Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

seems to be the trend in US politics - the two houses usually flop over to whatever party doesn't control the White House.  Case in point during the Obama years, the Dems ending up losing both houses to the Repubs.

16 hours ago, bustamente said:

Roy Moore comes out and concede's graciously ..........jk says the election is not over yet and walks off the stage.

He should be used to coming in a little behind, though.

3 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

This is mature? 

If something sensible occasionally shows up on Trump's twitter, we can be assured, he did not write, type, or approve it.

Probably fired the person that sent it out.

There is serious take down of Trump on USA today online.....editorial.

Really sums it all up.

example

Quote

A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand a whor*  is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush.

 

Edited December 13, 20178 yr by Mark F

3 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

seems to be the trend in US politics - the two houses usually flop over to whatever party doesn't control the White House.  Case in point during the Obama years, the Dems ending up losing both houses to the Repubs.

It gets even weirder ...  the Alabama special election parallels the 2010 Massachusetts special election almost exactly.  Early in a new, controversial president's term, a safe senate seat flips in a massive upset because the favored candidate had some flaws.

But yeah, conventional wisdom is that the presidential party loses seats in Congress during the midterms, and I think that will get even more pronounced in the near future.  Midterms turn on motivated voters -- the Tea Party had been stoked white-hot in 2010,  just like the anti-Trump resistance is now.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/37062873/kentucky-state-rep-dan-johnson-commits-suicide-on-bridge-in-mt-washington

Could be in RIP/Random Thread too. Trifecta!

Thought this thread could use a laugh more than the random video one. 

 

Republicans got their big tax bill through.

As a salaried wake earner, it doesn't do a lot for me. My taxes will go down a bit temporarily and then pop back up in 2027ish.  I'll be able to buy a new cymbal or two with my savings.

As an (small-time retirement savings) investor, I suspect I'll see some benefit.  The stock market will love this.

The GOP wants to do Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security cuts next, given that they've now kneecapped US federal revenues for the next ten years.  They also want to somehow spend more money on the military, which is, by all accounts, completely fubarred by previous (bipartisan) budget cuts.

I'd rather have the social services and working aircraft carriers than the tax cut. And yes, I know I can voluntarily send the govt more tax money, but voluntary tax remittance is kind of an unsteady revenue stream that you can't really plan programs around.

The plan is polling very badly and appears to be viewed ad a giveaway to the investor class ... will be interesting to see how much class war stuff we see from the Dems next year.

 

Also, Jesus ******* Christ the North Korean situation is scary. China appears to be gunning up for a war -- if the USA + ROK go it alone against DPRK, suddenly this could be a hot superpower war.

14 hours ago, johnzo said:

Also, Jesus ******* Christ the North Korean situation is scary. China appears to be gunning up for a war -- if the USA + ROK go it alone against DPRK, suddenly this could be a hot superpower war.

China will not go to war against USA.

16 hours ago, johnzo said:

Republicans got their big tax bill through.

As a salaried wake earner, it doesn't do a lot for me. My taxes will go down a bit temporarily and then pop back up in 2027ish.  I'll be able to buy a new cymbal or two with my savings.

As an (small-time retirement savings) investor, I suspect I'll see some benefit.  The stock market will love this.

The GOP wants to do Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security cuts next, given that they've now kneecapped US federal revenues for the next ten years.  They also want to somehow spend more money on the military, which is, by all accounts, completely fubarred by previous (bipartisan) budget cuts.

I'd rather have the social services and working aircraft carriers than the tax cut. And yes, I know I can voluntarily send the govt more tax money, but voluntary tax remittance is kind of an unsteady revenue stream that you can't really plan programs around.

The plan is polling very badly and appears to be viewed ad a giveaway to the investor class ... will be interesting to see how much class war stuff we see from the Dems next year.

 

I find the following to be both troubling and disturbing in regard to fiscal responsibility.  I guess when the debt reaches 100% of GDP the U.S. will simply make the debt "disappear".

"While the individual tax cuts are due to end in eight years, the corporate tax cuts will be permanent.

"Advocates say don't worry because Congress will extend all those individual tax cuts," Burman said, but that's an argument he has trouble buying, considering the $1.5 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years is expected to accelerate the growth of the debt from 77 per cent of gross domestic product today to about 91 per cent of GDP.

"It's a weird argument. If we couldn't afford to extend them now with debt at 77 per cent of GDP, how will we afford to extend them in 2025?"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/republican-tax-bill-donald-trump-winners-losers-1.4459219

3 hours ago, Atomic said:

China will not go to war against USA.

From your mouth to God's ears, man.  And I suspect you're right, but I keep thinking of what Churchill said:

Quote

The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

DPRK are lunatics and Trump .... well, Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who can de-escalate a conflict. The US military is moving into a first-strike posture, and DPRK is jumpy -- if either of them pulls the trigger,  then no one knows where it stops.

Sometimes it seems like Trump and Tillerson are working from the Nixon / Kissinger Giant Lance playbook -- a mad dog president at home and a milder functionary who goes abroad and says  "hey, enemy nation, you have to behave because the president is off the chain and who knows what he'll do if he's provoked?"  And that worked against the Soviets because the Soviets were rational actors who weren't getting high on their own supply and also because the world was insanely lucky.  But against Kim?

(more about Giant Lance: https://www.wired.com/2008/02/ff-nuclearwar/)

Edited December 21, 20178 yr by johnzo

1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

I find the following to be both troubling and disturbing in regard to fiscal responsibility.  I guess when the debt reaches 100% of GDP the U.S. will simply make the debt "disappear".

"While the individual tax cuts are due to end in eight years, the corporate tax cuts will be permanent.

"Advocates say don't worry because Congress will extend all those individual tax cuts," Burman said, but that's an argument he has trouble buying, considering the $1.5 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years is expected to accelerate the growth of the debt from 77 per cent of gross domestic product today to about 91 per cent of GDP.

"It's a weird argument. If we couldn't afford to extend them now with debt at 77 per cent of GDP, how will we afford to extend them in 2025?"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/republican-tax-bill-donald-trump-winners-losers-1.4459219

Yeah, all that carping about Obama exploding the debt seems a little hollow now.

Though, to be fair, neither party is super interested in fiscal responsibility.  The Republicans are okay with deficit spending due to tax cuts or military spending.  The Democrats are okay with deficit spending on social programs.

13 minutes ago, johnzo said:

From your mouth to God's ears, man.  And I suspect you're right, but I keep thinking of what Churchill said:

DPRK are lunatics and Trump .... well, Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who can de-escalate a conflict. The US military is moving into a first-strike posture, and DPRK is jumpy -- if either of them pulls the trigger,  then no one knows where it stops.

Sometimes it seems like Trump and Tillerson are working from the Nixon / Kissinger playbook -- a mad dog president at home and a milder functionary who goes abroad and says  "hey, enemy nation, you have to behave because the president is off the chain and who knows what he'll do if he's provoked?"  And that worked against the Soviets because the Soviets were rational actors who weren't getting high on their own supply and also because we were lucky.  But against Kim?

No doubt DPRK and Trump are both lunatics who would go to war with each other.

But if it came down to it... really came down to it... I don't think China really has DPRK's back.  The value of USA as a trade partner is too massive.  The economies of USA and China are heavily intertwined.  Allying with DPRK gives China a geographical asset but that's about it.  It just wouldn't be worth it.

47 minutes ago, Atomic said:

No doubt DPRK and Trump are both lunatics who would go to war with each other.

But if it came down to it... really came down to it... I don't think China really has DPRK's back.  The value of USA as a trade partner is too massive.  The economies of USA and China are heavily intertwined.  Allying with DPRK gives China a geographical asset but that's about it.  It just wouldn't be worth it.

China enjoys the buffer that North Korea provides. China does not want US troops at it's border and will defend that position.

The only single state, negotiated outcome, solution will ban the US from having troops on the Korean Peninsula or you can expect and military response from China.

1 hour ago, johnzo said:

Yeah, all that carping about Obama exploding the debt seems a little hollow now.

Though, to be fair, neither party is super interested in fiscal responsibility.  The Republicans are okay with deficit spending due to tax cuts or military spending.  The Democrats are okay with deficit spending on social programs.

Meh- it's about starving the beast- you shut off income to drive up debt, then cry cuts cuts to be fiscally responsible and then make cuts to "entitlements".  Social security  will be in the cross hairs - "We can't Afford tho continue down this road of DEBT!"  **** regressives.

 

 

37 minutes ago, JCon said:

China enjoys the buffer that North Korea provides. China does not want US troops at it's border and will defend that position.

The only single state, negotiated outcome, solution will ban the US from having troops on the Korean Peninsula or you can expect and military response from China.

Are we talking about troops here?  Because the only way I see war happening with DPRK is if they launch something at the US... in which case the result isn't an American invasion of North Korea.  It's a carpet-bomb annihilation.  I don't see any scenario where USA occupies North Korea.

27 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Are we talking about troops here?  Because the only way I see war happening with DPRK is if they launch something at the US... in which case the result isn't an American invasion of North Korea.  It's a carpet-bomb annihilation.  I don't see any scenario where USA occupies North Korea.

I'm thinking about two steps down the road.

If the North Korean regime is overthrown, it becomes more likely that there is a one-Korea outcome. That would only work for China, if the US was not allowed to maintain a military presence on the peninsula.

20 minutes ago, JCon said:

I'm thinking about two steps down the road.

If the North Korean regime is overthrown, it becomes more likely that there is a one-Korea outcome. That would only work for China, if the US was not allowed to maintain a military presence on the peninsula.

Actually, I think it gets used as a carrot/stick to ensure good trade and relations with Taiwan/South China Sea nations.

NYT year end opinion article

Quote

f this is America, where the Great Leader wants you to believe that 2+2=5, and would usher you down his rabbit hole, and struggles to find in himself unequivocal condemnation of neo-Nazis, and you recall perhaps the words of Hannah Arendt, “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e. the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e. the standards of thought) no longer exist” — if all this you have lived and felt and thought across this beautiful and spacious land, then you must be prepared to “watch the things you gave your life to, broken, and stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/opinion/america-trump-united-nations.html?action=click&contentCollection=N.Y. %2F Region&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Edited December 23, 20178 yr by Mark F

On 23/12/2017 at 6:44 AM, Mark F said:

NYT year end opinion article

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/opinion/america-trump-united-nations.html?action=click&contentCollection=N.Y. %2F Region&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Good article- thanks for sharing

 

Trump man Roy Moore tried to overturn election.... basis of his appeal
 

Quote

 

Merrill said that his office has investigated each claim of voter fraud submitted by the Moore campaign and found no evidence any fraud occurred.

In one complaint, it was alleged that five busloads of African-Americans had been brought in from Mississippi to vote in Mobile, and that three vanloads of Mexicans had been arrested and incarcerated for doing so. Both allegations were investigated and dismissed, Merrill said. Another claim said that more than 5,000 people had voted in Brodalama, a town with a population of 2,200.

“That would make some sense and cause a lot of consternation — except there is no town or community in Alabama called Bordalama,” Merrill explained. “So that was completely fabricated.”

 

And he says he is a devout Christian.  

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 20178 yr by Mark F

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

Another claim said that more than 5,000 people had voted in Brodalama, a town with a population of 2,200.

“That would make some sense and cause a lot of consternation — except there is no town or community in Alabama called Bordalama,” Merrill explained. “So that was completely fabricated.”

Wow

4 hours ago, Atomic said:

Wow

yeah.

One hallmarks of the Trump regime, is how spectacularly dumb their lies are.

 

Edited December 29, 20178 yr by Mark F

When you're too dumb to understand the difference between climate and weather - and you're also POTUS.