So what's everyone think about Trump supporting a coup in Venezuela?
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
So what's everyone think about Trump supporting a coup in Venezuela?
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
Has Bolton's handprints all over it. I have no idea where it is going, but god knows if there is one thing the United States government is good at inserting ourselves into the affairs of Latin American countries. Iran-Contra being only the most notable example. People should really read the chapter in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" about Chile, Pinochet, and American right-wing economic advisers led by Milton Friedman.
Apparently there was a vote to ensure government workers get their pay. Republicans voted yes and Democrats voted no. I actually didn't know that, since there wasn't any media coverage of it. Funny that they missed that one! I'm sure it wouldn't be front page news that day if positions were reversed.
I expected better of Ocasio Cortez than to vote no on this but eh. Sticking it to the Republicans means more than sticking to your principles I guess.
Nope. This wasn't a bill to end the shutdown; it only refers to funding the Department of Homeland Security. It was introduced by the Democratic representative Lucille Roybal-Allard in addition to a different Democratic bill to end the shutdown:
Today, Democrats are bringing forward six conference reports negotiated last December when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the White House. If members of the Republican Party are serious about governing with us for the betterment of all Americans, then they should vote for these six conference reports and reopen the agencies covered by those bills.
In addition, Chairwoman-designate Roybal-Allard is bringing forward a Continuing Resolution for the Department of Homeland Security through February 28. This legislation will ensure that DHS is open and its employees are paid while President Trump and Congress negotiate border security and immigration policy.
The legislation, which passed in a 234-180 vote and would fund the government through Sept. 30, is the 10th clean-funding measure that Democrats have voted on to end the partial government shutdown, with most of them passing in the chamber.
Ten Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the latest measure. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) was the lone Democrat to vote against the bill.
GOP Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.), Will Hurd (Texas), John Katko (N.Y.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Mike Simpson (Idaho), Chris Smith (N.J.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), Fred Upton (Mich.) and Greg Walden (Ore.) voted with Democrats for the measure.
Democrats advanced the latest measure, introduced by House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), in an attempt to place pressure on GOP lawmakers to break with President Trump’s call to provide funding for a wall along the southern border.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has refused to bring forward House-passed bills for a vote in the upper chamber unless they are part of a deal between President Trump and congressional Democrats to end the government shutdown.
So GOP Congressman Steve Scalise is misrepresenting this bill to make it look like Democrats are voting against ending the shutdown. In reality, Democrats have been pushing forward bills to end the shutdown multiple times since it first began... and this partial resolution itself was also introduced by Democrats.
I'm a Conservative and I agree that the Democratic Party has little to nothing to do with this shutdown. As I said earlier, a good poker player would have folded this hand...
I mean, he HAD the wall (or, at least the funding for it, eminent domain lawsuits and the Rio Grande is gonna stop his wall no matter what). We didn't want to give it to him, but full protection for the Dreamers had Democrats on board. It's what is called a compromise. And they were willing to do it. Lindsey Graham was putting it together with Dick Durbin before Graham lost his mind. But they couldn't even stomach the idea that children who were brought here as BABIES would get amnesty, and even then only by following very, very strict rules. It was a no-brainer. But this Administration isn't just catering to the fringe right, it IS the fringe right. FOX News is literally running the country, and not just hypothetically. Bill Shine is the Communications Director, and he was Roger Ailes' right-hand man.
Not even Fox News, it's Limbaugh and Coulter (probably more Coulter since she's female and thus shamed him more). I listen to Limbaugh so I know what he said. It was the fastest about-face in history on Trump's part. I even predicted the shut down to my family a couple of days after. It was nauseatingly predictable as was the result, a bloody nose, unless the Dems concede for no other reason than to save people's paychecks. Honestly, my opinion of the Democrats would go up if they conceded this time but they have absolutely no political reason to (which, incidentally, would be the exact reason my opinion of them would go up).
Pelosi said either yesterday or today that if the emprun...im can be successfully leveraged as hostages now then they are basically hostages forever, and that Trump (if successful) will pull this bullshit every chance he gets from here on out. Is she wrong about that?? I have a feeling even alot of conservatives are bristling at the idea that people work and aren't getting paid for it. What is more fundamental than that?? Not the hardcore anti-government types (who seem to think no government jobs should exist AT ALL), but enough (maybe 10%) to see his approval ratings continue to plummet. And could it be clearer he doesn't give a shit about them?? Does anyone actually think he does?? He has been stiffing workers his entire life. Of course he doesn't care if they aren't getting paid.
I'm totally honest when I say I'm a poker player and an analyst. There is no way Trump wins this hand. If the Dems play their cards right this can be a major black-eye for the GOP. This is not in the Liberal wheelhouse though so it's going to be interesting how they play it. I'm serious that my vote is in play depending on how this goes. I want to see how serious they are when they say they're for the middle class. These folks whose paychecks are on the firing line are definitely in the middle class...
I was wondering when Venezuela would surface. It does seem to be the case that there was a coordinated move from Guaido and Trump to try and take the presidency. I'm not sure yet whether such interventionism is a good idea or not. On the one hand the situation in Venezuela was clearly not sustainable, but on the other foreign intervention could stiffen Maduro's support - if the military continue to back him the situation will get ugly (akin to Syria).
Trump's also said he's not currently planning military action, but that "all options are on the table". I think this is definitely the wrong thing to say. It provides ammunition to those warning of the dangers of foreign intervention without any upside.
Apparently there was a vote to ensure government workers get their pay. Republicans voted yes and Democrats voted no. I actually didn't know that, since there wasn't any media coverage of it. Funny that they missed that one! I'm sure it wouldn't be front page news that day if positions were reversed.
I expected better of Ocasio Cortez than to vote no on this but eh. Sticking it to the Republicans means more than sticking to your principles I guess.
Either you are aware this joke of a joint resolution ONLY seeks to pay the Homeland Security department while explicitly ignoring all the others and you just want to make it seem like it does something else, or you don't know. Nor do we have any mention of the fact that the Democrats have passed NINE bills to reopen to government since the chamber shifted hands and the Mitch McConnell hasn't even held a goddamn up or down vote on ANY of them. Scalise's tweet is mealy-mouthed horseshit. So yes, by all means introduce something that pays one specific group of people in the government (the only ones most Republicans care about, incidentally) and leaves the rest to rot while we continue with this absurdity that was started by ONE man who was scared of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. What a joke.
The House passed a bipartisan bill to fund the government. The Senate voted on that bill 100-0. Not 80-20, not 90-10, but UNANIMOUSLY. Everything was set to go, everyone was going home for the holidays with a functional country. But literally overnight, Trump gets freaked out by a couple of comments in right-wing media, and torpedoes the entire goddamn thing at the last second. Which, incidentally, he also did over a year ago when he could have had 5x as much wall funding as he is asking for now for Dreamer protections. Again, a done deal that everyone actually serious about getting something done was in the bank. Then they walk into the meeting where it was supposed to happen and Stephen Miller and Tom Cotton have gotten in Trump's ear. No deal. Now we are back at the same place AGAIN.
He had his fucking wall money. He had $25 billion of it on a silver platter. All he had to do was sign off on making sure people who were brought here as children with no agency (because we care about children, right??) could stay in this country if they continued to abide by rules that most felons on parole would find draconian. But nope, that wasn't acceptable. No compromise was acceptable. It's either everything he wants without question with no concessions, or no deal will be made. Christ almighty, he could have had ANYTHING he wanted for two years with if he had even the slightest ounce of the negotiating tactics he claims to have. And he walked away with absolutely nothing. And now that the Democrats won an election to take the House based almost entirely on GOP incompetence, we are supposed to pretend they give a shit about governing. No one buys this argument (well, people do, but not nearly enough of them to make a difference compared to the vast majority that don't) because as stupid as the public can be, they aren't quite dumb enough to wrap their heads around the idea that the pro-government party is in favor of shut-downs and the anti-government party isn't. End of story. Trump and the GOP will never win this fight. It goes against the very basic understanding the public has about the two parties in the first place. They have never won a government shutdown argument with the public, and they never will. Because they have spent 35 years telling everyone it's the enemy.
I listened to the Rush Limbaugh show literally one day before Trump did his about-face so I'm actually pretty certain that radio had a major influence on Trump's decision. I told my dad the day after Christmas that this shutdown would prophet.I one. He thought the Dems would cave in a few days at best. I guess I'm a prophet...
They would have caved 4-8 years ago. It's no longer 4-8 years ago.
I know that because I'm a pretty good poker player. If you don't have a hand you either fold or bluff. Bluffing requires the illusion that you may have a good hand. Trump had neither a good hand or even the illusion of a good one. He's going all-in on nothing when the opponents know he has nothing. That's a recipe for getting taken to the cleaners. Art of the Deal... bullshit!
I don't even like talking like this in the current situation where people are working without getting paid, which is just the ultimate absurdity, but as long as we are on the topic, Trump tried bluff Pelosi today by saying he was going to show up for the State of the Union anyway. And she very quickly called and raised him and said "no, actually you aren't, I meant what I said". And, lo and behold, Trump tonight completely backed down. And this is why I think there is some truth to why he won't attack her like everyone else. He knows he is outmatched and has nothing by a 4 and a 9 in his hand.
More like a 4 of diamonds and a 9 of hearts with an Ace, King, Queen of spades flop...
Honestly, the one Texas Hold 'em session I won at a bar once (back when the whole World Series of Poker thing was all the rage) was because I was too much of a novice at the game to have any tells. I never really knew what kind of situation I was in other than what I myself was holding, so it was probably impossible to read me. I got the feeling at the table that serious players are really annoyed by novice ones because they can't pinpoint them in the time they have to do so. Anyway, I was surprised the other weekend when I ran across a Texas Hold'em tournament on TV (and even noticed Phil Hellmuth is still making the rounds). There was a time when Phil Ivey and Johnny Chan were some of the most recognizable stars in the world to 20-30 year old males in the first decade of the 2000s.
Even worse is trying to win in charity tournaments. Nobody cares if they have a good hand or not , so luck wins more than skill. Trump's dream!
Apparently there was a vote to ensure government workers get their pay. Republicans voted yes and Democrats voted no. I actually didn't know that, since there wasn't any media coverage of it. Funny that they missed that one! I'm sure it wouldn't be front page news that day if positions were reversed.
I expected better of Ocasio Cortez than to vote no on this but eh. Sticking it to the Republicans means more than sticking to your principles I guess.
Nope. This wasn't a bill to end the shutdown; it only refers to funding the Department of Homeland Security. It was introduced by the Democratic representative Lucille Roybal-Allard in addition to a different Democratic bill to end the shutdown:
Today, Democrats are bringing forward six conference reports negotiated last December when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the White House. If members of the Republican Party are serious about governing with us for the betterment of all Americans, then they should vote for these six conference reports and reopen the agencies covered by those bills.
In addition, Chairwoman-designate Roybal-Allard is bringing forward a Continuing Resolution for the Department of Homeland Security through February 28. This legislation will ensure that DHS is open and its employees are paid while President Trump and Congress negotiate border security and immigration policy.
The legislation, which passed in a 234-180 vote and would fund the government through Sept. 30, is the 10th clean-funding measure that Democrats have voted on to end the partial government shutdown, with most of them passing in the chamber.
Ten Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the latest measure. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) was the lone Democrat to vote against the bill.
GOP Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.), Will Hurd (Texas), John Katko (N.Y.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Mike Simpson (Idaho), Chris Smith (N.J.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), Fred Upton (Mich.) and Greg Walden (Ore.) voted with Democrats for the measure.
Democrats advanced the latest measure, introduced by House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), in an attempt to place pressure on GOP lawmakers to break with President Trump’s call to provide funding for a wall along the southern border.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has refused to bring forward House-passed bills for a vote in the upper chamber unless they are part of a deal between President Trump and congressional Democrats to end the government shutdown.
So GOP Congressman Steve Scalise is misrepresenting this bill to make it look like Democrats are voting against ending the shutdown. In reality, Democrats have been pushing forward bills to end the shutdown multiple times since it first began... and this partial resolution itself was also introduced by Democrats.
I'm a Conservative and I agree that the Democratic Party has little to nothing to do with this shutdown. As I said earlier, a good poker player would have folded this hand...
I mean, he HAD the wall (or, at least the funding for it, eminent domain lawsuits and the Rio Grande is gonna stop his wall no matter what). We didn't want to give it to him, but full protection for the Dreamers had Democrats on board. It's what is called a compromise. And they were willing to do it. Lindsey Graham was putting it together with Dick Durbin before Graham lost his mind. But they couldn't even stomach the idea that children who were brought here as BABIES would get amnesty, and even then only by following very, very strict rules. It was a no-brainer. But this Administration isn't just catering to the fringe right, it IS the fringe right. FOX News is literally running the country, and not just hypothetically. Bill Shine is the Communications Director, and he was Roger Ailes' right-hand man.
Not even Fox News, it's Limbaugh and Coulter (probably more Coulter since she's female and thus shamed him more). I listen to Limbaugh so I know what he said. It was the fastest about-face in history on Trump's part. I even predicted the shut down to my family a couple of days after. It was nauseatingly predictable as was the result, a bloody nose, unless the Dems concede for no other reason than to save people's paychecks. Honestly, my opinion of the Democrats would go up if they conceded this time but they have absolutely no political reason to (which, incidentally, would be the exact reason my opinion of them would go up).
Pelosi said either yesterday or today that if the emprun...im can be successfully leveraged as hostages now then they are basically hostages forever, and that Trump (if successful) will pull this bullshit every chance he gets from here on out. Is she wrong about that?? I have a feeling even alot of conservatives are bristling at the idea that people work and aren't getting paid for it. What is more fundamental than that?? Not the hardcore anti-government types (who seem to think no government jobs should exist AT ALL), but enough (maybe 10%) to see his approval ratings continue to plummet. And could it be clearer he doesn't give a shit about them?? Does anyone actually think he does?? He has been stiffing workers his entire life. Of course he doesn't care if they aren't getting paid.
I'm totally honest when I say I'm a poker player and an analyst. There is no way Trump wins this hand. If the Dems play their cards right this can be a major black-eye for the GOP. This is not in the Liberal wheelhouse though so it's going to be interesting how they play it. I'm serious that my vote is in play depending on how this goes. I want to see how serious they are when they say they're for the middle class. These folks whose paychecks are on the firing line are definitely in the middle class...
Trump has no hand because he spent months upon months screaming at the top of his lungs about Mexico paying for a wall. Say it 10 times, you know, whatever, no one remembers it. Say it a couple thousand times and make it the central focus of your campaign for the Presidency and then try pretend you said something else two years later, and you got a bit of a problem on your hands no matter how much of a successful snake-oil salesman you are. Then (because he has not self-control), he sits in a meeting a few days before the shutdown and boldly and proudly states that he will shut down the government, he will take the blame, and that he won't blame the Democrats. And then the government shuts down based on lack of US taxpayer money for the wall, that he JUST said he would take full responsibility for, and we are shocked his poll numbers are cratering?? Again, people can be pretty damn dumb, but this situation isn't rocket science. He did it to himself because he can't shut his mouth for 5 seconds. That video with Pelosi and Schumer alone is probably costing him 10-15% points in a "who is to blame" poll. The guy get's up, beats his chest, says he is gonna shut down the government, does so, and then expects 300 million people to ignore that he said so. I mean, I'm thankful at least that we aren't THAT far gone.
So what's everyone think about Trump supporting a coup in Venezuela?
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
Waste of our attention. Let Venezuela take care of itself. It's only their oil that makes them important so the current situation with oil prices is the cause of their troubles. If this was Bolivia or Uruguay it would be no news at all in the U.S. (sadly).
I think he honestly might have thought his threat to show up at the State of the Union was some kind of masterful end-game power-play. When it didn't work, there was no plan. Now they have none. We can keep on and on like this and the numbers will slowly get worse and worse. And everyday the myth of the all-powerful titan of industry and deal-maker is getting flushed down the toilet. But the point about power and dominance really sums up the whole thing. Giving in to a woman?? But not just any woman, but Nancy Pelosi, the dreaded harpy-witch of the left?? Oh man, not a good look for who he is trying to appeal to.
So what's everyone think about Trump supporting a coup in Venezuela?
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
Waste of our attention. Let Venezuela take care of itself. It's only their oil that makes them important so the current situation with oil prices is the cause of their troubles. If this was Bolivia or Uruguay it would be no news at all in the U.S. (sadly).
The world is increasingly connected and that's not going to change whether we like it or not. A civil war in South America would have a significant impact on the US - and not just in continuing and enhancing the outflow of refugees that is part of the reason for the 'crisis' on the Mexico border.
So what's everyone think about Trump supporting a coup in Venezuela?
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
Waste of our attention. Let Venezuela take care of itself. It's only their oil that makes them important so the current situation with oil prices is the cause of their troubles. If this was Bolivia or Uruguay it would be no news at all in the U.S. (sadly).
The world is increasingly connected and that's not going to change whether we like it or not. A civil war in South America would have a significant impact on the US - and not just in continuing and enhancing the outflow of refugees that is part of the reason for the 'crisis' on the Mexico border.
Venezuelans are going to Brazil though, not the U.S. This is according to @SorcererV1ct0r. I've read his sources and have no reason to doubt him...
Whatever the situation in Venezuela is or isn't, I am 100% confident that Donald Trump being advised by perhaps the #1 proponent of the Iraq War whispering in his ear is not the person the world needs making these decisions right now. I mean, christ, we don't talk enough about the fact that John Bolton is BACK in the White House after the Bush Administration. Might as well dig up Curtis LeMay, Robert McNamara and wheel Henry Kissinger in there as well while were at it. Oliver North already has a gig so I guess he's the odd man out.
I think he honestly might have thought his threat to show up at the State of the Union was some kind of masterful end-game power-play. When it didn't work, there was no plan. Now they have none. We can keep on and on like this and the numbers will slowly get worse and worse. And everyday the myth of the all-powerful titan of industry and deal-maker is getting flushed down the toilet. But the point about power and dominance really sums up the whole thing. Giving in to a woman?? But not just any woman, but Nancy Pelosi, the dreaded harpy-witch of the left?? Oh man, not a good look for who he is trying to appeal to.
NOPE.
I expect Trump to do something stupid on the 29th to make sure the news cycle is about him.
Leading candidate imo is fire Mueller, however, "helping" Venezuela by sending warships could also be in play.
Whatever the situation in Venezuela is or isn't, I am 100% confident that Donald Trump being advised by perhaps the #1 proponent of the Iraq War whispering in his ear is not the person the world needs making these decisions right now. I mean, christ, we don't talk enough about the fact that John Bolton is BACK in the White House after the Bush Administration. Might as well dig up Curtis LeMay and wheel Henry Kissinger in there as well while were at it.
Good thing that Trump doesn't seem to listen to him more than any of his other 'advisors'. I was one of those doofuses who thought Trump would surround himself with 'the best' people. Fool me once...
I really think messages like this have particularly nasty premises and lead to pretty awful things.
I dont. I've seen plenty of parents justify keeping poor, disproportionately African American kids out of their nicer, newer schools in order to ensure that their students are receiving the best education their tax dollars can buy. They probably justify it as good parenting. Instead, they treat it as a zero-sum game that inevitably leaves minorities and the poor (those with the least power to wield) perpetually disadvantaged.
I agree that this meme is pushing too far. It's an attempt to arbitrarily label and control terms when there isnt a need to. In fact - I think it does a disservice to those most affected by racism (which isnt white people) and sexism (which isnt men) because it gives white men the illusion that everyone is equally likely to suffer the effects of racism or sexism.
Contrary to the caffeinatedfeminist view I think it is extremely difficult (and unhelpful) to redefine racism in this way. This article offers a good explanation of the competing definitions of racism - one based around individual views and actions and one based around collective power.
The main thing I don't like about the collective definition is that it assumes a zero-sum game in a constant struggle for power. That sets up a dynamic where the powerful group has an incentive to continue to oppress a weaker group in order to maintain their power. While I'm not saying there's no truth to that perspective, I think it's unhelpful if you're seeking to change things. It seems clear to me that the goal should be to treat everyone equally, not to replace one dominant group with another (as has been done in Israel for instance).
The fact that I dislike the power struggle idea of racism doesn't mean I think there are no grounds for providing support to historically disadvantaged groups. I wouldn't though define such support in terms of race or confine it to specific groups, but instead look at either universal provision (like the idea of a nest-egg provided to all citizens when they come of age) or support based on individual needs.
I think he honestly might have thought his threat to show up at the State of the Union was some kind of masterful end-game power-play. When it didn't work, there was no plan. Now they have none. We can keep on and on like this and the numbers will slowly get worse and worse. And everyday the myth of the all-powerful titan of industry and deal-maker is getting flushed down the toilet. But the point about power and dominance really sums up the whole thing. Giving in to a woman?? But not just any woman, but Nancy Pelosi, the dreaded harpy-witch of the left?? Oh man, not a good look for who he is trying to appeal to.
NOPE.
I expect Trump to do something stupid on the 29th to make sure the news cycle is about him.
Leading candidate imo is fire Mueller, however, "helping" Venezuela by sending warships could also be in play.
He's cornered, he is going to lash out some way.
Well, this is inevitable. He is going to read the press clippings and social media accounts of Pelosi "owning" him (good god we truly do live in the stupidest possible timeline right now) and it's going to set off some other bizarre chain of events. Warships to Venezuela in THIS political climate would truly be the biggest wag the dog moment imaginable, and beyond disturbing. But it would make more sense than the Middle East. The boogie-man in the Bush Administration was Muslims. But in the Trump-era, it is quite clearly Latino immigrants. It would only make sense if his military move was in Latin America rather than the usual theater we have seen in the past two decades.
I think he honestly might have thought his threat to show up at the State of the Union was some kind of masterful end-game power-play. When it didn't work, there was no plan. Now they have none. We can keep on and on like this and the numbers will slowly get worse and worse. And everyday the myth of the all-powerful titan of industry and deal-maker is getting flushed down the toilet. But the point about power and dominance really sums up the whole thing. Giving in to a woman?? But not just any woman, but Nancy Pelosi, the dreaded harpy-witch of the left?? Oh man, not a good look for who he is trying to appeal to.
NOPE.
I expect Trump to do something stupid on the 29th to make sure the news cycle is about him.
Leading candidate imo is fire Mueller, however, "helping" Venezuela by sending warships could also be in play.
He's cornered, he is going to lash out some way.
Well, this is inevitable. He is going to read the press clippings and social media accounts of Pelosi "owning" him (good god we truly do live in the stupidest possible timeline right now) and it's going to set off some other bizarre chain of events. Warships to Venezuela in THIS political climate would truly be the biggest wag the dog moment imaginable, and beyond disturbing. But it would make more sense than the Middle East. The boogie-man in the Bush Administration was Muslims. But in the Trump-era, it is quite clearly Latino immigrants. It would only make sense if his military move was in Latin America rather than the usual theater we have seen in the past two decades.
Floating a few boats in the neighborhood of a non-maritime power wouldn't do much. Do you seriously think the American people are that stupid? If so I hope to God you're wrong.
I think he honestly might have thought his threat to show up at the State of the Union was some kind of masterful end-game power-play. When it didn't work, there was no plan. Now they have none. We can keep on and on like this and the numbers will slowly get worse and worse. And everyday the myth of the all-powerful titan of industry and deal-maker is getting flushed down the toilet. But the point about power and dominance really sums up the whole thing. Giving in to a woman?? But not just any woman, but Nancy Pelosi, the dreaded harpy-witch of the left?? Oh man, not a good look for who he is trying to appeal to.
NOPE.
I expect Trump to do something stupid on the 29th to make sure the news cycle is about him.
Leading candidate imo is fire Mueller, however, "helping" Venezuela by sending warships could also be in play.
He's cornered, he is going to lash out some way.
Well, this is inevitable. He is going to read the press clippings and social media accounts of Pelosi "owning" him (good god we truly do live in the stupidest possible timeline right now) and it's going to set off some other bizarre chain of events. Warships to Venezuela in THIS political climate would truly be the biggest wag the dog moment imaginable, and beyond disturbing. But it would make more sense than the Middle East. The boogie-man in the Bush Administration was Muslims. But in the Trump-era, it is quite clearly Latino immigrants. It would only make sense if his military move was in Latin America rather than the usual theater we have seen in the past two decades.
It's the easiest way to get a president's approval rating up. Going to war. All they need is one American to die during the riots and half the country will back it.
So what's everyone think about Trump supporting a coup in Venezuela?
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
Waste of our attention. Let Venezuela take care of itself. It's only their oil that makes them important so the current situation with oil prices is the cause of their troubles. If this was Bolivia or Uruguay it would be no news at all in the U.S. (sadly).
The world is increasingly connected and that's not going to change whether we like it or not. A civil war in South America would have a significant impact on the US - and not just in continuing and enhancing the outflow of refugees that is part of the reason for the 'crisis' on the Mexico border.
Venezuelans are going to Brazil though, not the U.S. This is according to @SorcererV1ct0r. I've read his sources and have no reason to doubt him...
I agree far more are going to Brazil (and Mexico), but even the relatively small numbers coming to the US are a major reason for the caravans that Trump has been so concerned about. This article gives a bit of coverage of the background and highlights that Venezuela is now by quite some way the country responsible for the largest number of asylum applications to the US.
Cory Gardener of Colorado has now come out and broken with Trump on government funding with NO wall money, mostly because he isn't keen on committing political suicide. That means at a bare minimum, he, Collins and Murkowski would break ranks if the Senate put this up for a vote. That is at the very least a tie at 50-50, which Pence could break. Even one more defection would mean the House and Senate could pass the bill, which Trump would then likely veto. The House can override without a problem in this climate. It would only take 5 Senators to break to do so in the Senate, and if Gardner is running scared, so are others. But if McConnell doesn't even put it up for a vote, it doesn't matter.
So what's everyone think about Trump supporting a coup in Venezuela?
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
Waste of our attention. Let Venezuela take care of itself. It's only their oil that makes them important so the current situation with oil prices is the cause of their troubles. If this was Bolivia or Uruguay it would be no news at all in the U.S. (sadly).
The world is increasingly connected and that's not going to change whether we like it or not. A civil war in South America would have a significant impact on the US - and not just in continuing and enhancing the outflow of refugees that is part of the reason for the 'crisis' on the Mexico border.
Venezuelans are going to Brazil though, not the U.S. This is according to @SorcererV1ct0r. I've read his sources and have no reason to doubt him...
I agree far more are going to Brazil (and Mexico), but even the relatively small numbers coming to the US are a major reason for the caravans that Trump has been so concerned about. This article gives a bit of coverage of the background and highlights that Venezuela is now by quite some way the country responsible for the largest number of asylum applications to the US.
Asylum applicants are trying to enter legally. That's a far cry from a caravan trying to enter illegally. It's a Hell of a long way from Venezuela to the Mexico-U.S. border.
Not for nothing, is it entirely possible that Nancy Pelosi effectively cancelling the State of the Union will INCREASE her popularity because most people can't stand the damn thing in the first place?? Is there a single sane American who wants to watch it given the current situation??
Not for nothing, is it entirely possible that Nancy Pelosi effectively cancelling the State of the Union will INCREASE her popularity because most people can't stand the damn thing in the first place?? Is there a single sane American who wants to watch it given the current situation??
I haven't watched one since Bush Sr. so I guess I'll have to say I won't miss it...
So what's everyone think about Trump supporting a coup in Venezuela?
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
Waste of our attention. Let Venezuela take care of itself. It's only their oil that makes them important so the current situation with oil prices is the cause of their troubles. If this was Bolivia or Uruguay it would be no news at all in the U.S. (sadly).
The world is increasingly connected and that's not going to change whether we like it or not. A civil war in South America would have a significant impact on the US - and not just in continuing and enhancing the outflow of refugees that is part of the reason for the 'crisis' on the Mexico border.
Venezuelans are going to Brazil though, not the U.S. This is according to @SorcererV1ct0r. I've read his sources and have no reason to doubt him...
I agree far more are going to Brazil (and Mexico), but even the relatively small numbers coming to the US are a major reason for the caravans that Trump has been so concerned about. This article gives a bit of coverage of the background and highlights that Venezuela is now by quite some way the country responsible for the largest number of asylum applications to the US.
Asylum applicants are trying to enter legally. That's a far cry from a caravan trying to enter illegally. It's a Hell of a long way from Venezuela to the Mexico-U.S. border.
The distance is why a relatively small percentage of the several million people that have left Venezuela in recent years have made it to the US. There's still been an increase of a couple of hundred thousand or so in the US and that would be expected to increase quite sharply if there's a war in Venezuela (particularly as neighboring countries have already become significantly less welcoming to refugees).
Your comment suggests you think people in caravans are trying to enter illegally. That's not the case for most of the people in them. Even those that do ultimately try and sneak across the border are primarily doing so in response to the border being entirely closed some of the time, or accepting only a small number of people a day across the rest of the time (resulting in waits stretching over many months for people wanting to cross legally).
Perhaps I should also make the point that asylum applications arise from 2 routes: 1) People seeking to enter legally and making an asylum application in advance. 2) People claiming asylum as a defense against legal proceedings being taken against them (such as for illegally crossing the border). I'm not sure exactly what the split is, but the numbers from group 2) are certainly significant and may well be a majority. The reality is thus very far from the 'asylum = legal' and 'caravans = illegal' characterization.
Yes, agreed. I think those caravans are the opposite from illegal; they are large and well-tracked, so they will hardly just sneak across the border. Presenting yourself at the border and requesting asylum is perfectly legal.
Regardless of legality and politics, I think the US is missing a perfectly good opportunity here. There are lots of honest hard-working people in those caravans, who just want to flee crime and find a better life for their kids. A lot of them would be an enrichment to any country.
The problem isn't the caravans, it's the rich people in the USA hiring illegal immigrants to work in their businesses. If you penalized people heavily for hiring illegals, you'd wipe out the market for illegal immigrant labor. But Trump won't do that, because he's one of the people *hiring* illegals! I posted a story with a woman (can't remember her name), who worked at one of Trump's Golf Resorts. At one point, the Secret Service came in to the resort when Trump was campaigning and needed everyone's Social Security number, and she had to go to the person who did the hiring and say she didn't have a SSN. And he was like, "it's okay. Tell me everyone who is illegal you work with and we'll take care of you." 'Taking care of' was apparently giving them false SSN's.
So when Trump started going against illegal workers, she'd had enough and came forward to tell her story. This is why Trump won't go after the people who hire illegals- he's one of them! And a very large one, at that.
Trump administration quietly changes definition of "domestic violence" and "sexual assault"
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/23/trump-administration-quietly-changes-definition-of-domestic-violence-and-sexual-assault/?fbclid=IwAR2YabCoJmtN3sSDSZdqOSLfIobGVyYiPkIEbOhy-KQoMROMH2GzVs335LQ During the Obama administration, the definition was far more expansive and was vetted by domestic violence groups. The new definition seeks to limit forms of domestic violence to the kind of physical harm that warrants prosecution. “The previous definition included critical components of the phenomenon that experts recognize as domestic abuse — a pattern of deliberate behavior, the dynamics of power and control, and behaviors that encompass physical or sexual violence as well as forms of emotional, economic, or psychological abuse,” Nanasi explained. But the Trump Justice Department’s definition only considers physical harm that constitutes a felony or misdemeanor to be domestic violence, meaning that other forms of domestic violence like psychological abuse and manipulation no longer fall under the DOJ’s definition. “This makes no sense for an office charged with funding and implementing solutions to the problem of domestic violence rather than merely prosecuting individual abusers,” Nanasi wrote. Great! So mental and emotional abuse is now, apparently, not *really* abuse. Color me digusted.
The "Ultimate Pleasure Experience" Male Sex Robots Could Replace Men for Good
So what's everyone think about Trump supporting a coup in Venezuela?
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
Waste of our attention. Let Venezuela take care of itself. It's only their oil that makes them important so the current situation with oil prices is the cause of their troubles. If this was Bolivia or Uruguay it would be no news at all in the U.S. (sadly).
The world is increasingly connected and that's not going to change whether we like it or not. A civil war in South America would have a significant impact on the US - and not just in continuing and enhancing the outflow of refugees that is part of the reason for the 'crisis' on the Mexico border.
Venezuelans are going to Brazil though, not the U.S. This is according to @SorcererV1ct0r. I've read his sources and have no reason to doubt him...
I agree far more are going to Brazil (and Mexico), but even the relatively small numbers coming to the US are a major reason for the caravans that Trump has been so concerned about. This article gives a bit of coverage of the background and highlights that Venezuela is now by quite some way the country responsible for the largest number of asylum applications to the US.
Asylum applicants are trying to enter legally. That's a far cry from a caravan trying to enter illegally. It's a Hell of a long way from Venezuela to the Mexico-U.S. border.
The distance is why a relatively small percentage of the several million people that have left Venezuela in recent years have made it to the US. There's still been an increase of a couple of hundred thousand or so in the US and that would be expected to increase quite sharply if there's a war in Venezuela (particularly as neighboring countries have already become significantly less welcoming to refugees).(...).
I can't have an honest opinion about Venezuelans refugees since i live 4 000 km away from Venezuela, but Bolsonaro had said that they will accept those who wanna flee from Maduro's dictatorship but will not accept criminals. Yes, the same guy who was severely criticized by the international media by being an racist that won in a white minority country and is married to a woman of mixed race. Being honest, i never meet any Venezuelan IRL, i can't have an honest opinion about accept then or not. But one thing is true. It will affect much more neighbor countries than USA/Canada.
Absolutely clueless. They keep saying stuff like this not by accident, but because they have absolutely no conception of how 99% of us live our lives. In 24 hours the second missed check hits. Next week is the 1st of the month. Section 8 housing vouchers are no longer going to pay landlords when it runs out. If you are a disabled person who pays $150 of the $500 rent that is usually covered, explain to me how in the everloving hell that person is going to come up with the other $350. Now we are reaching the point where a million people (and many more under contract) who haven't been paid in a month have the most and biggest bills due. Shit is about to start hitting the fan here, and if you doubt me on this, just watch. Can't imagine why Trump is losing the public relations battle when his Commerce Secretary can't wrap his head around why people who aren't being paid can't buy groceries. This is really fundamental stuff here, and they either don't know, don't care, or both. Who the hell from that Administration is allowing Wilbur Ross to give interviews talking about how it's not that big of a deal in terms of GDP and suggesting everyone get "bridge loans". Jesus jumped-up Christ. There is tone-deaf, and then there is whatever this is. I don't know how this could be more out of touch. Even if you believe this shit, why is he saying it out loud??
Comments
You might recall he was dumbfounded a couple months ago when he wanted to know why he couldn't just attack Venezuela out of the blue. So now the opposition leader has declared himself President down there and Trump and Pence are all oh yeah totally that guy is President! So Maduro, the other President, is kicking out Trump's US diplomats.
Maduro ain't a good guy at all but I think interventionism in Venezuela is something we don't need to get involved with. I can imagine Venezuela being a tempting target for Trump to distract from his utter failure unpopularity and criminality. And besides it would give him an excuse to pretend one failing nation = all socialism. It doesn't work that way with failed capitalism states on Fox News but every social support program can be conveniently compared to Venezuela.
Trump's also said he's not currently planning military action, but that "all options are on the table". I think this is definitely the wrong thing to say. It provides ammunition to those warning of the dangers of foreign intervention without any upside.
I think he honestly might have thought his threat to show up at the State of the Union was some kind of masterful end-game power-play. When it didn't work, there was no plan. Now they have none. We can keep on and on like this and the numbers will slowly get worse and worse. And everyday the myth of the all-powerful titan of industry and deal-maker is getting flushed down the toilet. But the point about power and dominance really sums up the whole thing. Giving in to a woman?? But not just any woman, but Nancy Pelosi, the dreaded harpy-witch of the left?? Oh man, not a good look for who he is trying to appeal to.
I expect Trump to do something stupid on the 29th to make sure the news cycle is about him.
Leading candidate imo is fire Mueller, however, "helping" Venezuela by sending warships could also be in play.
He's cornered, he is going to lash out some way.
The main thing I don't like about the collective definition is that it assumes a zero-sum game in a constant struggle for power. That sets up a dynamic where the powerful group has an incentive to continue to oppress a weaker group in order to maintain their power. While I'm not saying there's no truth to that perspective, I think it's unhelpful if you're seeking to change things. It seems clear to me that the goal should be to treat everyone equally, not to replace one dominant group with another (as has been done in Israel for instance).
The fact that I dislike the power struggle idea of racism doesn't mean I think there are no grounds for providing support to historically disadvantaged groups. I wouldn't though define such support in terms of race or confine it to specific groups, but instead look at either universal provision (like the idea of a nest-egg provided to all citizens when they come of age) or support based on individual needs.
Well, this is inevitable. He is going to read the press clippings and social media accounts of Pelosi "owning" him (good god we truly do live in the stupidest possible timeline right now) and it's going to set off some other bizarre chain of events. Warships to Venezuela in THIS political climate would truly be the biggest wag the dog moment imaginable, and beyond disturbing. But it would make more sense than the Middle East. The boogie-man in the Bush Administration was Muslims. But in the Trump-era, it is quite clearly Latino immigrants. It would only make sense if his military move was in Latin America rather than the usual theater we have seen in the past two decades.
Your comment suggests you think people in caravans are trying to enter illegally. That's not the case for most of the people in them. Even those that do ultimately try and sneak across the border are primarily doing so in response to the border being entirely closed some of the time, or accepting only a small number of people a day across the rest of the time (resulting in waits stretching over many months for people wanting to cross legally).
Perhaps I should also make the point that asylum applications arise from 2 routes:
1) People seeking to enter legally and making an asylum application in advance.
2) People claiming asylum as a defense against legal proceedings being taken against them (such as for illegally crossing the border).
I'm not sure exactly what the split is, but the numbers from group 2) are certainly significant and may well be a majority. The reality is thus very far from the 'asylum = legal' and 'caravans = illegal' characterization.
Regardless of legality and politics, I think the US is missing a perfectly good opportunity here. There are lots of honest hard-working people in those caravans, who just want to flee crime and find a better life for their kids. A lot of them would be an enrichment to any country.
So when Trump started going against illegal workers, she'd had enough and came forward to tell her story. This is why Trump won't go after the people who hire illegals- he's one of them! And a very large one, at that.
Unions Representing Air Traffic Controllers, Pilots, and Flight Attendants Just Issued an Incredibly Dire Warning
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/01/shutdown-air-travel-statement-unions-warning/?fbclid=IwAR3gKuji58chLdhwmuJ-_YWT7CBWRCEY63OoUJIT_Lg1q0quqQ881cnI_v4The shutdown and lack of pay is compromising America's security, and people, experienced people, are leaving the job, making it steadily worse, and they can't hire people of like experience.
This chart shows how far behind America is in paid time off compared to the rest of the world
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/statista-how-far-behind-us-is-in-paid-time-off-compared-to-the-world.html?__source=facebook|main&fbclid=IwAR1FEU0qJzWwVpWqF8-ZRKFnSI4_Og98F3iYfXBHLZzxcppMQ8BEey78jwcWe're #12! Even South Korea gets more in paid leave time. Now, that's just embarrassing!
Trump administration quietly changes definition of "domestic violence" and "sexual assault"
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/23/trump-administration-quietly-changes-definition-of-domestic-violence-and-sexual-assault/?fbclid=IwAR2YabCoJmtN3sSDSZdqOSLfIobGVyYiPkIEbOhy-KQoMROMH2GzVs335LQDuring the Obama administration, the definition was far more expansive and was vetted by domestic violence groups. The new definition seeks to limit forms of domestic violence to the kind of physical harm that warrants prosecution.
“The previous definition included critical components of the phenomenon that experts recognize as domestic abuse — a pattern of deliberate behavior, the dynamics of power and control, and behaviors that encompass physical or sexual violence as well as forms of emotional, economic, or psychological abuse,” Nanasi explained.
But the Trump Justice Department’s definition only considers physical harm that constitutes a felony or misdemeanor to be domestic violence, meaning that other forms of domestic violence like psychological abuse and manipulation no longer fall under the DOJ’s definition.
“This makes no sense for an office charged with funding and implementing solutions to the problem of domestic violence rather than merely prosecuting individual abusers,” Nanasi wrote.
Great! So mental and emotional abuse is now, apparently, not *really* abuse. Color me digusted.
The "Ultimate Pleasure Experience" Male Sex Robots Could Replace Men for Good
https://educateinspirechange.org/science-technology/the-ultimate-pleasure-experience-male-love-robots-could-replace-men-for-good/?fbclid=IwAR1T8osoxfE-PK4Lgf7s5Q4W_DM4YVintSS3rjcvSY2uuUc8TXGuynKzeV8I seriously doubt it.There's a reason why "Robotic Sex" is a bad thing!
I dunno about this one. But hostile restructuring is what some business guys are good at...
I can't have an honest opinion about Venezuelans refugees since i live 4 000 km away from Venezuela, but Bolsonaro had said that they will accept those who wanna flee from Maduro's dictatorship but will not accept criminals. Yes, the same guy who was severely criticized by the international media by being an racist that won in a white minority country and is married to a woman of mixed race. Being honest, i never meet any Venezuelan IRL, i can't have an honest opinion about accept then or not. But one thing is true. It will affect much more neighbor countries than USA/Canada.
But French Guiana alerted for a possible Venezuelan refugee crisis
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/News/Guyana-on-alert-for-possible-Venezuelan-refugee-crisis
Absolutely clueless. They keep saying stuff like this not by accident, but because they have absolutely no conception of how 99% of us live our lives. In 24 hours the second missed check hits. Next week is the 1st of the month. Section 8 housing vouchers are no longer going to pay landlords when it runs out. If you are a disabled person who pays $150 of the $500 rent that is usually covered, explain to me how in the everloving hell that person is going to come up with the other $350. Now we are reaching the point where a million people (and many more under contract) who haven't been paid in a month have the most and biggest bills due. Shit is about to start hitting the fan here, and if you doubt me on this, just watch. Can't imagine why Trump is losing the public relations battle when his Commerce Secretary can't wrap his head around why people who aren't being paid can't buy groceries. This is really fundamental stuff here, and they either don't know, don't care, or both. Who the hell from that Administration is allowing Wilbur Ross to give interviews talking about how it's not that big of a deal in terms of GDP and suggesting everyone get "bridge loans". Jesus jumped-up Christ. There is tone-deaf, and then there is whatever this is. I don't know how this could be more out of touch. Even if you believe this shit, why is he saying it out loud??