of all races, religions, genders,etc should be treated the same. While I do think abortion is the killing of a human being, it is a lawful killing. I do not support the outlawing of abortion - I grew up in those times and do not want to return to them. But I think most of the arguments the left uses are specious - don't we have other other laws telling people what they can do with their bodies?

I have, over the years, developed a hierarchy of issues I find compelling. Number one is a sensible and fair tax system. Not happening so far, but one side wants to make it less sensible and less fair, the other just the opposite. I don't support Republicans because I think they are wonderful - I support them because the Democrats are worse. I vote for the lesser evil.

So if you thiink Mac is especially evil, you have the right to say so. And I have the right to ridicule the idea.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 01-03-2020 12:40 PM

(01-03-2020 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Seriously, did anyone notice that the strike that killed the general was on Iraqi soil, and also killed the deputy commander of an Iran-backed militia in Iraq? Does anyone really think that Soleimani and al-Musahni were simply sharing yoga schedules, talking about grandkids, and eating crumpets when they were together?

I don't think anyone thinks that - have you seen otherwise? The news I've listened to/read indicates the strike was predicated on an imminent threat posed by Soleimani to US citizens in the region. From what I have heard, the imminent nature of the threat allows POTUS to act unilaterally.

I've been seeing Soleimani compared to one of the Joint Chiefs or the VP, which is why the strike is so consequential. Iran will almost certainly respond in some manner.

I guess having your Joints Chief or the VP on the ground in a hostile country actively planning hostile activity isnt such a great idea.

And yes, Iran probably will serve up an action in some manner. That seemingly has been the status quo for the last 12-15 years. Certainly was the action in the attack on the US Embassy.

Tell me something that is new. That is, aside from the fact that their Joint Chief or the VP who was on the ground in hostile territory *wont* be doing that anymore.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 01-03-2020 12:41 PM

(01-03-2020 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 10:57 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Where?

Wherever you are, look to your left.

To Fountains I would just leave off the 'look to your left' modifier.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 01-03-2020 12:47 PM

(01-03-2020 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Seriously, did anyone notice that the strike that killed the general was on Iraqi soil, and also killed the deputy commander of an Iran-backed militia in Iraq? Does anyone really think that Soleimani and al-Musahni were simply sharing yoga schedules, talking about grandkids, and eating crumpets when they were together?

I don't think anyone thinks that - have you seen otherwise? The news I've listened to/read indicates the strike was predicated on an imminent threat posed by Soleimani to US citizens in the region. From what I have heard, the imminent nature of the threat allows POTUS to act unilaterally.

I've been seeing Soleimani compared to one of the Joint Chiefs or the VP, which is why the strike is so consequential. Iran will almost certainly respond in some manner.

I guess having your Joints Chief or the VP on the ground in a hostile country actively planning hostile activity isnt such a great idea.

And yes, Iran probably will serve up an action in some manner. That seemingly has been the status quo for the last 12-15 years. Certainly was the action in the attack on the US Embassy.

Tell me something that is new. That is, aside from the fact that their Joint Chief or the VP who was on the ground in hostile territory *wont* be doing that anymore.

To me, the new thing is that we publicly killed a member of the Iranian government.

Are you arguing that this is not an important or notable action taken by the Trump administration?


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-03-2020 12:51 PM

(01-03-2020 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Seriously, did anyone notice that the strike that killed the general was on Iraqi soil, and also killed the deputy commander of an Iran-backed militia in Iraq? Does anyone really think that Soleimani and al-Musahni were simply sharing yoga schedules, talking about grandkids, and eating crumpets when they were together?

I don't think anyone thinks that - have you seen otherwise? The news I've listened to/read indicates the strike was predicated on an imminent threat posed by Soleimani to US citizens in the region. From what I have heard, the imminent nature of the threat allows POTUS to act unilaterally.

I've been seeing Soleimani compared to one of the Joint Chiefs or the VP, which is why the strike is so consequential. Iran will almost certainly respond in some manner.

I guess having your Joints Chief or the VP on the ground in a hostile country actively planning hostile activity isnt such a great idea.

And yes, Iran probably will serve up an action in some manner. That seemingly has been the status quo for the last 12-15 years. Certainly was the action in the attack on the US Embassy.

Tell me something that is new. That is, aside from the fact that their Joint Chief or the VP who was on the ground in hostile territory *wont* be doing that anymore.

To me, the new thing is that we publicly killed a member of the Iranian government.

Are you arguing that this is not an important or notable action taken by the Trump administration?

I think it is an important and notable action. and a good one.

But I guess Obama would have looked the other way(crimea, Iran uprising) or sent some money to them(Iran agreement). IMO, not a good action.

You don't get rid of bullies by giving them your lunch money.


RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 01-03-2020 12:55 PM

(01-03-2020 12:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You don't get rid of bullies by giving them your lunch money.

This works actually.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 01-03-2020 01:01 PM

(01-03-2020 12:55 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(01-03-2020 12:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You don't get rid of bullies by giving them your lunch money.

This works actually.

yes, just like paying off blackmailers. they never comeback for more.