I'm sure they'll do the "it was a different time" thing. I have my own high school yearbooks from New York State. No blackface or Klansman pictures here. That seems to be more of a lower Mid-Atlantic to South thing. The only "blackface" pictures I recall seeing was of the film "The Jazz Singer", and when I first saw them, my eyes did a o.O expression. Like "Why?!"
Look, when your last ditch survival tactic is asking for facial recognition software to be applied to prove it wasn't you dressed up under a Klan hood, with the Democratic electorate the way it is in 2019, you are playing a losing hand. Ralph Northman currently has a constituency of support of one person, which is himself.
Look, when your last ditch survival tactic is asking for facial recognition software to be applied to prove it wasn't you dressed up under a Klan hood, with the Democratic electorate the way it is in 2019, you are playing a losing hand. Ralph Northman currently has a constituency of support of one person, which is himself.
Trump has broke another treaty this time a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia. He claimed they weren't following it so rather than do anything about it he gave them the gift of just suspending the treaty.
Russian President Putin announced his support for a proposal to start construction of a new medium-range supersonic nuclear missile and presumably thanked Trump for his continued support and undermining of NATO and the EU.
Yeah, the treaty was more beneficial to US than to Russia, as the former still kept most of its missiles on the ships, while the Russian bulk of short/medium arsenal was ground-based. That doesn't mean there's much interest in the arms race here for the sake of it, though. Russian interests would've been better off with a democrat in White House, certainly not with a temperamental and unpredictable "tough" guy. Like many Russians I find the contemporary American liberalism highly disagreeable with, so on the surface Trump might seem a preferable figure... except even back in 2016 he already seemed to me as rather temperamental and unpredictable individual - someone I would definitely cheer for as a media person, but wouldn't want to him to be a president of the rival country (how our countries got back to rivalry is another matter).
I said it before: the only people who should be able to tell a person they need to resign is the people who voted that person in.
Others can voice displeasure but should not be able to control a person, especially over a photo that is over 30 years old and is probably being taken out of context. What are we in 5 years time going to start holding people who dressed up as Indians, with the faux feather headbands and plastic bow accountable because it is racially/culturally unacceptable to do so today?
If the Democratic Party does have an issue with it, they can remove him from Caucus and be done with him that way. He’ll be a sitting independent instead and they can bring forth a new candidate in the next election to run against him but you know.
IMO, Northman did everything right yesterday: He owned it right away, he apologized for it, he laid claim that it isn’t who he is today, or even the day he got elected and that his voting record spoke to that:
That still isn’t good enough for mob mentality who do not know the full story, are quick to cast all blame towards one individual (what repercussions should the school face for allowing this type of behaviour on campus, or at least in the year book) and think that just removing one person will make the whole problem vanish. It’s like America learned nothing from the MAGA hat teen/Phillips showdown.
So the VA governor confirmed he was in a photo either as a guy in blackface makeup or as a klansman in full whitehood. Why do something like that? It is just not acceptable. He should resign especially in a place with a long history of troubled race relations like I believe Virginia has had. So far he's refusing to resign despite pressure. I doubt he will be able to keep refusing but so far he has.
The FL sec of state just resigned for basically the same thing - blackface photos.
I would like to add, FROM 1984. It's not like these are pre-Civil Rights photos.
On the other hand, while you have Democrats calling for his head, you also have GOP calling for his head.
To which I say, "STFU hypocrites". If crying over Kavanaugh's "injustice" over crimes from 30 years ago was cool with you, then butt out calling for the resignation of someone else because of something from 30 years ago.
So, I guess my opinion overall is sort of neutral.
Look, when your last ditch survival tactic is asking for facial recognition software to be applied to prove it wasn't you dressed up under a Klan hood, with the Democratic electorate the way it is in 2019, you are playing a losing hand. Ralph Northman currently has a constituency of support of one person, which is himself.
He's speaking to the press right now. His argument against resigning is that it would be "The easy way out". It's a pretty transparent, selfish attitude. He's citing that he was in the "Honor Corp" at VMI, etc, etc.
He''s done-zo.
Ugh. He juuuuust said he's never drank enough to not "be in touch" with himself. Kavanaughing...
His defense seems to be that he knows it wasn't him in the photo because he remembers dressing up in black face at ANOTHER costume contest that year, where he says he was portraying Michael Jackson, and then made some comment about how hard it is to remove shoe polish from your face. What???? And, if anyone has seen pictures of Michael Jackson circa 1984, it's already abundantly clear he had started bleaching his skin (say compared to the "Off the Wall"-era), so the idea of using black face to dress up as, of all people, Michael frickin' Jackson, is even more bizarre. He also admits to going by the nickname "Coonman", which was pulled from another yearbook page. That press conference was the exact opposite of exculpatory. Also, if this was going to be your defense, maybe don't say anything yesterday??
I've seen plenty of risque and taboo Halloween costumes before. These included someone who went as a used tampon and another who dressed up as golfer Payne Stewart less than 72 hours after he died in a plane crash. But I never saw anyone dumb enough to go in blackface with a partner at your side as a Klan member.
Moreover, I am flummoxed as to how Ed Gillespie's oppo research team didn't find this photo, but then again, portraying your opponent as a racist when the core message of YOUR campaign is that Mexicans are coming to kill you probably doesn't jive too well. But it would have at the very least killed African-American turn-out. So my only guess is that no one thought to look for a Medical School yearbook because, honestly, why do medical schools even HAVE yearbooks?? Anyone at that level of schooling is approaching their mid-20s at that point.
I'm not sure exactly how bad it is (maybe there's some weird context I don't know about), but I'm not sure how much of a difference it will make at this point.Democratic voters tend to have pretty high standards for respectable conduct, and they tend not to forgive this kind of nonsense. Al Franken was forced to resign simply because he pretended to grope a woman back in his comedian days (his hands were hovering), and his otherwise unblemished political career was not enough to save him.
Democrats don't generally accept "Hey, it wasn't that bad" as a defense, even for members of their own party, hence the immediate calls for Northam's and Franken's resignations.
Personally, I think it's better that way. We should hold our politicians to high standards; not offer excuses just because they belong to the same political party as us.
I'm not sure exactly how bad it is (maybe there's some weird context I don't know about), but I'm not sure how much of a difference it will make at this point.Democratic voters tend to have pretty high standards for respectable conduct, and they tend not to forgive this kind of nonsense. Al Franken was forced to resign simply because he pretended to grope a woman back in his comedian days (his hands were hovering), and his otherwise unblemished political career was not enough to save him.
Democrats don't generally accept "Hey, it wasn't that bad" as a defense, even for members of their own party, hence the immediate calls for Northam's and Franken's resignations.
Personally, I think it's better that way. We should hold our politicians to high standards; not offer excuses just because they belong to the same political party as us.
Well, politics plays a part in it too. The Democrats couldn't very well sit on their hands about Franken in the midst of the Roy Moore controversy. So he was damaged goods. Likewise, we can't sit around and poo-poo Northman while calling out people like Trump and Steve King of Iowa. And even if the ONLY motive (and it isn't the only one, especially for African-American voters) is not wanting to look like a hypocrite, that is still better than actually being one.
The mood on the left is that these so-called "casual" incidents of racist behavior have to be called out to draw attention to how they perpetuate more serious abuses. Same goes for sexual harassment and abuse. And, to be frank, it is not difficult to go through life not dressing up in costumes that mock minority groups and not sexually assaulting or harassing women. It just isn't. Most people do it all their lives without a problem.
And make no mistake, the campaign to get rid of him at the moment is nearly unilateral on the left at the moment, and FAR louder than any conservative voices to do the same. For a couple hours, they tried to make something out of it, then they realized "oh yeah, these people actually get rid of them". They forget because they have at least two current sitting Senators (including McConnell) who have posed in front of Confederate flags with dubious (at best) groups. In McConnell's case, it is even more inexcusable because Kentucky wasn't even IN the Confederacy. And that is another thing with the "Stars and Bars". It's one thing for actual Southerners to fly it (and it's still horrible), but what is the reasoning behind people from Wisconsin or New Hampshire who have it on the back of their pick-up??
Yeah, the treaty was more beneficial to US than to Russia, as the former still kept most of its missiles on the ships, while the Russian bulk of short/medium arsenal was ground-based. That doesn't mean there's much interest in the arms race here for the sake of it, though. Russian interests would've been better off with a democrat in White House, certainly not with a temperamental and unpredictable "tough" guy. Like many Russians I find the contemporary American liberalism highly disagreeable with, so on the surface Trump might seem a preferable figure... except even back in 2016 he already seemed to me as rather temperamental and unpredictable individual - someone I would definitely cheer for as a media person, but wouldn't want to him to be a president of the rival country (how our countries got back to rivalry is another matter).
A Democrat in the white house would not have gifted Russia with freeing Russia from the treaty.
A democract in the white house would not hide what's he doing meeting alone with Putin without a us interpreter and destroying notes. Trump literally committed treason here
A democrat in the white house would not be weakening and undermining our alliances with NATO and EU countries.
A democrat in the white House would not be lifting sanctions on corrupt Russian oligarchs.
A Democrat would enforce the sanctions passed by Congress. Trump is pursuing corruption through deals with Russians, he's not enforcing sanctions, he's freeing them from arms treaties, he's helping strengthen their influence by undermining NATO. He is goddamn terrible.
The nuclear treaty with Russia was a crowning achievement of the REAGAN Administration in 1987. Who, up until St. Orange the 1st, was the patron saint of the Republican Party. Within 24 hours, Putin was announcing work on new missile projects. Anyone want those confiscated notes from Trump's meetings with him revealed yet?? Here is a rundown of a Twitter thread (that I have taken the time to put in paragraph form) from longtime Republican Tom Nichols (he is one of the never-Trump crowd):
Okay, everyone, I'm going to explain why the INF Treaty even existed and why it's an idiotic move to dump it and think we can replicate our success against the USSR in the 1980s all over again. Mute or turn off notifications if you don't want this mini-lecture. The problem centers around "extended deterrence." How do you convince your opponent you'll respond to an attack on your allies as you would an attack on yourself? You can *say* that you will treat invading Bonn like it's an invasion of New York, but how do you make it stick? NATO had this problem because it was grossly outnumbered during the Cold War. So we said: Well, we'll nuke you. The Soviets said: "Whatever. You won't trade Chicago for Frankfurt." For us to jump from "war in Europe" to "nuking Leningrad" was a stretch. We had a gap. We had"battlefield" nukes for affecting the course of battles (like tank engagements) and "strategic" nukes for US vs USSR strikes. We needed something in between, which would strike Soviet forces in Eastern Europe as a step toward all-out war.
Both sides developed "theater" nukes that could strike far in the rear of each alliance, and thus provide a link from Europe to all-out nuclear war. This is why they were a deterrent: because they made it, paradoxically, easier to get from "shots fired" to "Moscow melted." In the 1970s, the Soviets (as usual) tried to get the upper hand in this competition and fielded a much more accurate, mobile version of these weapons, a strategically insane move that was even opposed by the Soviet diplomatic establishment. But Moscow's generals got their way.
These Soviet weapons were so menacing that NATO came together in the late 70s - yes, at the behest of Carter, not Reagan - to field a responding system that could also drop a nuke down a rabbit hole (or on Moscow) almost immediately. This was an *immensely* dangerous time. By the 1980s, war in Europe could go to all-out nuclear war in minutes. But here's what was *different*: We put those weapons in Europe *in the path of a Soviet invasion.* We told the Soviets: "If you come in, we'll have no choice. It'll be your doing, not ours." In other words, deterrence relied on the Soviets triggering a "use or lose" crisis, rather than relying on some steely-eyed decision in Washington to unleash hell. That made a huge difference. Maybe a POTUS would lose his nerve...but what about the guys about to be overrun?This was a good move, because it made the link from war in Europe to the end of the USSR a lot more credible. Deterrence was, in a way, taken out of our hands, and nuclear war would be the fault of the Soviets for invading, whether we wanted it or not, and they knew it.
And there's the hitch: today, we're not defending against some massive Soviet invasion anymore. The targets for most of the old US INF were areas that are now part of NATO. Now, a new US INF would have only one target: Russia. Today, there's no "Warsaw Pact" to fight this out on. If we use INF, we'll be hitting inside Russia. If you think that this is a good idea, well, te salud, Don Corleone, because there's no way the Russians will sit around and just take a nuke strike inside Russia. Likewise, in Asia, we have nowhere to put these weapons if we develop them again. (Japan? South Korea? Uh, no.) And the only targets for them will be in China itself. There's no "theater" in which we'll be striking; in both Russia and China, these will be strategic strikes. Or, put another way, the Russians and the Chinese will have to *assume* these are strategic strikes, especially if we do something ludicrous like put the new INF on submarines. "Oh, that launch? Just a theater strike. Don't overreact." Sure. Good luck with that.
What will deter Russia? If they know they'd lose a conventional action of any size. But we don't like spending money on expensive troops and guns, so instead, we're letting the Russians bait us into a nuclear standoff that benefits *them*, because of the home turf advantage. Without the trigger of INF placed in the way of advancing Russian armies - and no one's going to do that, unless you think we should line the Polish and Baltic borders with nukes - we're left with a *discretionary* force that relies solely on our promise to go nuclear. This is the situation we were trying to get *out of* in the '60s, that we solved briefly in the '80s (at the risk of a holocaust), and that Reagan got us out of as soon he could. We're now the conventionally superior power - but we're acting like it's 1975. And trying to replicate the 1980s in Europe by doing it again in Asia is mindless and ahistorical, the kind of thing wargamers come up when they treat nuclear weapons like a big game of Risk. You want to worry China? Build more ships, not more nukes that you won't use.
Dumping the INF Treaty has long been a cherished idea among guys like Bolton who hate treaties, and nuclear enthusiasts who think you can pop off a couple of dozen small nukes and not escalate to Armageddon. No Dem or GOP administration wanted that until now, so here we are. In sum, we don't know what we're doing. We're not thinking about why we would go to war, what scenarios we're trying to defeat. We're just playing tit for tat, without even knowing why. We're just flailing around, alienating our own NATO allies, then pretending we're tough. Worse, we've come to believe that everything worked out fine in the 1980s, when in fact guys on both sides had to change their shorts when all that was over. We got by that with careful leadership and some basic luck. I guess now all that's left is to buy stock in Vault-Tec.
If they know they'd lose a conventional action of any size. But we don't like spending money on expensive troops and guns, so instead, we're letting the Russians bait us into a nuclear standoff that benefits *them*, because of the home turf advantage. Without the trigger of INF placed in the way of advancing Russian armies - and no one's going to do that, unless you think we should line the Polish and Baltic borders with nukes - we're left with a *discretionary* force that relies solely on our promise to go nuclear.
Random question about this. I feel like I've always heard that nuclear weaponry is incredibly expensive to research, manufacture and maintain. I guess I have no idea of the cost of that comparative to a conventional military force. Are nuclear weapons less expensive than conventional armed forces? (I suppose some context is needed. Let's say there's an arms-race of the sort we dealt with in the cold war, and which is commented upon in the tweet thread you've referenced).
A Democrat in the white house would not have gifted Russia with freeing Russia from the treaty.
A democrat in the white house would not be weakening and undermining our alliances with NATO and EU countries.
A democrat in the white House would not be lifting sanctions on corrupt Russian oligarchs.
You make it sound as if Russia was just looking for an excuse to start pumping out another type of weapon. Seriously? Our budget is not rubber made, it can't stretch forever.
Not even to mention Russia has been rather willing to let US inspect the missile suspected of treaty violation. As for sanctions, it's not anyone's in White House business to fight corruption in other countries, though. Especially going as far as to threaten third parties who might be doing business with sanctioned figures.
PS
<blockquote class="Quote">
<div><a rel="nofollow">jjstraka34</a> said:</div>
<div>
Dumping the INF Treaty has long been a cherished idea among guys like Bolton who hate treaties, and nuclear enthusiasts who think you can pop off a couple of dozen small nukes and not escalate to Armageddon. No Dem or GOP administration wanted that until now, so here we are. In sum, we don't know what we're doing. We're not thinking about why we would go to war, what scenarios we're trying to defeat. We're just playing tit for tat, without even knowing why. We're just flailing around, alienating our own NATO allies, then pretending we're tough. Worse, we've come to believe that everything worked out fine in the 1980s, when in fact guys on both sides had to change their shorts when all that was over. We got by that with careful leadership and some basic luck. I guess now all that's left is to buy stock in Vault-Tec.</div>
</blockquote>
My point exactly. Things used to be stable, and now with the treaties dying right and left god knows what's gonna happen. One could perceive it as a good opportunity, but there's one problem - NATO forces are a little bigger than Russian, so any gamble would be in their favor.
If they know they'd lose a conventional action of any size. But we don't like spending money on expensive troops and guns, so instead, we're letting the Russians bait us into a nuclear standoff that benefits *them*, because of the home turf advantage. Without the trigger of INF placed in the way of advancing Russian armies - and no one's going to do that, unless you think we should line the Polish and Baltic borders with nukes - we're left with a *discretionary* force that relies solely on our promise to go nuclear.
Random question about this. I feel like I've always heard that nuclear weaponry is incredibly expensive to research, manufacture and maintain. I guess I have no idea of the cost of that comparative to a conventional military force. Are nuclear weapons less expensive than conventional armed forces? (I suppose some context is needed. Let's say there's an arms-race of the sort we dealt with in the cold war, and which is commented upon in the tweet thread you've referenced).
I've heard an estimate, which doesn't sound implausible to me, that the cost of the U.S. nuclear program, over the 50 years, has been about 20 trillion dollars when adjusted for inflation. Mostly frontloaded, of course, during the Cold War. I think maintaining our present nuclear arsenal is 50 billion/year? Which is something like 40% or so of the Cold War size.
The War on Terror is going to wind up costing upwards of 8 trillion dollars by the time all the veteran's benefits are paid out.
My point exactly. Things used to be stable, and now with the treaties dying right and left god knows what's gonna happen. One could perceive it as a good opportunity, but there's one problem - NATO forces are a little bigger than Russian, so any gamble would be in their favor.
Is NATO more powerful when Trump pulls the us out for some bullshit excuse? Every action Trump has taken has benefited Russia. Withdrawing from the treaty benefits Russia. Refusing to enforce sanctions passed overwhelmingly by Congress benefits Russia. Trump weakening by constantly bashing NATO allies and threatening to withdraw from NATO benefits Russia.
I just read online that refugees are conducting a hunger strike because they are in limbo as regards to their status, so the people in charge have resorted to force-feeding them through nasal tubes, which is causing nasal bleeding as well as other physical problems. One man they were feeding was vomiting and this has been going on for two weeks now.
And they still have no one who speaks the language of these men including Hindustani, and these men don't speak English. What a lovely situation (NOT!).
Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote. Using a little known law, Pelosi is going to force Mitch McConnell to have to vote on a bill of "resolution of disapproval" against the President if he tries to declare a national emergency over building the wall and tries to start another shutdown.
If the Senate votes for it, it wrecks the President's vision of unity of the Republicans. If the Republicans don't pass it, and let the declaration of national emergency go through, the next Democratic President can declare many things a "national emergency" and do then without the Republicans being able to do a single thing about them.
Imagine:
Climate change is a national emergency, so the president orders six billion dollars for funding EPA enforcement. Done.
Healthcare crisis is a national emergency, so the president expands Medicaid for 2 million people and fully funds the ACA. Done.
The refugee crisis is a national emergency, so the White House allots money to accept ten times as many people, and provide full funding for immigration services. Done.
Poverty is a national emergency, so the president opts to provide emergency heating assistance to everyone, and fully fund a jobs program repairing our infrastructure. Done and done.
Article to be posted in my thread.
Meanwhile, more illegals are being fired from Trump Clubs during the shutdown. It's almost like he's afraid of being caught, or something...
Plus, Trump said his intelligence chiefs said they had been misquoted.... somehow, while speaking on TV in public...
Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote. Using a little known law, Pelosi is going to force Mitch McConnell to have to vote on a bill of "resolution of disapproval" against the President if he tries to declare a national emergency over building the wall and tries to start another shutdown.
If the Senate votes for it, it wrecks the President's vision of unity of the Republicans. If the Republicans don't pass it, and let the declaration of national emergency go through, the next Democratic President can declare many things a "national emergency" and do then without the Republicans being able to do a single thing about them.
Imagine:
Climate change is a national emergency, so the president orders six billion dollars for funding EPA enforcement. Done.
Healthcare crisis is a national emergency, so the president expands Medicaid for 2 million people and fully funds the ACA. Done.
The refugee crisis is a national emergency, so the White House allots money to accept ten times as many people, and provide full funding for immigration services. Done.
Poverty is a national emergency, so the president opts to provide emergency heating assistance to everyone, and fully fund a jobs program repairing our infrastructure. Done and done.
Article to be posted in my thread.
Meanwhile, more illegals are being fired from Trump Clubs during the shutdown. It's almost like he's afraid of being caught, or something...
Plus, Trump said his intelligence chiefs said they had been misquoted.... somehow, while speaking on TV in public...
The whole 'building the wall is a scheduled national emergency for a couple weeks from now' is obviously ridiculous. It wasn't a emergency for the first two years of Trump's term. It isn't now but it might be in a couple of weeks. No, that's bullshit. It's a power grab attempting to circumvent the Constitution and the legislature. It's the type of thing dictators do.
Well, of course. But honestly, now, this is the only way he can think of to fund it. Mind you, he is tweeting that the wall is already being built. But if it's already being built, it's not a national emergency any longer, is it? And if it's already being built, he doesn't need funding for it.
Meanwhile, a fiber optic line could secure the national border for a fraction of the cost, but nobody is talking about it. Republicans and the President, because they want a symbol- a wall is a symbol. They don't seem to care if it works or not. And Democrats, because they have to fight against the wall.
The Fiber optic cable can tell what is going over it- a man, a car, and so on. Rep. Will Hurd wants a fiber Optic line, but nobody seems to be listening. Business Insider wrote an article about it.
Interesting... I was attempting to find out more about this "resolution of disapproval" and wondered what it actually was and why it wasn't used to end the shut down and came upon a very interesting article about congress unable to call the president a liar:
The prohibition on attacking the president’s integrity dates back to Thomas Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States, which he wrote in 1801. In 1909, the House made his proscriptions the explicit rules of decorum, and has put abridgements of his manual in a pamphlet titled, “Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives.”
It stipulates that: “Personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the president, is not permitted. Under this standard it is not in order to call the president, or a presumptive major-party nominee for president, a ‘liar’ or accuse him of ‘lying.’ Indeed, any suggestion of mendacity is out of order.”
With congress now being passed to the Democrats, and a president known to be a liar, I wonder how often this is going to hold up in the next year.
That's probably for the best. Whatever our opinion of a given president, our government will probably be more functional if personal attacks aren't part of the formal discourse.
That's probably for the best. Whatever our opinion of a given president, our government will probably be more functional if personal attacks aren't part of the formal discourse.
Whatabout when the President is a lying conman like he is now? How's giving him free reign to run wild with his alternative facts, distortions, and lies any good for America? This sounds like another loophole that Trump will use, doesn't it?
The United States government is now in the business in the kidnapping and human trafficking of children. If the INITIAL act of the separation in the first place wasn't enough to convince you, the RESPONSE they are coming up with now erases any shadow of a doubt. We took their children from them, shipped them across the country, and not only aren't doing anything about it, they are basically saying it would require too much work. This is just plain evil. Kirsten Nielsen shouldn't only be dragged before Congress about this whether she wants to testify or not, she should be dragged before the Hague:
Let's be clear here. If (at worst, assuming it wasn't an asylum petition) you commit a misdemeanor illegal border crossing, the potential punishment is now that we will take your children and GIVE THEM AWAY to some American caregivers. We will take them, deport you, and make ZERO effort to get your child returned to you. As in, we won't even try.
Let's say you are entirely draconian about this and think the adults should get, let's say, 30 days in jail and deportation. Even IF you ascribe to that mindset, do you then think that these people, after this hypothetical 30 days, have NO rights or expectations of having their children (again, their CHILDREN) returned to them before the deportation?? Is anyone going to sit here and make that argument??
Let's be clear here. If (at worst, assuming it wasn't an asylum petition) you commit a misdemeanor illegal border crossing, the potential punishment is now that we will take your children and GIVE THEM AWAY to some American caregivers. We will take them, deport you, and make ZERO effort to get your child returned to you. As in, we won't even try.
Anyone want to take any bets on how many of these "sponsor" families are evangelical protestants?
That's probably for the best. Whatever our opinion of a given president, our government will probably be more functional if personal attacks aren't part of the formal discourse.
Whatabout when the President is a lying conman like he is now? How's giving him free reign to run wild with his alternative facts, distortions, and lies any good for America? This sounds like another loophole that Trump will use, doesn't it?
I think we need to bear in mind that these standards will long outlast president Trump. I have my opinions about Trump as a president and as a person, but it sets a bad precedent for legislators to make criticisms of a certain severity in a formal context. Outside of the halls of government, legislators should have the same freedoms of speech as ordinary citizens, but while in-session, Congress will probably discuss things more effectively if personal attacks aren't part of the discussion.
Still, I'm not sure how important the formal debates in Congress itself really are. Much of the actual decisionmaking in Washington happens in committees and in outside think tanks that politicians rely on to write legislation.
Let's be clear here. If (at worst, assuming it wasn't an asylum petition) you commit a misdemeanor illegal border crossing, the potential punishment is now that we will take your children and GIVE THEM AWAY to some American caregivers. We will take them, deport you, and make ZERO effort to get your child returned to you. As in, we won't even try.
Anyone want to take any bets on how many of these "sponsor" families are evangelical protestants?
I was emboldened to see Christian Pastor John Pavlovitz speaking out about the hate and fear-filled politics of the right and the evangelical pastors who are leading the charge to make this hateful and divisive rhetoric the forefront of their teachings. He says that Christians and others who have fallen pray to this Toxic mindset and teaching will have to be 'retrained to he human first'. Which is kind of a stunning admission to me, but hey, if he can do it, more power to him.
Meanwhile, another of Trump's cabinet, Ben Carson, HUD secretary, has had a picture of him being all chummy with the pointman for another Russian Oligarch, Konstantin Malofeev. At this point, I'm wondering if *anyone* in the Trump administration won't be connected to Russia at some point.
And in a move that will probably surprise no one, Axios released Donald Trump's actual schedule from the White House, and we see 60% of The President's schedule consists of "Executive Time", which means watching TV and Tweeting to his followers- but mostly the "watching TV" part. Has there ever been a President this lazy in the White House before?
Meanwhile, another of Trump's cabinet, Ben Carson, HUD secretary, has had a picture of him being all chummy with the pointman for another Russian Oligarch, Konstantin Malofeev. At this point, I'm wondering if *anyone* in the Trump administration won't be connected to Russia at some point.
Ok, I'll take it back (partially ) that US shouldn't sanction foreign oligarchs. This one deserves a permanent place in hell. Him being deeply religious I care not, him sponsoring and promoting pro internet censorship organization that is now lobbying its interests I will not forgive.
Comments
That doesn't mean there's much interest in the arms race here for the sake of it, though.
Russian interests would've been better off with a democrat in White House, certainly not with a temperamental and unpredictable "tough" guy. Like many Russians I find the contemporary American liberalism highly disagreeable with, so on the surface Trump might seem a preferable figure... except even back in 2016 he already seemed to me as rather temperamental and unpredictable individual - someone I would definitely cheer for as a media person, but wouldn't want to him to be a president of the rival country (how our countries got back to rivalry is another matter).
Others can voice displeasure but should not be able to control a person, especially over a photo that is over 30 years old and is probably being taken out of context. What are we in 5 years time going to start holding people who dressed up as Indians, with the faux feather headbands and plastic bow accountable because it is racially/culturally unacceptable to do so today?
If the Democratic Party does have an issue with it, they can remove him from Caucus and be done with him that way. He’ll be a sitting independent instead and they can bring forth a new candidate in the next election to run against him but you know.
IMO, Northman did everything right yesterday: He owned it right away, he apologized for it, he laid claim that it isn’t who he is today, or even the day he got elected and that his voting record spoke to that:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/90253/ralph-northam#.XFXm4hZybDs
That still isn’t good enough for mob mentality who do not know the full story, are quick to cast all blame towards one individual (what repercussions should the school face for allowing this type of behaviour on campus, or at least in the year book) and think that just removing one person will make the whole problem vanish. It’s like America learned nothing from the MAGA hat teen/Phillips showdown.
He''s done-zo.
Ugh. He juuuuust said he's never drank enough to not "be in touch" with himself. Kavanaughing...
I've seen plenty of risque and taboo Halloween costumes before. These included someone who went as a used tampon and another who dressed up as golfer Payne Stewart less than 72 hours after he died in a plane crash. But I never saw anyone dumb enough to go in blackface with a partner at your side as a Klan member.
Moreover, I am flummoxed as to how Ed Gillespie's oppo research team didn't find this photo, but then again, portraying your opponent as a racist when the core message of YOUR campaign is that Mexicans are coming to kill you probably doesn't jive too well. But it would have at the very least killed African-American turn-out. So my only guess is that no one thought to look for a Medical School yearbook because, honestly, why do medical schools even HAVE yearbooks?? Anyone at that level of schooling is approaching their mid-20s at that point.
Well, politics plays a part in it too. The Democrats couldn't very well sit on their hands about Franken in the midst of the Roy Moore controversy. So he was damaged goods. Likewise, we can't sit around and poo-poo Northman while calling out people like Trump and Steve King of Iowa. And even if the ONLY motive (and it isn't the only one, especially for African-American voters) is not wanting to look like a hypocrite, that is still better than actually being one.
The mood on the left is that these so-called "casual" incidents of racist behavior have to be called out to draw attention to how they perpetuate more serious abuses. Same goes for sexual harassment and abuse. And, to be frank, it is not difficult to go through life not dressing up in costumes that mock minority groups and not sexually assaulting or harassing women. It just isn't. Most people do it all their lives without a problem.
And make no mistake, the campaign to get rid of him at the moment is nearly unilateral on the left at the moment, and FAR louder than any conservative voices to do the same. For a couple hours, they tried to make something out of it, then they realized "oh yeah, these people actually get rid of them". They forget because they have at least two current sitting Senators (including McConnell) who have posed in front of Confederate flags with dubious (at best) groups. In McConnell's case, it is even more inexcusable because Kentucky wasn't even IN the Confederacy. And that is another thing with the "Stars and Bars". It's one thing for actual Southerners to fly it (and it's still horrible), but what is the reasoning behind people from Wisconsin or New Hampshire who have it on the back of their pick-up??
A democract in the white house would not hide what's he doing meeting alone with Putin without a us interpreter and destroying notes. Trump literally committed treason here
A democrat in the white house would not be weakening and undermining our alliances with NATO and EU countries.
A democrat in the white House would not be lifting sanctions on corrupt Russian oligarchs.
A Democrat would enforce the sanctions passed by Congress. Trump is pursuing corruption through deals with Russians, he's not enforcing sanctions, he's freeing them from arms treaties, he's helping strengthen their influence by undermining NATO. He is goddamn terrible.
Okay, everyone, I'm going to explain why the INF Treaty even existed and why it's an idiotic move to dump it and think we can replicate our success against the USSR in the 1980s all over again. Mute or turn off notifications if you don't want this mini-lecture. The problem centers around "extended deterrence." How do you convince your opponent you'll respond to an attack on your allies as you would an attack on yourself? You can *say* that you will treat invading Bonn like it's an invasion of New York, but how do you make it stick? NATO had this problem because it was grossly outnumbered during the Cold War. So we said: Well, we'll nuke you. The Soviets said: "Whatever. You won't trade Chicago for Frankfurt." For us to jump from "war in Europe" to "nuking Leningrad" was a stretch. We had a gap. We had"battlefield" nukes for affecting the course of battles (like tank engagements) and "strategic" nukes for US vs USSR strikes. We needed something in between, which would strike Soviet forces in Eastern Europe as a step toward all-out war.
Both sides developed "theater" nukes that could strike far in the rear of each alliance, and thus provide a link from Europe to all-out nuclear war. This is why they were a deterrent: because they made it, paradoxically, easier to get from "shots fired" to "Moscow melted." In the 1970s, the Soviets (as usual) tried to get the upper hand in this competition and fielded a much more accurate, mobile version of these weapons, a strategically insane move that was even opposed by the Soviet diplomatic establishment. But Moscow's generals got their way.
These Soviet weapons were so menacing that NATO came together in the late 70s - yes, at the behest of Carter, not Reagan - to field a responding system that could also drop a nuke down a rabbit hole (or on Moscow) almost immediately. This was an *immensely* dangerous time. By the 1980s, war in Europe could go to all-out nuclear war in minutes. But here's what was *different*: We put those weapons in Europe *in the path of a Soviet invasion.* We told the Soviets: "If you come in, we'll have no choice. It'll be your doing, not ours." In other words, deterrence relied on the Soviets triggering a "use or lose" crisis, rather than relying on some steely-eyed decision in Washington to unleash hell. That made a huge difference. Maybe a POTUS would lose his nerve...but what about the guys about to be overrun?This was a good move, because it made the link from war in Europe to the end of the USSR a lot more credible. Deterrence was, in a way, taken out of our hands, and nuclear war would be the fault of the Soviets for invading, whether we wanted it or not, and they knew it.
And there's the hitch: today, we're not defending against some massive Soviet invasion anymore. The targets for most of the old US INF were areas that are now part of NATO. Now, a new US INF would have only one target: Russia. Today, there's no "Warsaw Pact" to fight this out on. If we use INF, we'll be hitting inside Russia. If you think that this is a good idea, well, te salud, Don Corleone, because there's no way the Russians will sit around and just take a nuke strike inside Russia. Likewise, in Asia, we have nowhere to put these weapons if we develop them again. (Japan? South Korea? Uh, no.) And the only targets for them will be in China itself. There's no "theater" in which we'll be striking; in both Russia and China, these will be strategic strikes. Or, put another way, the Russians and the Chinese will have to *assume* these are strategic strikes, especially if we do something ludicrous like put the new INF on submarines. "Oh, that launch? Just a theater strike. Don't overreact." Sure. Good luck with that.
What will deter Russia? If they know they'd lose a conventional action of any size. But we don't like spending money on expensive troops and guns, so instead, we're letting the Russians bait us into a nuclear standoff that benefits *them*, because of the home turf advantage. Without the trigger of INF placed in the way of advancing Russian armies - and no one's going to do that, unless you think we should line the Polish and Baltic borders with nukes - we're left with a *discretionary* force that relies solely on our promise to go nuclear. This is the situation we were trying to get *out of* in the '60s, that we solved briefly in the '80s (at the risk of a holocaust), and that Reagan got us out of as soon he could. We're now the conventionally superior power - but we're acting like it's 1975. And trying to replicate the 1980s in Europe by doing it again in Asia is mindless and ahistorical, the kind of thing wargamers come up when they treat nuclear weapons like a big game of Risk. You want to worry China? Build more ships, not more nukes that you won't use.
Dumping the INF Treaty has long been a cherished idea among guys like Bolton who hate treaties, and nuclear enthusiasts who think you can pop off a couple of dozen small nukes and not escalate to Armageddon. No Dem or GOP administration wanted that until now, so here we are. In sum, we don't know what we're doing. We're not thinking about why we would go to war, what scenarios we're trying to defeat. We're just playing tit for tat, without even knowing why. We're just flailing around, alienating our own NATO allies, then pretending we're tough. Worse, we've come to believe that everything worked out fine in the 1980s, when in fact guys on both sides had to change their shorts when all that was over. We got by that with careful leadership and some basic luck. I guess now all that's left is to buy stock in Vault-Tec.
Random question about this. I feel like I've always heard that nuclear weaponry is incredibly expensive to research, manufacture and maintain. I guess I have no idea of the cost of that comparative to a conventional military force. Are nuclear weapons less expensive than conventional armed forces? (I suppose some context is needed. Let's say there's an arms-race of the sort we dealt with in the cold war, and which is commented upon in the tweet thread you've referenced).
As for sanctions, it's not anyone's in White House business to fight corruption in other countries, though. Especially going as far as to threaten third parties who might be doing business with sanctioned figures.
PS
And they still have no one who speaks the language of these men including Hindustani, and these men don't speak English. What a lovely situation (NOT!).
Speaker Pelosi owns GOP (again): 'Seldom-used' law will force Mitch to take disaster vote.
Using a little known law, Pelosi is going to force Mitch McConnell to have to vote on a bill of "resolution of disapproval" against the President if he tries to declare a national emergency over building the wall and tries to start another shutdown.
If the Senate votes for it, it wrecks the President's vision of unity of the Republicans. If the Republicans don't pass it, and let the declaration of national emergency go through, the next Democratic President can declare many things a "national emergency" and do then without the Republicans being able to do a single thing about them.
Imagine:
- Climate change is a national emergency, so the president orders six billion dollars for funding EPA enforcement. Done.
- Healthcare crisis is a national emergency, so the president expands Medicaid for 2 million people and fully funds the ACA. Done.
- The refugee crisis is a national emergency, so the White House allots money to accept ten times as many people, and provide full funding for immigration services. Done.
- Poverty is a national emergency, so the president opts to provide emergency heating assistance to everyone, and fully fund a jobs program repairing our infrastructure. Done and done.
Article to be posted in my thread.Meanwhile, more illegals are being fired from Trump Clubs during the shutdown. It's almost like he's afraid of being caught, or something...
Plus, Trump said his intelligence chiefs said they had been misquoted.... somehow, while speaking on TV in public...
Meanwhile, a fiber optic line could secure the national border for a fraction of the cost, but nobody is talking about it. Republicans and the President, because they want a symbol- a wall is a symbol. They don't seem to care if it works or not. And Democrats, because they have to fight against the wall.
The Fiber optic cable can tell what is going over it- a man, a car, and so on. Rep. Will Hurd wants a fiber Optic line, but nobody seems to be listening. Business Insider wrote an article about it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2009/09/gop-paved-way-for-wilson-reprimand-027184
The prohibition on attacking the president’s integrity dates back to Thomas Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States, which he wrote in 1801. In 1909, the House made his proscriptions the explicit rules of decorum, and has put abridgements of his manual in a pamphlet titled, “Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives.”
It stipulates that: “Personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the president, is not permitted. Under this standard it is not in order to call the president, or a presumptive major-party nominee for president, a ‘liar’ or accuse him of ‘lying.’ Indeed, any suggestion of mendacity is out of order.”
With congress now being passed to the Democrats, and a president known to be a liar, I wonder how often this is going to hold up in the next year.
Let's be clear here. If (at worst, assuming it wasn't an asylum petition) you commit a misdemeanor illegal border crossing, the potential punishment is now that we will take your children and GIVE THEM AWAY to some American caregivers. We will take them, deport you, and make ZERO effort to get your child returned to you. As in, we won't even try.
Let's say you are entirely draconian about this and think the adults should get, let's say, 30 days in jail and deportation. Even IF you ascribe to that mindset, do you then think that these people, after this hypothetical 30 days, have NO rights or expectations of having their children (again, their CHILDREN) returned to them before the deportation?? Is anyone going to sit here and make that argument??
I was emboldened to see Christian Pastor John Pavlovitz speaking out about the hate and fear-filled politics of the right and the evangelical pastors who are leading the charge to make this hateful and divisive rhetoric the forefront of their teachings. He says that Christians and others who have fallen pray to this Toxic mindset and teaching will have to be 'retrained to he human first'. Which is kind of a stunning admission to me, but hey, if he can do it, more power to him.
Meanwhile, another of Trump's cabinet, Ben Carson, HUD secretary, has had a picture of him being all chummy with the pointman for another Russian Oligarch, Konstantin Malofeev. At this point, I'm wondering if *anyone* in the Trump administration won't be connected to Russia at some point.
And in a move that will probably surprise no one, Axios released Donald Trump's actual schedule from the White House, and we see 60% of The President's schedule consists of "Executive Time", which means watching TV and Tweeting to his followers- but mostly the "watching TV" part. Has there ever been a President this lazy in the White House before?