Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:27 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107444 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2413, 2414, 2415, 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419 ... 2687  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
La soule wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:

And these are our "allies".

Obama 2008 and most Democrats: "we will never again repeat the failure that was Iraq and regime change, Bush was only in this for oil"

A few years later, the French call on us to take action that would instigate a regime change in Libya because theirs and the EU's military was unwilling or incapable. Reason is the steady stream of emigrants coming through Italy that Italy were sending on to France, and French and Italian oil companies had investments in Libya that were threatened.

Remember a comment at the time from the World Affairs Board: "Obama is doing in Libya what he said would never do after Iraq, the French are in this for oil, why can't we all just be honest?" Because it would make too many people hypocrites and that destroys the narrative that people want to operate under. What infuriates me is I'm actually taking the anti-war stance here, we had no business involving ourselves in Libya, but an anti-war Democrat president carried out war on behalf of a country that argued against our warmongering and themselves did not do anything. If you want to use the search function you can search for "Libya" posts made by me that go back years here, I've been very consistent on this point.


High chance that Sarkozy had some other motivations for the war in Lybia than just oil.


Should've deployed the French military then. Asked for help from EU states. The U.S. military had no business being there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4936
Flyin Ryan wrote:
BokJock wrote:
I find it remarkable that the American voter sees Paul Ryan as anti-Trump.

It seems insane considering the spineless arse-licking and "I haven't read that tweet" nonsense that he spouted throughout his tenure as Trumps Speaker.

I would love to see examples of Ryan's anti-Trump proclamations once Trump was in office.


It wasn't the American voter that saw Paul Ryan as anti-Trump, it was Trump that saw Ryan as anti-Trump, and therefore Trump's base inside the Republican Party. President and Congress leadership despite being the same party and not seeing eye-to-eye is pretty common. Obama and Harry Reid were reportedly pretty frosty at the end of Reid's leadership.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9139
Flyin Ryan wrote:
La soule wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:

And these are our "allies".

Obama 2008 and most Democrats: "we will never again repeat the failure that was Iraq and regime change, Bush was only in this for oil"

A few years later, the French call on us to take action that would instigate a regime change in Libya because theirs and the EU's military was unwilling or incapable. Reason is the steady stream of emigrants coming through Italy that Italy were sending on to France, and French and Italian oil companies had investments in Libya that were threatened.

Remember a comment at the time from the World Affairs Board: "Obama is doing in Libya what he said would never do after Iraq, the French are in this for oil, why can't we all just be honest?" Because it would make too many people hypocrites and that destroys the narrative that people want to operate under. What infuriates me is I'm actually taking the anti-war stance here, we had no business involving ourselves in Libya, but an anti-war Democrat president carried out war on behalf of a country that argued against our warmongering and themselves did not do anything. If you want to use the search function you can search for "Libya" posts made by me that go back years here, I've been very consistent on this point.


High chance that Sarkozy had some other motivations for the war in Lybia than just oil.


Should've deployed the French military then. Asked for help from EU states.


I had not realised he forced the US into that war. Quite a man that Sarkozy, despite behing a draf.

And Most EU countries, Germany first, refused to join in.

And the french military was involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2603
Flyin Ryan wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
There are many Republicans who agree he is unfit for Presidency but they fear him and won't act because of that fear.


I don't think it's they fear him, they fear the primary electorate.


This is Trump's power in a nutshell. His persona appeals to one part of the electorate so much that his policies don't matter provided he stays in character. That forces everyone else in politics to stagger around in his footsteps, pretending they know what they're doing. It'd be the same on the left if Martin sheen playing Jed Bartlett was President,although of course he'd be under the control of the Soros / Clinton / Pizzagate Illuminati.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=83679&p=5332250&hilit=libya&sid=ebfcbd2eb76c0111ad744958b1289825#p5332250

January 31st, 2018:

eldanielfire wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Of all the things to complain about in the Libyan kerfuffle, the No-fly zone is a bit of an odd one to attack.
The Libyan aircraft were targeting civilians with utter impunity and was quite accurately described as a crime against humanity. Bitch about a lot of the stuff, but complaining about not letting the Libyan air force to deliberately bomb the shit out of civilians? :?


The issue is whatever the Libyan military were doing, allowing the warlords causing the war to win would only be worse.


That is a debatable point at best.

Civil war had already happened, regardless of if western countries got involved or not. The only reason westerners got involved was the Italians were seeing massive refugee inflows and the French were losing their energy supply (oil). No western involvement the best case is Libya splits into two by fact with Gaddafi in control of one side and the warlords in control of the other and you'd have a perennially stalemated conflict because neither would've been strong enough to overcome the other without foreign help (and it's probable in my eyes the warlords were receiving covert support from certain Middle Eastern states' agents). Arguing Gaddafi is an asshole but should remain in power because at least it's stable is the same American Cold War foreign policy a lot of people like to condemn, FYI.

There's also this grand rewriting of history taking place here with you and Bokkom, where somehow you think this was our idea. It wasn't. Obama got manipulated by Nicolas Sarkozy and other European leaders into doing it.

The last board wipe was January 2012, so outside of going to other boards we can't see what everyone said at the time (I can show what I said at the time from elsewhere, and if you wish to contend it I can provide links to posts showing I'm consistent) which is pretty different from how they portray things now. Going back through my posts:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17642&p=658842&hilit=libya+sarkozy#p658842

July 24th, 2012:

Flyin Ryan wrote:
Jake wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Jake wrote:
"Western and Central Europe still aren't strong enough today. The French and British had to call us to do their dirty work for them in Libya."

Just getting back our IOU chit from Eye-Rack.


Which is why we can't complain too much. But still, if you want to be a "superpower" as you state in your original post, you have to have the guts to back it up, especially on an incident in your backyard. Don't think people like the Russians didn't notice. When has the European Union ever demonstrated its guts collectively?


Amongst itself, plenty.....!!


"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Point of order, there was no IOU to clear up on Iraq with the French.

This is going to be completely ignored in the upcoming election, but it pisses me off that Obama allowed himself to get manipulated by Sarkozy.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20141&p=787776&hilit=libya+sarkozy#p787776

August 31st, 2012:

Flyin Ryan wrote:
DOB wrote:
On the president, I don't like everything Obama's done, but what he's been able to do without congressional approval (Libya, Iraq withdrawal, gay rights, administering TARP and the auto bailout) he's done effectively.


How can you be for Libya and hate Iraq? I've never understood how a person can be ideologically consistant agreeing with one and not the other and yet that is what exists for most people in this country. Both had brutal dictators that engaged in bad actions outside their border and killed their own. Both had opposition movements that we helped and armed that with the benefit of hindsight were probably not much better than the guy that was deposed. Both had oil in the ground. Both were Arabic. Both created a free-for-all in the immediate aftermath. And Obama to me was actually worse on Libya than Bush was on Iraq, because the French were in it for oil and for some reason we were helping them doing their dirty work for them (WHY? this is the same country that ridiculed us heavily 10 years prior for doing exactly what they were doing in Libya) and Bush got congressional approval to send troops to Iraq which Obama never did for Libya, plus Obama had the benefit of seeing the experience play out of his predecessor in Iraq...AND LEARNED NOTHING FROM IT! He allowed himself to get bullied into it by Sarkozy of all people. We didn't even have a damn dog in the fight, the French and Italians did because they get a lot of their energy supplies from the country, the U.S. though did not, we have no strategic interest in Libya, still don't. And don't give me bullshit about human rights, if human rights was the main consideration for sending troops to a country the democracies of the UN would have their militaries in about 50 countries around the world right now.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36382&p=1871153&hilit=libya+sarkozy#p1871153

September 11th, 2013:

Flyin Ryan wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
merry! wrote:
Donger wrote:
"though i reckon he'd be wrong to bomb without firmer evidence, it looks like obama is a pussy who lost his bottle when britannia wasn't there to hold his hand.

now he looks to congress for approval...

the sap. :nod:"

so, the first President since WWII to abide by the Constitution is now a sap. :roll:


He demonstrated he was Sarkozy's sap with Libya.


"Leading from behind." It's a famous foreign policy doctrine as espoused by umm, er, not sure really. Think it's just some made up shit myself. But there you go.


That episode so outraged me.

You want to say Bush is an idiot for Iraq? Fine, you can make that case. I'm not going to dispute that.

But then the Democratic Party as a whole runs against that, says they're not Bush, they're wiser, and Obama when presented with the same situation does not learn from the mistakes of his predecessor...and does the same f**king thing.

And it wasn't even for our own interests! It was to protect France's oil! Why the fudge was Barack Obama cowtowing to Nicolas Sarkozy? Since when was Sarkozy powerful enough to influence the policy of the American president?

And dear God, Europeans say we're warmongering, and then they have a conflict on their southern border, they run to us to solve it instead of taking care of it themselves like any sovereign country or group of countries worth a rat's ass is supposed to! That's why Russian officials off the record say they have no respect for Europe. And the Chinese and Russians off the record thought the same of Obama once he was in office a couple years.

Syria in the geopolitical context is little different from Libya: a longstanding ruler, not well loved by western countries to begin with, is suddenly thrust into a civil war from ill-defined groups that want to overthrows him. The difference is Assad's political backers have given him muscle to fight off these rebels, Gaddafi in contrast had few friends. So: stalemate and long drawn-out conflict. And western society is too much of pussies to do anything, be it stuff diplomatically with teeth, anything at the UN, anything on the ground, sanctions on states in the region that are helping either Assad or the rebels underneath the table. We instead have "UN reports" and "intelligence reports" that we're still bitching back forth on whether they're true or not while thousands of people die. Thank God none of these people were in charge in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

I'll quote something I said when Obama agreed to solve the French's problem for them, and it's a criticism of both him and Bush:

"Is it too much to ask for that I think my politicians should have at least heard of Machiavelli?"

This last generation from both parties going back to the '90s has no clue who he is (Clinton I think, though appearing simple-minded - he is from Arkansas - loved the political chess game and was intelligent on it outside of the open womanizing.), and these idiots run the place. Don't confuse this as anti-Republican or anti-Democrat, they're all wrong here. I'll defer to 1930s American satirist H.L. Mencken:

Quote:
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58924&p=3103780&hilit=libya+sarkozy#p3103780

February 1st, 2015, responding to eldanielfire:

Flyin Ryan wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
henry wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
henry wrote:
The chemical weapons red line was articulated in August 2012.

When did the CIA start pumping billions of dollars into rebel forces in Syria?


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world ... d=all&_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... bels-syria

Reported months before the red line quote.


So months, rather than years?


I never said the red line comment was years before the reports of funding and equiping rebels. I was saying it was years before the red line mark was supposed to have initiated the aborted military action. I only said the chemical weapon line was out of the blue after CIA involvement.

The fact is the CIA were involved in attemting cause the removal of Assad before any mention of chemical weapons and long before they were released. So no the usa of chemical weapons was the reason the US tried to overthrow Assad, as I said they were trying to do it before in a similar way to Libya.


so we've now reached the point where we're long enough away from Libya that people forget the U.S. wanted nothing to deal with it because it was a European problem, and we only got involved because Sarkozy coaxed Obama into it


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=67553&p=3732714&hilit=libya+sarkozy#p3732714

October 22nd, 2015:

Flyin Ryan wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
hollywood wrote:
Barack O'Dumba may be the worst president in the history of the USA. All those well-intentioned Democrats who hated Dubya have seen their boy double-down on Dubya's worst ideas.

After years of war and lost lives, not to mentioned billions of dollars, the Russians will step in and in a mere matter of months achieve way more thatn the Yanks and at a lower cost. With long-lasting material benefit as a reward.

President Trump will have his work cut out for him.


Obama's no Bush 41 where foreign policy is concerned but this statement is ridiculous. How many pointless, ruinously expensive wars with undefined victory conditions has Obama started, and how many of them have created vast swathes of new enemies for the US out of people who were previously neutral?

He ran on that platform, and then made the same mistake by agreeing to go into Libya when we had no strategic interest and it was the Europeans' responsibility to take care of it because it was in their strategic interest. But our European friends are incapable of doing anything on their own. They proved it when Yugoslavia disintegrated and mass genocide happened on their doorstep, they proved it in Afghanistan when the Germans ran ISAF in what was meant to be a coming out party for effective EU military leadership and that flopped, and they proved it by asking the Americans to do their dirty work for them in Libya. And Obama allowed himself to get manipulated by worthless sack of shit Sarkozy into doing it, that's what really pisses me off.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=74271&p=4345972&hilit=libya+sarkozy#p4345972

August 18th, 2016, responding to eldanielfire:

Flyin Ryan wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
The sad truth is, we just don't learn from history, or our leaders don't. The Syrian rebellion, right or wrong, should ahve allowed ot be crushed by Assad and ended there.


"Our leaders" did nothing in Syria for a very long time. I can go back and find articles written by Saudi government mouthpieces for weeks on end shouting at the West that they were not giving rebels wanting democracy anything if you'd like.

The reason Syria has become a stalemate is the Saudis and their GCC allies were pissed off Iran took control of Iraq and made a move on taking over Bahrain. They were getting encircled. So they backed rebels to overthrow Iran's ally in Syria to balance things because Iran had some degree of control of things from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut. (When I say "they backed rebels", you'll never find many if any official government documents saying this, but private well-connected skeikhs in a slew of GCC states).

Iran put its foot down, backed Assad from afar, brought in Hezbollah, and war's been going on since because neither Iran and its allies nor Saudi Arabia and its allies want to admit defeat. If the West never went in (and chemical weapons have been used and the West, UN did nothing), it would still be in war. And the West really isn't in, not to the degree the East (Russia and Turkey) is. ISIS, Northern Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen - this is all one conflict. There is no such thing as a Syrian Civil War, there's a Syrian Front in the War of the Arabian Peninsula, and whoever wins this war will rule the Middle East for the next few decades. And if Saudi Arabia loses that war Saudi Arabia as a country probably dissolves. I don't see how the country survives unless it's the local Middle Eastern power as it's been for some time.

I've long said Libya was bullshit because Barack Obama caved to Nicolas Sarkozy and was manipulated by him to do France's dirty work, because a stable Libya is heavily in France's and Italy's interest because that's their source of petroleum. Place goes batshit, it's bad for France and Italy. Obama ran on the premise "what Bush did in Iraq was wrong", and then went and did the exact same thing in a place we had no geopolitical interest in. Libya was a European responsibility, just as Yugoslavia was, where the Americans also had to come in to save the f**king day. At least Obama got to experience firsthand how f**king useless the Europeans are as allies.

By the time of Syria, he learned his lesson, no one had any desire to go in for a very long time, and because there's no strong power to impose their will until the Russians came in, it's led to a long protracted conflict with many dead on both sides and many many civilians as well, because neither side was strong enough to fully defeat the other. If a strong military force came in backing either side or backing neither and forcing peace, swept the floor in 3 months, the population of Syria 5 years later (now) would be in better shape, in peace, and there wouldn't be millions of refugees. The end of the Syrian Front is just in sight and that's because of the Russian military coming in and cleaning house solidifying Assad's power. But if Syria ends, that still doesn't resolve for example the conflict in Yemen, where Iranian-backed Houthis have moved into Saudi territory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8534
Flyin Ryan wrote:
piquant wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
piquant wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
In the 1916 election, the Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes ran against getting the U.S. involved in World War I, and said incumbent President Woodrow Wilson would get us involved if re-elected. Wilson ran and articulated, "no, Hughes is wrong, I am not getting us into a European theater".

Wilson narrowly won re-election, and then instantly got us involved in World War I.



Certainly the idea of checks and balances is far less observed in the area of foreign policy where your President gets an awful lot of free rein, but that should see a discussion about amending the constitution if that's the concern, it's not an argument which says because because other presidents have not been bound by election pledges that the current POTUS can pursue a course of bribery


The problem is the last good president we had at foreign policy was George H.W. Bush. That was 27 years ago. Every president since has ranked somewhere on the scale of moron to lightweight.


That's who you've voted in. Change your process for nominating candidates, change how you elect Presidents, and/or change the powers of the office of POTUS.


I'm one man. No one cares what I think. Change and reform requires too many people to be in support when the vast majority do not care.


Such is democracy. And some people do care, but very much want to keep the status quo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2603
La soule wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:

And these are our "allies".

Obama 2008 and most Democrats: "we will never again repeat the failure that was Iraq and regime change, Bush was only in this for oil"

A few years later, the French call on us to take action that would instigate a regime change in Libya because theirs and the EU's military was unwilling or incapable. Reason is the steady stream of emigrants coming through Italy that Italy were sending on to France, and French and Italian oil companies had investments in Libya that were threatened.

Remember a comment at the time from the World Affairs Board: "Obama is doing in Libya what he said would never do after Iraq, the French are in this for oil, why can't we all just be honest?" Because it would make too many people hypocrites and that destroys the narrative that people want to operate under. What infuriates me is I'm actually taking the anti-war stance here, we had no business involving ourselves in Libya, but an anti-war Democrat president carried out war on behalf of a country that argued against our warmongering and themselves did not do anything. If you want to use the search function you can search for "Libya" posts made by me that go back years here, I've been very consistent on this point.



High chance that Sarkozy had some other motivations for the war in Lybia than just oil.


Wasn't he trying to destroy the evidence?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9139
6.Jones wrote:
La soule wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:

And these are our "allies".

Obama 2008 and most Democrats: "we will never again repeat the failure that was Iraq and regime change, Bush was only in this for oil"

A few years later, the French call on us to take action that would instigate a regime change in Libya because theirs and the EU's military was unwilling or incapable. Reason is the steady stream of emigrants coming through Italy that Italy were sending on to France, and French and Italian oil companies had investments in Libya that were threatened.

Remember a comment at the time from the World Affairs Board: "Obama is doing in Libya what he said would never do after Iraq, the French are in this for oil, why can't we all just be honest?" Because it would make too many people hypocrites and that destroys the narrative that people want to operate under. What infuriates me is I'm actually taking the anti-war stance here, we had no business involving ourselves in Libya, but an anti-war Democrat president carried out war on behalf of a country that argued against our warmongering and themselves did not do anything. If you want to use the search function you can search for "Libya" posts made by me that go back years here, I've been very consistent on this point.



High chance that Sarkozy had some other motivations for the war in Lybia than just oil.


Wasn't he trying to destroy the evidence?


Indeed. Made up all sort of stories about atrocities and impending doom to justify the removal MK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9575
6.Jones wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
There are many Republicans who agree he is unfit for Presidency but they fear him and won't act because of that fear.


I don't think it's they fear him, they fear the primary electorate.


This is Trump's power in a nutshell. His persona appeals to one part of the electorate so much that his policies don't matter provided he stays in character. That forces everyone else in politics to stagger around in his footsteps, pretending they know what they're doing. It'd be the same on the left if Martin sheen playing Jed Bartlett was President,although of course he'd be under the control of the Soros / Clinton / Pizzagate Illuminati.


Trump is trying to fundamentally the reorient the US, particularly in its relationship with the rest of the world. That's a policy point not a personality one. His personality is just a bonus.

Edit: in fact his personality is what allows him the balls to make that move. And others.

But if everyone's point is simply that he's a prick of a human being, well, yes. Yes he is. That battle is won.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4936
"political correctness" is on my banned list


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4936
Start of day two...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9575
The viewing figures are interesting. 13.1m watched. That's 32% fewer than watched Comey. This is getting less and less attention as it goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9575
By the way, you guys who are getting caught up in the technicalities of whether it is or isn't bribery are missing the point, which is that nobody gives a shit. This is trivial, grey area shit. There are far more important things to worry about.


Last edited by Santa on Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2603
Seneca of the Night wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
There are many Republicans who agree he is unfit for Presidency but they fear him and won't act because of that fear.


I don't think it's they fear him, they fear the primary electorate.


This is Trump's power in a nutshell. His persona appeals to one part of the electorate so much that his policies don't matter provided he stays in character. That forces everyone else in politics to stagger around in his footsteps, pretending they know what they're doing. It'd be the same on the left if Martin sheen playing Jed Bartlett was President,although of course he'd be under the control of the Soros / Clinton / Pizzagate Illuminati.


Wrong wrong wrong. He won on policy. Policy policy policy. China, trade, immigration, Mexico, wars in the middle east, political correctness, censorship and he is in fact a bit of a prisoner to those policies. If he doesn't deliver on those his vital voters in the half dozen swing states will desert him. Take a look at what Ann Coulter has been up to - she has excoriated him. If he loses the next election it will be on those policies.

If he delivers it doesn't really matter how bigger cnt he is. Bigger the better I guess. He is the Beowulf President. Takes a monster to slay the globohomeaux monster. EDIT: BUT, if he doesn't deliver then he's just a new york city blowhard cnt, and that base will drop him quicker than a ton of shit.


Yeah, nah. I guess you're right in that he made up policies to deliver as lines at rallies, and he is now a captive to them, in the sense that he'd a captive of that audience. But he could reverse those policies, as long as he doesn't admit it.


Last edited by 6.Jones on Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11033
Seneca of the Night wrote:
He won on policy. Policy policy policy. China, trade, immigration, Mexico, wars in the middle east, political correctness, censorship and he is in fact a bit of a prisoner to those policies. If he doesn't deliver on those his vital voters in the half dozen swing states will desert him. Take a look at what Ann Coulter has been up to - she has excoriated him. If he loses the next election it will be on those policies.


In the Rust Belt it’s especially those two. This is why there’s more Bernie-Trump crossover support and less Biden-Trump overlap than some people think. Trump would hammer Biden on his NAFTA and TPP support and stuff like this in a general matchup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/sanders ... imary.html

Biden’s policies are actually pretty shit for US manufacturing and that will become clear the more focus they get.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9575
Bowens wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
He won on policy. Policy policy policy. China, trade, immigration, Mexico, wars in the middle east, political correctness, censorship and he is in fact a bit of a prisoner to those policies. If he doesn't deliver on those his vital voters in the half dozen swing states will desert him. Take a look at what Ann Coulter has been up to - she has excoriated him. If he loses the next election it will be on those policies.


In the Rust Belt it’s especially those two. This is why there’s more Bernie-Trump crossover support and less Biden-Trump overlap than some people think. Trump would hammer Biden on his NAFTA and TPP support and stuff like this in a general matchup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/sanders ... imary.html

Biden’s policies are actually pretty shit for US manufacturing and that will become clear the more focus they get.


Bowens, good post as usual. What's your view of this impeachment bizzo? You probably have a better view than most of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
He won on policy. Policy policy policy. China, trade, immigration, Mexico, wars in the middle east, political correctness, censorship and he is in fact a bit of a prisoner to those policies. If he doesn't deliver on those his vital voters in the half dozen swing states will desert him. Take a look at what Ann Coulter has been up to - she has excoriated him. If he loses the next election it will be on those policies.


In the Rust Belt it’s especially those two. This is why there’s more Bernie-Trump crossover support and less Biden-Trump overlap than some people think. Trump would hammer Biden on his NAFTA and TPP support and stuff like this in a general matchup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/sanders ... imary.html

Biden’s policies are actually pretty shit for US manufacturing and that will become clear the more focus they get.


Democrats' policies have been pretty shit for U.S. manufacturing for 25 years. And yet unions give them all their money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11033
Santa wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
He won on policy. Policy policy policy. China, trade, immigration, Mexico, wars in the middle east, political correctness, censorship and he is in fact a bit of a prisoner to those policies. If he doesn't deliver on those his vital voters in the half dozen swing states will desert him. Take a look at what Ann Coulter has been up to - she has excoriated him. If he loses the next election it will be on those policies.


In the Rust Belt it’s especially those two. This is why there’s more Bernie-Trump crossover support and less Biden-Trump overlap than some people think. Trump would hammer Biden on his NAFTA and TPP support and stuff like this in a general matchup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/sanders ... imary.html

Biden’s policies are actually pretty shit for US manufacturing and that will become clear the more focus they get.


Bowens, good post as usual. What's your view of this impeachment bizzo? You probably have a better view than most of us.


Someone in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party obviously thinks it’s a winning issue since we know it’s symbolic and he isn’t actually going to be removed from office. I don’t. They should be focusing on stuff like this if they want to win.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/ ... enerations


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4936
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Santa wrote:
The viewing figures are interesting. 13.1m watched. That's 32% fewer than watched Comey. This is getting less and less attention as it goes on.


Mueller: GoT
Kav: Making a Rapist
Shiff: Dumb Detective 2


#Foxtalkingpoints


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 175
Flyin Ryan wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Santa wrote:
If you or I did it. If the President, who essentially gets to make up foreign policy - thats an ambiguous fusion of institutional power and individual preference - did it?

It's an interesting point. Is the Prez able to make up foreign policy for his own benefit? That's what the Constitution is designed to prevent. A king.


In the 1916 election, the Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes ran against getting the U.S. involved in World War I, and said incumbent President Woodrow Wilson would get us involved if re-elected. Wilson ran and articulated, "no, Hughes is wrong, I am not getting us into a European theater".

Wilson narrowly won re-election, and then instantly got us involved in World War I.


Minor issue but that's simply not true Charles Evans Hughes wasn't an anti war candidate he avoided the war as an election topic as Wilson had successfully pressurised the Germans into suspending unrestricted U Boat warfare and it wasn't a strong point for him. In fact after the Germans resumed unrestricted U Boat warfare in January 1917 he came out strongly in favour of declaring war on Germany prior to the declaration of war in April 1917.

In addition Wilson didn't instantly get the US involved in WW1 it was five months after his re-election and came about as a result of the resumption of unrestricted U Boat warfare.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4936
Santa wrote:
By the way, you guys who are getting caught up in the technicalities of whether it is or isn't bribery are missing the point, which is that nobody gives a shit. This is trivial, grey area shit. There are far more important things to worry about.


#foxtalkingpoints


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
Someone in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party obviously thinks it’s a winning issue since we know it’s symbolic and he isn’t actually going to be removed from office.


Who do you think made that decision? I don't think it's Pelosi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
Bobless wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Santa wrote:
If you or I did it. If the President, who essentially gets to make up foreign policy - thats an ambiguous fusion of institutional power and individual preference - did it?

It's an interesting point. Is the Prez able to make up foreign policy for his own benefit? That's what the Constitution is designed to prevent. A king.


In the 1916 election, the Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes ran against getting the U.S. involved in World War I, and said incumbent President Woodrow Wilson would get us involved if re-elected. Wilson ran and articulated, "no, Hughes is wrong, I am not getting us into a European theater".

Wilson narrowly won re-election, and then instantly got us involved in World War I.


Minor issue but that's simply not true Charles Evans Hughes wasn't an anti war candidate he avoided the war as an election topic as Wilson had successfully pressurised the Germans into suspending unrestricted U Boat warfare and it wasn't a strong point for him. In fact after the Germans resumed unrestricted U Boat warfare in January 1917 he came out strongly in favour of declaring war on Germany prior to the declaration of war in April 1917.

In addition Wilson didn't instantly get the US involved in WW1 it was five months after his re-election and came about as a result of the resumption of unrestricted U Boat warfare.


The Republicans in that era were strong isolationists, even moreso in the '20s.

Calling back on my history books, the official causes for the U.S. entry into the war was the sinking of the Lusitania and intercepting the Zimmerman telegram, where the Germans called on Mexico to declare war on the U.S.

Re 1916 election, we've never had the power of president pass beneath the vice president as far as succession. Supposedly Wilson had a scheme where if Hughes won the election, he'd appoint Hughes as Secretary of State, and Wilson and his Vice President Thomas Marshall (from 20 miles down the road from where I'm at now) would've resigned, promoting Hughes up to president. Reason was due to the deteriorating situation in Europe and at this point in time, the president-elect would have to wait from November to March before he could take power, so Wilson wanted to get rid of this lame duck session if he had lost. Not sure if I fully buy that considering the circumstances of Wilson's presidency late 1919 on, but some historians have reported it.


Last edited by Flyin Ryan on Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4936
Seneca of the Night wrote:
BokJock wrote:
Santa wrote:
By the way, you guys who are getting caught up in the technicalities of whether it is or isn't bribery are missing the point, which is that nobody gives a shit. This is trivial, grey area shit. There are far more important things to worry about.


#foxtalkingpoints


#gettingboredofbeingsorightallthetime


wrong log in, Sen ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4936
The Ambassador came off quite sympathetic there, and Trump a plum bully.

Not impeachable of course, just a measure of the man(child)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9575
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Someone in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party obviously thinks it’s a winning issue since we know it’s symbolic and he isn’t actually going to be removed from office.


Who do you think made that decision? I don't think it's Pelosi.


I think they got trapped into it. Tucker reckoned on his show last night that senior sane Dems are quietly whispering about how they can get out of it.

The problem is that when the squad lunatics start yelling about 'impeaching the muthfcka' the actually think you just use your majority, impeach him, drag him from office, and throw him in prison and epstein him, or something. They don't get the constant and relentless political currents and blowbacks that are going on and the calculations required.

Pelosi got trapped. There was some GOP dude on Tucker saying that if it went to the senate and the repubs were ruthless minded they would have a massive circus and call every witness in Washington in the Russiagate stuff and Hillary even and just fck up all the Dems running for Candidate by dragging them back into Washington off the campaign trail etc. It could become a nightmare for them.


It could be Schiff. He is completely tonto on TDS. Look at the way he lied about the evidence all the way through Mueller.

He got an early meet with the whistleblower (which he has also lied about), decided it was an opportunity, sat on it and cultivated it then sold it back to the Dems as a sure thing. Howzat for a conspiracy theory!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9575
BokJock wrote:
The Ambassador came off quite sympathetic there, and Trump a plum bully.

Not impeachable of course, just a measure of the man(child)


Not impeachable you say? So what's it doing in an impeachmment enquiry?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4936
Santa wrote:
BokJock wrote:
The Ambassador came off quite sympathetic there, and Trump a plum bully.

Not impeachable of course, just a measure of the man(child)


Not impeachable you say? So what's it doing in an impeachmment enquiry?


It is hard to talk about Trump without referencing his plumishness - no matter what the context or situation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11033
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Someone in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party obviously thinks it’s a winning issue since we know it’s symbolic and he isn’t actually going to be removed from office.


Who do you think made that decision? I don't think it's Pelosi.


I think they got trapped into it. Tucker reckoned on his show last night that senior sane Dems are quietly whispering about how they can get out of it.

The problem is that when the squad lunatics start yelling about 'impeaching the muthfcka' the actually think you just use your majority, impeach him, drag him from office, and throw him in prison and epstein him, or something. They don't get the constant and relentless political currents and blowbacks that are going on and the calculations required.

Pelosi got trapped. There was some GOP dude on Tucker saying that if it went to the senate and the repubs were ruthless minded they would have a massive circus and call every witness in Washington in the Russiagate stuff and Hillary even and just fck up all the Dems running for Candidate by dragging them back into Washington off the campaign trail etc. It could become a nightmare for them.


It don’t think Tlaib and co had much to do with it to be honest. It’s more like elements of the intelligence services and media outlets they work with pushing it forward. MSNBC and WaPo for example tirelessly push the impeachment narrative and they are far tighter with the Pelosi wing of the party and indifferent or hostile to the left. But I agree that Trump’s team are happy to see it drag out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8534
The Dems didn't get trapped into this. For a long time Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump, no mater there was clearly some strong pushing for it within elements of her party, but with the whistleblower report she felt they had to move. And then it's how you move, they could have gone with a number of approaches but clearly took the view the original whistleblower complaint was within the intelligence community and so would proceed via that channel.

I have to say even if politically this works out badly for the Dems it doesn't mean they were wrong to act, the decision to investigate and perhaps impeach shouldn't be based on what it does for those seeking an investigation, that isn't what they took an oath to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
From CNN live news feed:

Quote:
Two of the top anchors at Fox News said that President Trump's Friday tweets attacking ex-ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch raised the possibility of an additional article of impeachment being added against Trump for witness tampering.

Bret Baier, Fox's chief political anchor, said Trump's tweets "enabled" House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who is leading the impeachment inquiry, to "characterize that tweet as intimidating the witness or tampering with the witness, which is a crime."

"Adding, essentially, an article of impeachment real time as this hearing is going on," Baier said.

Chris Wallace, the anchor of Fox's flagship Sunday show, agreed with Baier, noting the attack "played out in real time."

"It does raise the possibility of witness intimidation and witness tampering as a new charge here," Wallace said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17451
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Santa wrote:
The viewing figures are interesting. 13.1m watched. That's 32% fewer than watched Comey. This is getting less and less attention as it goes on.


Mueller: GoT
Kav: Making a Rapist
Shiff: Dumb Detective 2

That is scarily close to the way that Donald J. Trump sees the world, namely in terms of viewship and ratings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17451
piquant wrote:
The Dems didn't get trapped into this. For a long time Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump, no mater there was clearly some strong pushing for it within elements of her party, but with the whistleblower report she felt they had to move. And then it's how you move, they could have gone with a number of approaches but clearly took the view the original whistleblower complaint was within the intelligence community and so would proceed via that channel.

I have to say even if politically this works out badly for the Dems it doesn't mean they were wrong to act, the decision to investigate and perhaps impeach shouldn't be based on what it does for those seeking an investigation, that isn't what they took an oath to do.

They HAD to act.

He'll just get worse if they hadn't. And indeed, if/when this Impeachment process comes to an end and Trump is unscathed, that will probably embolden him further.

Mueller's passing of the buck and the 'Total Exoneration' that Trump believed his report to be meant that he was happy to push the envelop even further.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8534
Rinkals wrote:
piquant wrote:
The Dems didn't get trapped into this. For a long time Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump, no mater there was clearly some strong pushing for it within elements of her party, but with the whistleblower report she felt they had to move. And then it's how you move, they could have gone with a number of approaches but clearly took the view the original whistleblower complaint was within the intelligence community and so would proceed via that channel.

I have to say even if politically this works out badly for the Dems it doesn't mean they were wrong to act, the decision to investigate and perhaps impeach shouldn't be based on what it does for those seeking an investigation, that isn't what they took an oath to do.

They HAD to act.

He'll just get worse if they hadn't. And indeed, if/when this Impeachment process comes to an end and Trump is unscathed, that will probably embolden him further.

Mueller's passing of the buck and the 'Total Exoneration' that Trump believed his report to be meant that he was happy to push the envelop even further.


They had to act, whether this is the best way to have acted will be an ongoing discussion. From the outside given the complaint was within the intelligence community it might seem reasonable they went with the first hearing being before the Intelligence Committee, however that might have been a political decision by the Dems owing to the seniority of Schiff, and maybe with hindsight we'll wonder if they shouldn't perhaps have gone another way. It is hard for them to act reasonably when so many people are busy crying water isn't wet


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
Rinkals wrote:
piquant wrote:
The Dems didn't get trapped into this. For a long time Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump, no mater there was clearly some strong pushing for it within elements of her party, but with the whistleblower report she felt they had to move. And then it's how you move, they could have gone with a number of approaches but clearly took the view the original whistleblower complaint was within the intelligence community and so would proceed via that channel.

I have to say even if politically this works out badly for the Dems it doesn't mean they were wrong to act, the decision to investigate and perhaps impeach shouldn't be based on what it does for those seeking an investigation, that isn't what they took an oath to do.

They HAD to act.

He'll just get worse if they hadn't. And indeed, if/when this Impeachment process comes to an end and Trump is unscathed, that will probably embolden him further.


The real impeachment process is occurring on November 3rd, 2020.

Quote:
Mueller's passing of the buck and the 'Total Exoneration' that Trump believed his report to be meant that he was happy to push the envelop even further.


Mueller acted within the norms handed to him. He was given a terrible situation where regardless of what he did everyone would hate him and was as about as honest as you could ask. I think higher of him than I do Kenneth Starr in comparison.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18099
https://twitter.com/dprk_news/status/1195387233756418048?s=21


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
Something from the Mueller investigation, Roger Stone convicted today on all 7 counts by a jury in Florida.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 359
paddyor wrote:


Ha (or maybe quack), also that account is fantastic...

Quote:
Boris Johnson assures English flood victims that consolation can be found in the works of Marcus Aurelius and Mitch Albom.


Quote:
Taylor Swift reminded: burgeoning Pyongyang hillbilly music scene is unburdened by copyright, US contracts generally unenforceable in DPRK courts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4936
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Something from the Mueller investigation, Roger Stone convicted today on all 7 counts by a jury in Florida.


Witch Hunt etc etc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9575
The Dems only had to do it if you ignore the fact the Schiff got knew about it BEFORE it went tinthe IF, understood the ramifications of different actions, and then worked with the 'whistleblower' to taje it formal. Other tjan that the Dems were slaves to fate.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107444 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2413, 2414, 2415, 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419 ... 2687  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RandomNavigat0r and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group