I'm just spitballing here, but I think the US could strengthen its position in Asia, and directly counter China's expansive view of the SCS, by recruiting allies in the region and using soft power to isolate China on the issue. Perhaps some sort of trade agreement, a partnership that spans the Pacific?
It frustrates me to no end that the strategic ends--where its real value lies--of the TPP are ignored. The whole point was to counter China's efforts to exert its economic muscle in the region, and we've scuttled it out of spite.
A story that has once again been lost in the madness is that the Senate just confirmed one of Trump's appointments for a federal judgeship. One problem though.....he isn't a judge. In fact, he has never tried a single case. He has only been practicing law for a few years, and his main qualification seems to be that he is a right-wing blogger. So while the Republican Senate would not even hold HEARINGS for Obama's Supreme Court pick (stolen and given to Trump), they are willing to put through any asshole off the street now that a Republican is making the picks.
I'm just spitballing here, but I think the US could strengthen its position in Asia, and directly counter China's expansive view of the SCS, by recruiting allies in the region and using soft power to isolate China on the issue. Perhaps some sort of trade agreement, a partnership that spans the Pacific?
It frustrates me to no end that the strategic ends--where its real value lies--of the TPP are ignored. The whole point was to counter China's efforts to exert its economic muscle in the region, and we've scuttled it out of spite.
Well Canada seems to still be wishy washy on this deal atm as it is now postponed, stating "It gives us more credibility when we want to explain that we won't accept any agreement — we wait until it's in the interests of Canadians."
So they are using the TPP as a message that they won't be pushed around when it comes to trade deals, especially NAFTA.
And China is for the TPP even though they are not part of it. At APEC, Xi Jiping, president said:
Fourth, we need to enrich our partnerships and deliver benefits to all involved. As APEC economies, we have a stake in each other's success and our future is closely connected. With a shared future in mind, we need to develop a stronger sense of community, harmonize our policies and create synergy. We need to foster a spirit of harmony in diversity, draw on each other's strength, pursue mutually beneficial cooperation and draw on each other's best practice in development. We should consider the interests of others while pursuing those of our own, and reduce the adverse spillovers of our domestic policies. As we have agreed on the direction and framework of an Asia-Pacific partnership, it is time to take solid steps toward this goal.
Now you can take that with a grain of salt as China has been accused of stealing IP in the past by those who have done business there, but it is a stark contrast to Trump's "I'm going to make sure 'merica wins stance"
Yes, more than a few economists have been alarmed by Trump's view of trade: we can't win unless everyone else loses. When done well, deals can have multiple winners.
I have seen (without exaggeration) at least 2 or 3 dozen stories like this in either newspapers or on television in the last 10 months. Let's go to the heartland and check in with some Trump voters, so they can tell us the exact same thing every time. I have not seen a SINGLE panel or focus group convened like this that focuses on Clinton voters. Not one in almost a year. Even though, statistically, there are 3 million more of them to seek out and find.
Where are the panels of black professional women who live in the suburbs of Atlanta?? Where is the focus group of Latinos from Nevada?? Apparently those people are impossible to get on camera. The only time you ever see these stories, it is 8 white Trump voters, with an African-American or Latino thrown in to make it look a little more presentable for TV. Next month, the media will go down to Alabama and find 10 people who voted for Roy Moore and put them on TV. You won't see a single segment about Doug Jones voters. I can guarantee it.
If Trumps totally biased agenda at the UN in favor of one party (Israel), his preference for a pedophile over a Democrat in Alabama, his multiple failed attempts at Obamacare repeal, or his multiple historical business failures and bankruptcies are any indication then he should be given a shot.
Maybe it'd keep him occupied for a while. Maybe it'd keep him off of Twitter. It might keep him from forking up something else in America for a little bit. No one in the dispute would take him seriously anyway.
Nah. He'd use twitter to mediate.
And i would give him the benefit of the doubt. He is probably as good at mediating as he is at being president.
A story that has once again been lost in the madness is that the Senate just confirmed one of Trump's appointments for a federal judgeship. One problem though.....he isn't a judge. In fact, he has never tried a single case. He has only been practicing law for a few years, and his main qualification seems to be that he is a right-wing blogger. So while the Republican Senate would not even hold HEARINGS for Obama's Supreme Court pick (stolen and given to Trump), they are willing to put through any asshole off the street now that a Republican is making the picks.
I scooped you on that one. That guy was unanimously declared unqualified by the American Bar Association's Judicial Committee.
Trump nominated a guy for a Federal Judgeship who was unanimously declared unqualified by the American Bar Association's Judicial Committee. This guy has never tried a case. This guy's previous job experience was blogging angry stuff on the Internet about “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.
This 36 year old was approved by Republicans in the Senate for a lifetime appointment as a Federal Judge in Alabama.
Yes so there's a bunch of openings in Federal Judgeships. Because they've been destroying the government and doing everything they can to hinder Obama. After 8 years of right winger filibustering good people for no reason that they had to change the rules just to get ANYONE through. These right wingers have been up there declaring their prinshipuls and "the Constitution!" this and clutching their pearls and saying decent people weren't good enough because something something god, something guns or whatever.
Then they turn around and now that they are in charge we're getting kitty grabbers, pedophiles and bloggers (Trump, Moore, and that Federal Judge) as their idea of running the government. Well that along with Goldman Sachs and industry schills that literally want to destroy the environment and the working class for corporate profits.
China has been accused of stealing IP in the past by those who have done business there
It's not just an accusation, and it's not even just those who have done business in China, or even those who have done business with Chinese firms working abroad. Chinese hackers have been stealing intellectual property and trade secrets for years, and the total value is in the billions of dollars. It's a massive, long-running problem that has yet to see a clear solution, because even though the theft is illegal in China itself, the Chinese leadership sees no reason to actually take measures to curtail it.
After all, it gets Chinese businesses lots of useful and profitable information, and it's not like Chinese firms need to worry about other people stealing their intellectual property. Until China itself is a fountain of innovation and stands to lose more than it gains from IP theft, the Party will turn a blind eye.
Then they turn around and now that they are in charge we're getting kitty grabbers, pedophiles and bloggers (Trump, Moore, and that Federal Judge) as their idea of running the government. Well that along with Goldman Sachs and industry schills that literally want to destroy the environment and the working class for corporate profits.
Doesn't that sound like the start of a bad joke?
"A pedophile, a pervert, and a blogger walked into Republican headquarters, stop me if you've heard this one before..."
This man owns not only thousands of guns, but also all manner of military weaponry and vehicles. He is also clearly insane. He seems to take a genuine pride and feels giddy pleasure when he is able to present examples of the firearms used in the most famous mass shootings. He doesn't seem particularly phased that his wife was KILLED by a malfunctioning piece of equipment on his property. And he has 4 female mannequins in his basement that he has named and drinks coffee with. The video presents the stat that 3% of the population of this country owns 50% of the guns. Anyone feel safer knowing this guy has more firepower than most small countries??
Someone in the comments section added a nice little tidbit that illustrates the problem. Despite having enough firepower to level a town, somehow (despite his bravado about shooting trespassers on sight), he managed to have 65 of his guns stolen a few months ago. Most of them haven't been recovered. I would venture to bet that ALL of them are going to end up on the black market. And this is why, at the very least, we need liability insurance for guns. Mostly because no insurance company would ever cover this guy after talking with him for 5 minutes or visiting his property. Every single solitary one of those guns should be insured individually, which (in a sane world) would force him to have them all under lock and key and not just sitting in his garage and house.
What kind of cognitive dissonance do you have to have to not equate "Well, the guy looked 100% normal. I could never, nobody could ever know that somebody like that is going to do something like that" with "Whatever the killer used, that's what they want. They want to feel the firepower." It is exacerbated by "Within less than 15 minutes you could walk out the front door here with a rifle or shotgun".
Maybe we SHOULD operate on the assumption that the next gun buyer is the next mass shooter. They probably aren't, statistically it's probably somewhere between .01-.1%, but FFS, this is ridiculous. The sheer scale of the firearm industry in America means tens of thousands of guns are involved in gun violence even at that low level of percentage of occurrences.
There it is. More likely. Child molestation charges make them MORE likely to vote for the candidate. Not "I'm going to vote for him in spite of the charges" but "the charges make me want to vote for him more". I seem to remember Stephen King began and ended "The Stand" with a quote....."We need help, the poet reckoned". I wish Hunter S. Thompson was still around to write about this shit.
No, it won't. Because the moment he files the lawsuit he will be deposed and put under oath. This is the exact same bullshit Trump claimed he would do to his accusers, and he didn't for the same reason. Because he would either have to admit to the assaults or perjure himself. All Trump and Moore have to do is say they'll sue, then rely on the willful ignorance or complete memory failure of those who believed them when they never follow through. The Washington Post would KILL to be sued over this story. They should be like Brer Rabbit begging to be thrown in the briar patch. Roy Moore shouldn't play poker, because his bluffing sucks. If he isn't bluffing, he is going all in with no hand and the other side knows it. Either way, he isn't leaving the table with any money.
He also is refusing to debate the Democratic candidate. I mean he might as well not, he'll win anyway because Alabama but also because he'd say something stupid. So instead he'll just get elected stupid.
There it is. More likely. Child molestation charges make them MORE likely to vote for the candidate. Not "I'm going to vote for him in spite of the charges" but "the charges make me want to vote for him more".
His supporters are convinced beyond the shadow of any doubt that the allegations being made against Moore are part of some vast left-wing/liberal media conspiracy designed to discredit him and/or harm his campaign. Any of the ones who were wavering in their support before the story broke arrived at the conclusion that the Left wouldn't be attacking him if they weren't afraid of him. Following that train of thought, if the Left is afraid of him it must be because he is such a stalwart, die-hard conservative who will fight back and this convinced them to vote for him.
This is more of that hyper-partisan, my-guy-is-always-right type of thinking that is the end result of having only two major parties. I keep saying this but if we could break the backs of the Republican and Democratic Parties--end the False Dichotomy--then this would give us all more options, allowing things to start to get better on many levels.
Yes, more than a few economists have been alarmed by Trump's view of trade: we can't win unless everyone else loses. When done well, deals can have multiple winners.
I have mentioned this before, as well, the "next level" of zero sum game thinking: it is not enough that I win; instead, you must also lose. Only when we both realize that I am the winner will I feel like a loser and part of my elation is that we both also know that you are a loser.
edit/correction: that is supposed to read "only when we both realize that I am the winner will I feel like a winner". *laugh*
Kellyanne Conway Calls For Donald Trump To Resign From Office
During an interview with ABC’s This Week over the weekend, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway accidentally called for Trump’s resignation by saying that anyone who has committed acts of sexual aggression towards women should step down from elected office. Her boss admitted to doing exactly that to a reporter, so will he follow Kellyanne’s counsel?
Quote from Interview clip from :46 seconds in this video.
"Let me say it one last time, the conduct as described is not just offensive and disgusting it disqualifies anyone who's done it from holding public office. So let me go a little step farther: if there's anyone currently in public office who's behaved that way to any girl or any woman maybe they should step aside..."
She went on to say she'd experienced being a victim of people in power but claimed that no one believed her because of who she was representing. Considering what we know about Donald Trump doesn't that actually make her claim more credible? More than 15 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault and he has been captured on tape admitting to a reporter that he could just assault women because he was famous.
Conway was talking about Moore but that really sounds applies to Trump especially her "let me go a little bit farther" bit.
Most sexual conduct is irrelevant to public office, but if you're doing it without consent, that indicates a lack of empathy or a willingness to abuse power, both of which are very relevant to whether someone is suited to hold political power.
Hundreds dead from a magnitude 7.3 on the Iran/Iraq border.
750,000 protesters in Catalonia calling for the release of their leaders, who are currently in prison.
The ASEAN Summit being held in the Philippines had no mention of the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Burma. What are the odds of that? Back before she was the leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi criticized a general climate of non-intervention in her country's affairs. Now that she is the leader we should all just mind our own business.
While they were inside holding GP Warsaw (Jean-emmanuel Depraz won it with a fairly standard Four-Color Energy deck), there were 60,000 far-right protesters outside celebrating Polish Independence Day.
Now seems to be as good a time as any to revisit why many people have serious doubts about the two most serious sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton in the '90s by Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick:
1.) They came amid a flurry of fantastical charges that included the Clintons having Vince Foster murdered and that they were running a cocaine smuggling operation out of an Arkansas airport.
2.) Ken Starr wanted to believe both women. He was a nakedly partisan prosecutor whose mission was to take down the Clinton Presidency. Being able to nail Slick Willy with sexual assault would have done so. The problem was that Broderick and Willey made it impossible. Broderick denied in a sworn deposition that Clinton had assaulted her before she changed her story (she actually denied it twice under oath). Starr immunized Willey TWICE to try get her story. He had to do it twice because he found out she was lying the first time. He didn't find her credible either time. Linda Tripp testified under oath that Willey had lied about her encounter with Clinton. Starr wanted these alleged incidents to be the story. What he wound up with was people either lying under oath (in the case of Willey) or, in the case of Broderick, if she was telling the truth, had lied under oath previously. And perjury will do alot to destroy the credibility of sexual assault allegations. It's not blind partisanship, there are valid legal reasons why people who followed the Clinton case think these allegations are bogus.
It's entirely plausible Broderick lied under oath to keep herself out of a media shitstorm. On the other hand, when you are put in a situation (twice) where you are sworn to tell the truth, say one thing, and then change your story a year later, it's gonna be awfully tough for many people to take it seriously.
There are people who are now saying we haven't really litigated Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct. That is absurd. The entire country litigated it every day for almost his entire second term. Anyone can get the Starr Report used on Amazon for a couple if nickels. I doubt there is a single issue this country has debated more than Bill Clinton's sex life. The rundown is this:
1.) Gennifer Flowers, a consensual affair that absolutely took place.
2.) Monica Lewinsky, a consensual affair that absolutely took place.
3.) Kathleen Willey, whose testimony to Starr was so full of holes he had to give her a second immunity to clear her of perjury in her first round of testimony.
4.) Paula Jones, who started the whole thing by accusing Clinton of exposing himself. This almost certainly happened.
5.) Juanita Broderick, the most serious claim, saying he raped her, which I would be 110% inclined to believe if she hadn't said the exact opposite in two sworn affidavits, only changing her story once Starr was on the warpath and granting immunity to her as well.
Mm. Nothing too shady from Trump Jr., exactly, unlike his emails with that Russian agent, but it does show Wikileaks trying to curry favor with Trump, encourage him to challenge the validity of the election, and even ask the President for special treatment for Assange.
If these emails are accurate--and if they weren't, congressional investigators could tell us that in a heartbeat, because they have access to the emails--then Assange is clearly not trying to be a neutral leaker focused strictly on the truth. He's trying to use his position to influence American politics.
Assange is not an American citizen, so this actually constitutes foreign interference, though it's certainly a lot less worrying than Russia's interest in our elections.
"Let me say it one last time, the conduct as described is not just offensive and disgusting it disqualifies anyone who's done it from holding public office. So let me go a little step farther: if there's anyone currently in public office who's beh
I wouldn't be upset for every politician accused of any crime, whether sexual harassment/misconduct, fraud, bribery, DUI, etc. to have to resign from office. Naturally, I would apply this to every level--city, county, State, Federal--as well as forbidding them from holding public office again for the rest of their natural lives. If you want to lead others then you should be more compliant with the law than the average citizen.
The Republican plan for Alabama is becoming crystal clear, and it makes a mockery of whatever the 23 of them who have spoken out actually means. The plan seems to be to get the word out that if you elect Moore, we will expel him from the Senate (not even remotely clear if this is even possible), thus allowing the GOP Governor of Alabama to name his replacement, keeping the seat in Republican hands. Basically, we don't want the child molester in the Senate, but we're MORE than happy to right his horse to an election victory if we PROMISE to kick him out and appoint someone else. Which, again, is legally dubious at best. This is just naked cynicism, but it's the plot being hatched right now. Vote for Moore because he'll never serve we'll get one of our guys in after. More total subversion of democracy on the right.
Yes--a 2/3 vote of the Senate may kick out a fellow member. If he gets elected, tries to claim his seat, the rest of the Senate expels him, and the governor has to name a replacement that isn't a subversion of democracy. On the contrary, that adheres to our system of democracy completely. There is nothing dubious about it--that is how our laws are written.
The more likely scenario would be the governor names an interim Senator while a new election is called but that would be almost a waste of time and money. Moore should just bow out now and Republicans can write in someone else's name, which is always a legal option for voters.
Never forget: pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
May used a major foreign policy speech yesterday to tell Russia to stop meddling in other people's elections ...
Why would he do that when he is tearing apart Western democracies without even firing a shot?? Nearly 60,000 far-right nationalists took to the streets of Poland the other day calling for an Islamic Holocaust. Britain is leaving the EU. The US elected a maniac who also doubles as Putin's personal stooge. In the age of Trump and Brexit, China and Russia are ascendant, the US and Britain are faced with existential domestic political crisis, and only Germany and France seem to be holding strong.
On the one hand, it's hard to argue that historical colonial terrors like the United States and British Empire don't deserve this, because they do. But it's the countries with authoritarian rulers who are going to benefit the most from the next few years.
At least Theresa May ADMITS Russia is attempting to subvert elections in major Western countries. Trump won't even acknowledge Russia did anything at all in the last election, which is preposterous even if you believe he had nothing to do with it. The most likely reason being he wants them to do it again.
Russia meddling in our election is just payback for us having meddled in other people's elections ever since just after the end of World War II. That check was long overdue.
Putin is...what, in his mid-60s? Even if he remains in power until he physically cannot do the job anymore that gives him, oh, 10 years or so. Sure, he can do a lot of damage in 10 years but I doubt he wants to watch the world burn. No, there is far too much money still to be made by gaming the system and stacking the deck in favor of those able to grease his palm with hard currency.
The Republican plan for Alabama is becoming crystal clear, and it makes a mockery of whatever the 23 of them who have spoken out actually means. The plan seems to be to get the word out that if you elect Moore, we will expel him from the Senate (not even remotely clear if this is even possible), thus allowing the GOP Governor of Alabama to name his replacement, keeping the seat in Republican hands. Basically, we don't want the child molester in the Senate, but we're MORE than happy to right his horse to an election victory if we PROMISE to kick him out and appoint someone else. Which, again, is legally dubious at best. This is just naked cynicism, but it's the plot being hatched right now. Vote for Moore because he'll never serve we'll get one of our guys in after. More total subversion of democracy on the right.
Because voting for the Democrat when you don't believe in what they stand for is somehow better? Sorry, I'll bet it'd be cold day in Hell before you ever voted for a Republican, no matter what the Democrat running for office supposedly did. Don't give me any BS otherwise. At best you might stay at home but judging from your political point of view, I doubt it...
Yes--a 2/3 vote of the Senate may kick out a fellow member. If he gets elected, tries to claim his seat, the rest of the Senate expels him, and the governor has to name a replacement that isn't a subversion of democracy. On the contrary, that adheres to our system of democracy completely. There is nothing dubious about it--that is how our laws are written.
The more likely scenario would be the governor names an interim Senator while a new election is called but that would be almost a waste of time and money. Moore should just bow out now and Republicans can write in someone else's name, which is always a legal option for voters.
I checked, Sessions' seat, which is what the Moore election is about, is a 2014-2020 seat. So it's a matter of 4 more years.
Not exactly a waste of time and money for 2/3 of a senate seat.
Russia meddling in our election is just payback for us having meddled in other people's elections ever since just after the end of World War II. That check was long overdue.
Putin is...what, in his mid-60s? Even if he remains in power until he physically cannot do the job anymore that gives him, oh, 10 years or so. Sure, he can do a lot of damage in 10 years but I doubt he wants to watch the world burn. No, there is far too much money still to be made by gaming the system and stacking the deck in favor of those able to grease his palm with hard currency.
Actually, the history goes back MUCH further. To my recollection, at least the separation of Panama from Columbia in 1903 that the U.S. did not involve itself with despite a treaty, so that Panama could become a separate country to negotiate a land deal for the future Panama Canal.
In truth though, there were several incidents during the 1890s-1900s during that time when we were trying to form a nascent American Empire. Venezuala Crisis of 1903 where the Roosevelt Corollary was developed (basically "America reserves the right to intervene in any country in North or South America"), Boxer Rebellion of 1898 (China), overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, the aforementioned separation of Panama from Colombia, Spanish-American War of 1898 to annex the few remaining Spanish colonies...
At the time the American frontier had just closed and America had become the greatest economic superpower, but was still muddling about on the international stage.
I'll bet it'd be cold day in Hell before you ever voted for a Republican, no matter what the Democrat running for office supposedly did. Don't give me any BS otherwise. At best you might stay at home but judging from your political point of view, I doubt it...
On the contrary, it depends entirely on the candidate in question. I'd definitely vote for John McCain long before I voted for Anthony Weiner, party affiliation be damned.
Comments
It frustrates me to no end that the strategic ends--where its real value lies--of the TPP are ignored. The whole point was to counter China's efforts to exert its economic muscle in the region, and we've scuttled it out of spite.
So they are using the TPP as a message that they won't be pushed around when it comes to trade deals, especially NAFTA.
And China is for the TPP even though they are not part of it. At APEC, Xi Jiping, president said:
Now you can take that with a grain of salt as China has been accused of stealing IP in the past by those who have done business there, but it is a stark contrast to Trump's "I'm going to make sure 'merica wins stance"
Trump said the U.S. was being treated unfairly by everyone and he would just put America first.
That's ok by me. He'll just be left behind as every other nation moves forward.
I have seen (without exaggeration) at least 2 or 3 dozen stories like this in either newspapers or on television in the last 10 months. Let's go to the heartland and check in with some Trump voters, so they can tell us the exact same thing every time. I have not seen a SINGLE panel or focus group convened like this that focuses on Clinton voters. Not one in almost a year. Even though, statistically, there are 3 million more of them to seek out and find.
Where are the panels of black professional women who live in the suburbs of Atlanta?? Where is the focus group of Latinos from Nevada?? Apparently those people are impossible to get on camera. The only time you ever see these stories, it is 8 white Trump voters, with an African-American or Latino thrown in to make it look a little more presentable for TV. Next month, the media will go down to Alabama and find 10 people who voted for Roy Moore and put them on TV. You won't see a single segment about Doug Jones voters. I can guarantee it.
[spoiler] [/spoiler]
Yes so there's a bunch of openings in Federal Judgeships. Because they've been destroying the government and doing everything they can to hinder Obama. After 8 years of right winger filibustering good people for no reason that they had to change the rules just to get ANYONE through. These right wingers have been up there declaring their prinshipuls and "the Constitution!" this and clutching their pearls and saying decent people weren't good enough because something something god, something guns or whatever.
Then they turn around and now that they are in charge we're getting kitty grabbers, pedophiles and bloggers (Trump, Moore, and that Federal Judge) as their idea of running the government. Well that along with Goldman Sachs and industry schills that literally want to destroy the environment and the working class for corporate profits.
After all, it gets Chinese businesses lots of useful and profitable information, and it's not like Chinese firms need to worry about other people stealing their intellectual property. Until China itself is a fountain of innovation and stands to lose more than it gains from IP theft, the Party will turn a blind eye.
"A pedophile, a pervert, and a blogger walked into Republican headquarters, stop me if you've heard this one before..."
The jokes on us
Maybe we SHOULD operate on the assumption that the next gun buyer is the next mass shooter. They probably aren't, statistically it's probably somewhere between .01-.1%, but FFS, this is ridiculous. The sheer scale of the firearm industry in America means tens of thousands of guns are involved in gun violence even at that low level of percentage of occurrences.
There it is. More likely. Child molestation charges make them MORE likely to vote for the candidate. Not "I'm going to vote for him in spite of the charges" but "the charges make me want to vote for him more". I seem to remember Stephen King began and ended "The Stand" with a quote....."We need help, the poet reckoned". I wish Hunter S. Thompson was still around to write about this shit.
No, it won't. Because the moment he files the lawsuit he will be deposed and put under oath. This is the exact same bullshit Trump claimed he would do to his accusers, and he didn't for the same reason. Because he would either have to admit to the assaults or perjure himself. All Trump and Moore have to do is say they'll sue, then rely on the willful ignorance or complete memory failure of those who believed them when they never follow through. The Washington Post would KILL to be sued over this story. They should be like Brer Rabbit begging to be thrown in the briar patch. Roy Moore shouldn't play poker, because his bluffing sucks. If he isn't bluffing, he is going all in with no hand and the other side knows it. Either way, he isn't leaving the table with any money.
This is more of that hyper-partisan, my-guy-is-always-right type of thinking that is the end result of having only two major parties. I keep saying this but if we could break the backs of the Republican and Democratic Parties--end the False Dichotomy--then this would give us all more options, allowing things to start to get better on many levels. I have mentioned this before, as well, the "next level" of zero sum game thinking: it is not enough that I win; instead, you must also lose. Only when we both realize that I am the winner will I feel like a loser and part of my elation is that we both also know that you are a loser.
edit/correction: that is supposed to read "only when we both realize that I am the winner will I feel like a winner". *laugh*
During an interview with ABC’s This Week over the weekend, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway accidentally called for Trump’s resignation by saying that anyone who has committed acts of sexual aggression towards women should step down from elected office. Her boss admitted to doing exactly that to a reporter, so will he follow Kellyanne’s counsel?
Quote from Interview clip from :46 seconds in this video. She went on to say she'd experienced being a victim of people in power but claimed that no one believed her because of who she was representing. Considering what we know about Donald Trump doesn't that actually make her claim more credible? More than 15 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault and he has been captured on tape admitting to a reporter that he could just assault women because he was famous.
Conway was talking about Moore but that really sounds applies to Trump especially her "let me go a little bit farther" bit.
Additionally, Ivana Trump described her husband violently raping her in Trump Tower, in a fit of anger over a botched scalp surgery though I believe she later was willing to walk back part of that as a legal matter as part of her divorce settlement.
Gross.....
750,000 protesters in Catalonia calling for the release of their leaders, who are currently in prison.
The ASEAN Summit being held in the Philippines had no mention of the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Burma. What are the odds of that? Back before she was the leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi criticized a general climate of non-intervention in her country's affairs. Now that she is the leader we should all just mind our own business.
While they were inside holding GP Warsaw (Jean-emmanuel Depraz won it with a fairly standard Four-Color Energy deck), there were 60,000 far-right protesters outside celebrating Polish Independence Day.
1.) They came amid a flurry of fantastical charges that included the Clintons having Vince Foster murdered and that they were running a cocaine smuggling operation out of an Arkansas airport.
2.) Ken Starr wanted to believe both women. He was a nakedly partisan prosecutor whose mission was to take down the Clinton Presidency. Being able to nail Slick Willy with sexual assault would have done so. The problem was that Broderick and Willey made it impossible. Broderick denied in a sworn deposition that Clinton had assaulted her before she changed her story (she actually denied it twice under oath). Starr immunized Willey TWICE to try get her story. He had to do it twice because he found out she was lying the first time. He didn't find her credible either time. Linda Tripp testified under oath that Willey had lied about her encounter with Clinton. Starr wanted these alleged incidents to be the story. What he wound up with was people either lying under oath (in the case of Willey) or, in the case of Broderick, if she was telling the truth, had lied under oath previously. And perjury will do alot to destroy the credibility of sexual assault allegations. It's not blind partisanship, there are valid legal reasons why people who followed the Clinton case think these allegations are bogus.
It's entirely plausible Broderick lied under oath to keep herself out of a media shitstorm. On the other hand, when you are put in a situation (twice) where you are sworn to tell the truth, say one thing, and then change your story a year later, it's gonna be awfully tough for many people to take it seriously.
There are people who are now saying we haven't really litigated Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct. That is absurd. The entire country litigated it every day for almost his entire second term. Anyone can get the Starr Report used on Amazon for a couple if nickels. I doubt there is a single issue this country has debated more than Bill Clinton's sex life. The rundown is this:
1.) Gennifer Flowers, a consensual affair that absolutely took place.
2.) Monica Lewinsky, a consensual affair that absolutely took place.
3.) Kathleen Willey, whose testimony to Starr was so full of holes he had to give her a second immunity to clear her of perjury in her first round of testimony.
4.) Paula Jones, who started the whole thing by accusing Clinton of exposing himself. This almost certainly happened.
5.) Juanita Broderick, the most serious claim, saying he raped her, which I would be 110% inclined to believe if she hadn't said the exact opposite in two sworn affidavits, only changing her story once Starr was on the warpath and granting immunity to her as well.
If these emails are accurate--and if they weren't, congressional investigators could tell us that in a heartbeat, because they have access to the emails--then Assange is clearly not trying to be a neutral leaker focused strictly on the truth. He's trying to use his position to influence American politics.
Assange is not an American citizen, so this actually constitutes foreign interference, though it's certainly a lot less worrying than Russia's interest in our elections.
The more likely scenario would be the governor names an interim Senator while a new election is called but that would be almost a waste of time and money. Moore should just bow out now and Republicans can write in someone else's name, which is always a legal option for voters.
Never forget: pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
On the one hand, it's hard to argue that historical colonial terrors like the United States and British Empire don't deserve this, because they do. But it's the countries with authoritarian rulers who are going to benefit the most from the next few years.
At least Theresa May ADMITS Russia is attempting to subvert elections in major Western countries. Trump won't even acknowledge Russia did anything at all in the last election, which is preposterous even if you believe he had nothing to do with it. The most likely reason being he wants them to do it again.
Putin is...what, in his mid-60s? Even if he remains in power until he physically cannot do the job anymore that gives him, oh, 10 years or so. Sure, he can do a lot of damage in 10 years but I doubt he wants to watch the world burn. No, there is far too much money still to be made by gaming the system and stacking the deck in favor of those able to grease his palm with hard currency.
Not exactly a waste of time and money for 2/3 of a senate seat. Actually, the history goes back MUCH further. To my recollection, at least the separation of Panama from Columbia in 1903 that the U.S. did not involve itself with despite a treaty, so that Panama could become a separate country to negotiate a land deal for the future Panama Canal.
In truth though, there were several incidents during the 1890s-1900s during that time when we were trying to form a nascent American Empire. Venezuala Crisis of 1903 where the Roosevelt Corollary was developed (basically "America reserves the right to intervene in any country in North or South America"), Boxer Rebellion of 1898 (China), overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, the aforementioned separation of Panama from Colombia, Spanish-American War of 1898 to annex the few remaining Spanish colonies...
At the time the American frontier had just closed and America had become the greatest economic superpower, but was still muddling about on the international stage.