The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[printcraft]

Admit it... you stole that from a cnn headline.

 

[actaeon277]

.

 

[jamil]

He DID have Republican dominance. Not siding with the president doesn't make one "not" a Republican. The president has just hasn't been able to fully consolidate the party. Honestly he should have been able to get much more accomplished than he already has, but his inability present things in a reasonable way have hindered that. Keep in mind that many moderate Republicans still rely on not pissing off center, and center-left, voters; in order to get re-elected. When Trump attacks, rather than taking a more diplomatic approach, he's not going to get complete support of the party.

You don’t think the Trumperbole from the left has a wee bit to do with his inability to get stuff done? Just about every vote is along party lines. The point about anti-Trump Republicans isn’t without merit. It’s not only that some Republicans happen to disagree with the president. It’s also at least a little that some Republicans did not want Trump to have success in a very similar way that Democrats don’t want him to have success. Doesn’t matter if they’re for or against the thing.

For example there’s nothing racist about the purpose of the wall. And whether or not they would have supported it under a different president, they didn’t support it because it’s this one.

 

[mmpsteve]

You don’t think the Trumperbole from the left has a wee bit to do with his inability to get stuff done? Just about every vote is along party lines. The point about anti-Trump Republicans isn’t without merit. It’s not only that some Republicans happen to disagree with the president. It’s also at least a little that some Republicans did not want Trump to have success in a very similar way that Democrats don’t want him to have success. Doesn’t matter if they’re for or against the thing.

For example there’s nothing racist about the purpose of the wall. And whether or not they would have supported it under a different president, they didn’t support it because it’s this one.

bingo, bonzo. They WILL protect their territory.

.

 

[KMaC]

Any employees which are furloughed, yet required to work, will be paid, just not on time.

Not only those required to work. After the last shutdown non-essential employees that stayed home were paid retroactively.
Free vacation with pay. Didn't even have to use their accrued leave in order to get paid.

 

[Hawkeye]

He DID have Republican dominance. Not siding with the president doesn't make one "not" a Republican. The president has just hasn't been able to fully consolidate the party. Honestly he should have been able to get much more accomplished than he already has, but his inability present things in a reasonable way have hindered that. Keep in mind that many moderate Republicans still rely on not pissing off center, and center-left, voters; in order to get re-elected. When Trump attacks, rather than taking a more diplomatic approach, he's not going to get complete support of the party.

Yet another manifestation of TDS.

The vlIm that Trump had “Republican dominance” is specious and fails on any non-superficial examination of fact as opposed to Trumpohobic hyperbole.

To have dominance, Republicans would need to have at least 60% of the Senate. They did not have this, do not have this and likely never will have this. Republicans have barely had a simple majority, and when you consider 2 or 3 Republican senators often jumped ship the past two years, it’s obvious that they effectively did not even have a simple majority.

When you consider the indisputable fact that Republicans do not follow blindly their party leadership and blindly vote the party line, its clear that Republicans did not, do not and will not dominate Congress. Only Democrats exhibit the Blind Bloc Ballot, BBB for short, that is often associated with the Lying Liberal Left or LLL.

Republican dominance? No, it hasn’t existed. Doesn’t exist today. And is unlikely to exist in the future. It’s a fairy tale of the LLL, Socialists and Democrats.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Not only those required to work. After the last shutdown non-essential employees that stayed home were paid retroactively.
Free vacation with pay. Didn't even have to use their accrued leave in order to get paid.

I stand corrected. Hey, it was 5 years ago. I've slept since then.

 

[KLB]

Yet another manifestation of TDS.

The vlIm that Trump had “Republican dominance” is specious and fails on any non-superficial examination of fact as opposed to Trumpohobic hyperbole.

To have dominance, Republicans would need to have at least 60% of the Senate. They did not have this, do not have this and likely never will have this. Republicans have barely had a simple majority, and when you consider 2 or 3 Republican senators often jumped ship the past two years, it’s obvious that they effectively did not even have a simple majority.

When you consider the indisputable fact that Republicans do not follow blindly their party leadership and blindly vote the party line, its clear that Republicans did not, do not and will not dominate Congress. Only Democrats exhibit the Blind Bloc Ballot, BBB for short, that is often associated with the Lying Liberal Left or LLL.

Republican dominance? No, it hasn’t existed. Doesn’t exist today. And is unlikely to exist in the future. It’s a fairy tale of the LLL, Socialists and Democrats.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are giving Republicans way to much credit. The overwhelming majority of them also vote as a bloc. Many many votes are totally along party lines. Don't think a couple of Senators voting against Trump occasionally signals some kind of wide spread pattern.

 

[BugI02]

"Don't think a couple of Senators voting against Trump occasionally signals some kind of [strike]wide spread pattern[/strike] [evidence of principles, either]."

Unless it is the principle of triangulating to facilitate re-election/maintaining a place at the trough

 

[jamil]

Yet another manifestation of TDS.

The vlIm that Trump had “Republican dominance” is specious and fails on any non-superficial examination of fact as opposed to Trumpohobic hyperbole.

To have dominance, Republicans would need to have at least 60% of the Senate. They did not have this, do not have this and likely never will have this. Republicans have barely had a simple majority, and when you consider 2 or 3 Republican senators often jumped ship the past two years, it’s obvious that they effectively did not even have a simple majority.

When you consider the indisputable fact that Republicans do not follow blindly their party leadership and blindly vote the party line, its clear that Republicans did not, do not and will not dominate Congress. Only Democrats exhibit the Blind Bloc Ballot, BBB for short, that is often associated with the Lying Liberal Left or LLL.

Republican dominance? No, it hasn’t existed. Doesn’t exist today. And is unlikely to exist in the future. It’s a fairy tale of the LLL, Socialists and Democrats.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s fair. But it’s “Trumperbole” (trum-PER-bol-ee)

 

[KLB]

"Don't think a couple of Senators voting against Trump occasionally signals some kind of [strike]wide spread pattern[/strike] [evidence of principles, either]."

Unless it is the principle of triangulating to facilitate re-election/maintaining a place at the trough

Isn't that what pretty much all of them are about once they have been there long enough to be up for re-election?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Robert Gates served 2yrs 5mos in Obama administration

Leon Panetta served 1yr 7mos

Chuck Hagel served 2yrs

Ash Carter served 1yr 11mos

James Mattis will have served 2yrs 1mo in Feb 2019 (announced effective date of resignation)

Unprecedented turmoil at DoD :vapors:

All true! But...

Stay in Syria until ISIS is obliterated, or don't do so, both are arguable positions with pro's and many, many con's. There is no perfect option.

However, the big thing is, to spur-of-the-moment announce an immediate pull-out prior to the SoD having a plan to execute said pull-out, is not defensible. Syrians massacring rebels and civilians, Turks massacring Kurds, and ISIS rebuilding it's almost, but not quite, obliterated ranks, are all foreseeable results. Some we should own, others not (IMO: Assad: no, Kurds:kinda, ISIS defeat:yes)

IMO, the pull-out is premature. Syria will never be wrapped up in a perfect bow, but I think that IS in Syria no longer existing as an operational entity able to take to the battlefield is a prerequisite for the pull-out. They have been all but completely defeated as a military force in Syria... stomp out those last embers before returning the "fire truck" to the "fire station".

 

[Phase2]

Alternate description: How about we encourage the use of local fire trucks rather than paying for ours to combat every fire in the world? The UAE and Saudis (who's prince Trump just defended) are now going to put troops in Syria to defend the Kurds using a regional solution.

 

[BugI02]

All true! But...

Stay in Syria until ISIS is obliterated, or don't do so, both are arguable positions with pro's and many, many con's. There is no perfect option.

However, the big thing is, to spur-of-the-moment announce an immediate pull-out prior to the SoD having a plan to execute said pull-out, is not defensible. Syrians massacring rebels and civilians, Turks massacring Kurds, and ISIS rebuilding it's almost, but not quite, obliterated ranks, are all foreseeable results. Some we should own, others not (IMO: Assad: no, Kurds:kinda, ISIS defeat:yes)

IMO, the pull-out is premature. Syria will never be wrapped up in a perfect bow, but I think that IS in Syria no longer existing as an operational entity able to take to the battlefield is a prerequisite for the pull-out. They have been all but completely defeated as a military force in Syria... stomp out those last embers before returning the "fire truck" to the "fire station".

Respectfully, SD4L, none of us have any idea how long the back and forth on a pull-out from Syria has been going on. The narrative that Trump just woke up one day and decided to pull US troops out could very well be a product of the usual antiTrump propaganda. It's quite possible that Mattis and Trump have been at odds over this or some other subset of ME policy for months (Remember, the MSM has been playing up strain between Mattis and Trump for quite some time. Perhaps some of that was real/accurate) I have been seeing evidence of mission creep in the rationale proffered for further syria commitment, protecting our 'allies' the Kurds from Turkey being only the latest. IMO if we wanted to protect the Kurds, we should have partitioned Iraq and let them have a Kurdistan with defensible borders. I think they would have been relatively happy with that as a homeland is what they have wanted all along. They appear capable and more than willing to defend themselves given the materiel to do so. We could have treated them to a level of support comparable to what we supply Israel and they would have done the rest - after all, the Israelis have the men and the will to fight, they have no need of US military personnel. The Kurds seem cut from the same cloth

At some point we either have to call an end to our active participation in some of these ongoing disputes or be willing to form ever more 38th parallels

 

[KLB]

All true! But...

Stay in Syria until ISIS is obliterated, or don't do so, both are arguable positions with pro's and many, many con's. There is no perfect option.

However, the big thing is, to spur-of-the-moment announce an immediate pull-out prior to the SoD having a plan to execute said pull-out, is not defensible. Syrians massacring rebels and civilians, Turks massacring Kurds, and ISIS rebuilding it's almost, but not quite, obliterated ranks, are all foreseeable results. Some we should own, others not (IMO: Assad: no, Kurds:kinda, ISIS defeat:yes)

IMO, the pull-out is premature. Syria will never be wrapped up in a perfect bow, but I think that IS in Syria no longer existing as an operational entity able to take to the battlefield is a prerequisite for the pull-out. They have been all but completely defeated as a military force in Syria... stomp out those last embers before returning the "fire truck" to the "fire station".

Maybe our withdrawal will allow the Russians to take care of business with ISIS. The whole dynamic there was messed up with Russia/Assad, US, and ISIS in some three way battle.

 

[nonobaddog]

Also, getting rid of radical islamism is more than a military problem. Islam has a long history, since it's very beginning, of producing radicalism It doesn't matter if they call themselves al-queda, boko haram, isis, taliban or khawarij, it would be naive to think there is an end in sight. Yes, when one group starts behaving too ****ty you have to go kick their asses but it is more than a military problem, it is a systemic problem.

 

[Hawkeye]

That’s fair. But it’s “Trumperbole” (trum-PER-bol-ee)

I can use that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mmpsteve]

Also, getting rid of radical islamism is more than a military problem. Islam has a long history, since it's very beginning, of producing radicalism It doesn't matter if they call themselves al-queda, boko haram, isis, taliban or khawarij, it would be naive to think there is an end in sight. Yes, when one group starts behaving too ****ty you have to go kick their asses but it is more than a military problem, it is a systemic problem.

Religious Ideology is a hard thing to fight. Much more so when those in your own country (the MSM) seem to identify with it. Make no mistake, we will have to kill it, dead, but also fight it in our own society; because, you know ... Trump.

.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Respectfully, SD4L, none of us have any idea how long the back and forth on a pull-out from Syria has been going on. The narrative that Trump just woke up one day and decided to pull US troops out could very well be a product of the usual antiTrump propaganda. It's quite possible that Mattis and Trump have been at odds over this or some other subset of ME policy for months (Remember, the MSM has been playing up strain between Mattis and Trump for quite some time. Perhaps some of that was real/accurate) I have been seeing evidence of mission creep in the rationale proffered for further syria commitment, protecting our 'allies' the Kurds from Turkey being only the latest. IMO if we wanted to protect the Kurds, we should have partitioned Iraq and let them have a Kurdistan with defensible borders. I think they would have been relatively happy with that as a homeland is what they have wanted all along. They appear capable and more than willing to defend themselves given the materiel to do so. We could have treated them to a level of support comparable to what we supply Israel and they would have done the rest - after all, the Israelis have the men and the will to fight, they have no need of US military personnel. The Kurds seem cut from the same cloth

BugI, I pretty solidly agree with all of this, but still feel that "announcing" the pull-out on a call with Erdogan was a huge mistake and horrible optics.

At some point we either have to call an end to our active participation in some of these ongoing disputes or be willing to form ever more 38th parallels

No, I don't think that is the case. It isn't the binary decision you present. I think (could be wrong) that baked into that analysis is the Powell Doctrine, "you break it, you own it", which in my opinion is ludicrous. if it is in America's interest for us to be engaged, then engage. The minute it is no longer in our interest, leave.

I do believe that the Kurds with a homeland would be in our long-term interest, but don't believe that we should be in the business of "creating" a Kurdistan. I could be very wrong on this and there might be folks far smarter than I who might see this as creating another India/Pakistan eternal feud.

Maybe our withdrawal will allow the Russians to take care of business with ISIS. The whole dynamic there was messed up with Russia/Assad, US, and ISIS in some three way battle.

IMO, Russia's game plan for ISIS was solely to use them and the anvil to the Russian/Syrian hammer on the anti-Assad rebels. Perhaps there was more, but I didn't see anything that led me to believe that taking on and eradicating ISIS was ever in their game plan.

 

[nonobaddog]

I think the pull out from Syria is a good idea. I do not know how much preparation for the pull out has been done in country. I certainly expect something is already in place and I doubt if the media knows anything about that. As far as announcing it goes, it sucks for the troops in Syria, but it is absolutely essential to announce it for the US citizenry and the media. If a pull out were to just start without an public announcement there would be too many bunched up panties here.