Skip to content

The Politics Thread

16465676970694

Comments

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2018
    I don't think Beto O'Rourke will win. I do think he is an excellent candidate running against one of the most oily, smarmy, unlikable people I have ever seen in politics. If he can't pull it off, it says far more about how conservative Texas is outside of Austin and San Antonio than it does about Beto O'Rourke. The Democrats are facing the worst Senate map in 2018 I have seen since I started following politics. The Republicans not being able to hold it this cycle would be a catastrophic failure. I've been saying for a year the Senate is a pipe dream. Even taking the House will require at least a 7-8% point popular vote margin.
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 957
    edited October 2018
    Grond0 said:

    He's already said he won't cancel any of the billions of dollars of agreed weapons sales to Saudi Arabia (this picture suggests the Saudis are already not perhaps quite as keen as Trump on the sales though ;) ), but he may well find Congress would disagree if it became clear this was a planned assassination.

    I think they might just be embarrassed at having to go through a photo-op with a stupid poster in their laps.

    Deficits
    Most people--including politicians--don't understand deficits. The idea of a deficit is simple--an entity has a budget which indicates that they are spending more money than they are taking in. For an individual household or a business this is *very* bad thing because it leads to having your utilities cut off, begin evicted for not being able to pay rent, foreclosure if you cannot pay your mortgage, or filing for bankruptcy, and laying off all your employees. Even for a city government this is bad--if they don't collect enough in property and/or sales taxes (in addition to whatever other fees and fines they are able to collect) then they cannot pay for police or street repairs. For a Federal or national government, though, a deficit is not as much of a problem. The government needs one billion to pay for some program? Don't worry--please be patient while they print one billion in currency. The value of that currency is maintained by the good faith and stability of that national government.

    Where deficits become a problem is when the discussion turns to the topic of whether a deficit is a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing. Most conservatives--and here is one topic where I differ from most conservative-leaning folks--make the logical fault known as "fallacy of composition" because they try to apply the budget restrictions of a personal household to the national government--they think that because I cannot spend more than I bring home in paychecks that the Federal Government cannot (or should not) spend more than it brings in via taxes. At the Federal level, that is not how taxation works. As I noted, if the Government needs one billion it can just print it and call it good--if the government collapses you will have problems significantly more important than whether the money retains value.

    Most liberals fall victim to a different logical fallacy because they think the Government *needs* high taxes in order to pay for social programs. Again, that is not how Government works--Medicare is not going to fail if individual tax rates are lowered because ultimately the Government does not *need* your tax money to pay its bills. That hasn't been true of the United States in decades.

    The *real* purpose of taxation is to reduce the money supply. The Government prints money, which devalues the currency, which leads to inflation; inflation is bad for consumers and producers and therefore something must be done about it. The Federal Reserve can ease inflation by lowering base interest rates but the IRS can also help reduce inflation by increasing taxes. This is why the phrase "the rich aren't paying their fair share" is nothing but a meaningless call for economic class distrust.

    Bottom line, deficits look bad on paper but in reality they are not harbingers of doom. If deficits were going to bankrupt the United States they would have done so decades ago. I am not suggesting that we fire up the printing presses nonstop, of course, but trying to use deficits as a political weapon--on either side--is disingenuous and indicates a lack of understanding.

    *************

    Khashoggi. Why is this still news? He was not a United States citizen and his kidnapping--and probable murder--did not occur on U. S. soil; therefore, he is neither our concern nor our problem.

    The truly laughable part of this story is that people are getting upset over one journalist's death when they care very little at all about nearly one million Uyghurs being placed into "education camps" where the Chinese government is claiming that they are being taught Mandarin and job skills. I have no doubt that they are being taught *something* but I doubt the situation is as harmless or altruistic as they claim.

    *************

    Cruz vs O'Rourke
    2016
    Trump defeats Clinton for President by 800,000 votes
    Christian defeats Yarbrough for Railroad Commission by 1,300,000 votes

    2014
    Abbot defeats Davis for Governor by 960,000 votes
    Cornyn defeats Alameel for Senate by 1,200,000 votes

    2012
    Romney garnered 1,300,000 votes over Obama
    Cruz defeats Sadler for Senate by 1,200,000 votes

    2010
    Pery defeats White for Governor by 631,000 votes
    Dewhurst defeats Chavez-Thompson for Lt. Gov by 1,300,000 votes

    Robert definitely has an uphill battle if he is going to unseat Ted. Approximate population of Texas: 23.8 million. If half of these people are registered to vote (I have no justification for that number, just a wild guess) and voting rates for non-Presidential elections hold (about 30%) then the voter pool should be about 3.57 million people. Trying to make up the difference of 750,000 to 1,000,000 votes from this pool is going to be exceedingly difficult. We will simply have to wait and see.

    Re: Deficits

    A family can run deficits and pay bills as long as it still has money in the bank. So can corporations. So can governments. What it REALLY means is "living beyond your means". So either live cheaper, or get a better paying job for people. Cut expenses, or find a better price point for your product for corporations. For government, that means either cut programs, or increase taxes.

    You can indeed "spend more than your paycheck". There is a false comparison being drawn between the budget of an account, and the account balance itself. This is common. It happens with the budget of people and organizations (up to entire nations), and even with global warming through the carbon cycle. The amount of carbon in the environment (the account itself) is massive, trillions of tons. But the natural accounting of it is fairly neutral, slightly negative in fact (which has long term implications over hundreds of millions of years). Then you add in the 10 billion tons humanity is adding per year, and it goes haywire.

    The deficit and the debt are two different things. The first doesn't break a country immediately, but you don't get to the latter without the former.

    A currency can only be devalued so much.

    And yes, the rich are not paying their fair share. They haven't for decades.

    I'd like to do an analysis on the Texas voters thing (especially since I am one), but I don't have time right now, will get back to it tonight.
    FinneousPJGrond0ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811

    Deficits
    Most people--including politicians--don't understand deficits. The idea of a deficit is simple--an entity has a budget which indicates that they are spending more money than they are taking in. For an individual household or a business this is *very* bad thing because it leads to having your utilities cut off, begin evicted for not being able to pay rent, foreclosure if you cannot pay your mortgage, or filing for bankruptcy, and laying off all your employees. Even for a city government this is bad--if they don't collect enough in property and/or sales taxes (in addition to whatever other fees and fines they are able to collect) then they cannot pay for police or street repairs. For a Federal or national government, though, a deficit is not as much of a problem. The government needs one billion to pay for some program? Don't worry--please be patient while they print one billion in currency. The value of that currency is maintained by the good faith and stability of that national government.

    Where deficits become a problem is when the discussion turns to the topic of whether a deficit is a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing. Most conservatives--and here is one topic where I differ from most conservative-leaning folks--make the logical fault known as "fallacy of composition" because they try to apply the budget restrictions of a personal household to the national government--they think that because I cannot spend more than I bring home in paychecks that the Federal Government cannot (or should not) spend more than it brings in via taxes. At the Federal level, that is not how taxation works. As I noted, if the Government needs one billion it can just print it and call it good--if the government collapses you will have problems significantly more important than whether the money retains value.

    Most liberals fall victim to a different logical fallacy because they think the Government *needs* high taxes in order to pay for social programs. Again, that is not how Government works--Medicare is not going to fail if individual tax rates are lowered because ultimately the Government does not *need* your tax money to pay its bills. That hasn't been true of the United States in decades.

    The *real* purpose of taxation is to reduce the money supply. The Government prints money, which devalues the currency, which leads to inflation; inflation is bad for consumers and producers and therefore something must be done about it. The Federal Reserve can ease inflation by lowering base interest rates but the IRS can also help reduce inflation by increasing taxes. This is why the phrase "the rich aren't paying their fair share" is nothing but a meaningless call for economic class distrust.

    Bottom line, deficits look bad on paper but in reality they are not harbingers of doom. If deficits were going to bankrupt the United States they would have done so decades ago. I am not suggesting that we fire up the printing presses nonstop, of course, but trying to use deficits as a political weapon--on either side--is disingenuous and indicates a lack of understanding.

    If this is truly the case, what is preventing the federal government from taking on all spending? A city needs a new sewer system? Let the feds pay for it. All teachers across the country want a rasie? Let the feds pay for it? I need to buy groceries... let the feds pay for it.

    Obviously this isn't the case, but what the government spends money on, and not just how much money the government spends is important.

    There is a balancing act, as you mentioned, between the deficit, interest rates and inflation. One has to worry less about inflation with a balanced budget, but increasing the debt does have a way of stimulating the economy when done properly.

    And yes, federal deficits matter. Exhibit a) Greece. The US may never get to that level, but a lot of other social countries need to learn from their mistake. With Globalization, it will take one country to thrust the entire world into a recession or depression.
    MathsorcererThacoBellAmmar
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    edited October 2018

    A family can run deficits and pay bills as long as it still has money in the bank. So can corporations. So can governments.

    What if the family does not have money in the bank, as is the case for many lower- and middle-class families? They cannot print their own money unless they wish to go to Federal prison for counterfeiting. Governments may print currency, which is why I brought up the "fallacy of composition"--household/corporate budgets are completely different in nature from governmental budgets.

    And yes, the rich are not paying their fair share. They haven't for decades.

    Define "fair" using hard numbers and/or percentages. Exactly how much should they be paying? (note: I have been asking that question for a long time and no one has ever answered it concretely)

    I'd like to do an analysis on the Texas voters thing (especially since I am one), but I don't have time right now, will get back to it tonight.

    I started with the county results from the 2016 Presidential election, identified Texas counties where Clinton won, then calculated the population of those counties; that total is 13,564,873 but there is some error in this number--some county population numbers are from 2010 while others are 2015 or 2017 estimates. Then I took the population of the entire State--28,304,596--and subtracted to obtain the approximate total for counties where Trump won; that total is 14,739,723 (again, the same inherent error because of estimates in the "official" numbers). The "red" counties outnumber the "blue" counties by 1,174,850. Even if we account for average non-Presidential voter turnout (I generally use 30% but someone needs to double-check my number there) and how much of the actual population is registered to vote (I was presuming half but that number also needs to be double-checked), the number of potential likely red voters is still greater than the potential number of likely blue voters. As a ballpark figure, these numbers indicate a Cruz victory by 1174850 * 0.5 * 0.3 = 176,227 votes, which I would classify as "a narrow victory" or "a slim margin"--it is still Ted's race to lose, not Beto's to win.
    deltago said:

    If this is truly the case, what is preventing the federal government from taking on all spending? A city needs a new sewer system? Let the feds pay for it. All teachers across the country want a rasie? Let the feds pay for it? I need to buy groceries... let the feds pay for it.

    Constitutional separations and restrictions of power. It is outside the scope of the Federal Government to pay for a new city sewer system (even though there are programs though which cities may obtain Federal funding for projects, especially after major storms such as the one which hit Florida last week) and governmental assistance for purchasing food is generally handled at the State level.

    You are right about the rest, though, which is why I said that most politicians do not understand deficits. Economies are, in a sense, like the child's puzzle with squares 1 through 15 with one square open--you may shift the hole around to align some numbers but other numbers wind up being out of place.
    Grond0
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    It's also a bit odd to suggest that this person's murder should not concern the US just because he was a citizen of another country. He was resident in the US and a columnist on a prominent US newspaper. Given the context of free speech, which the US has traditionally been a very strong supporter of, I think there is good reason for the US government to give a clear signal internationally that the behavior is not acceptable.
    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Grond0 said:

    It's also a bit odd to suggest that this person's murder should not concern the US just because he was a citizen of another country. He was resident in the US and a columnist on a prominent US newspaper. Given the context of free speech, which the US has traditionally been a very strong supporter of, I think there is good reason for the US government to give a clear signal internationally that the behavior is not acceptable.

    Yes we should clearly take a stand on this because the US has never assassinated anybody in a foreign country before.

    cough ***Osama bin-Laden*** cough...
    DreadKhan
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I don't think assassinating the world's most famous terrorist with a death count of over 3,000 is quite comparable to murdering a journalist. I don't think killing bin Laden takes away any legitimacy from the U.S. for the purposes of criticizing Saudi Arabia over this. How many people would fault the U.S. for killing bin Laden?

    I know the Pakistanis were angry with us, but they were sheltering the guy.
    jjstraka34ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @Mathsorcerer "Define "fair" using hard numbers and/or percentages. Exactly how much should they be paying? (note: I have been asking that question for a long time and no one has ever answered it concretely) "

    Um, a few different useers have done so. More than once.
    semiticgoddessBallpointMan
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    edited October 2018

    I don't think assassinating the world's most famous terrorist with a death count of over 3,000 is quite comparable to murdering a journalist. I don't think killing bin Laden takes away any legitimacy from the U.S. for the purposes of criticizing Saudi Arabia over this. How many people would fault the U.S. for killing bin Laden?

    I know the Pakistanis were angry with us, but they were sheltering the guy.

    It depends on the point of view. Bin-Laden was just the most famous of our assassinations (and relatively recent) so I used him for the easiest example. I don't think it was necessarily wrong to kill him, but it does make us look hypocritical. How many people have we killed with drone strikes?

    Obviously the Saudis thought they were justified in having this guy killed. Was he that much of a threat to them? Who knows? I'm pretty sure we're not getting the whole story though. It is disconcerting that there doesn't seem to be much effort to conceal these assassinations anymore. It used to be that countries would try to murder people more clandestinely. This assassination, Russia's latest endeavor in Britain and the US using drones are shockingly pretty much right out in the open...
    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Putting Bin Laden on trial would have been pointless. He wasn't in the US, he had already admitted to planning the attacks multiple times, he would have never received a "fair" trial, and holding the show trial would have caused an uproar in the Arab world. Killing him and dumping him in the ocean with a proper Muslim burial was the smartest foreign policy decision this country has made in the last 2 decades.
    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Lol



    ----

    Re:the journalist

    His death sounds to be very gruesome and not very well covered up. There's apparently video and audio evidence. Very sick - things like they cut off his fingers while he was alive. Trump says the Saudis are as innocent as Brett Kavanaugh so what's that tell ya.

    Why's it such a big deal well for one as Stalin said "a single death is a tragedy but a million deaths are a statistic". For two Trump's anti-jounalism rhetoric "the press is the enemy of the people". For three Trump has bragged about making tens of millions by selling condos to Saudis but now is pretending that he doesn't have anything to do with Saudi (or Russia.). For four MBS (the Prince in charge of Saudi Arabia) bragged that Jared Kushner was "in his pocket" after Kushner visited about a year ago..
    ThacoBell
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037

    I've heard this sentiment expressed many times, and it's simply not fair. You can be opposed to Problem X without supporting or condoning Problem Y.

    I don't disagree with that; of course, our brains are wired to focus on one problem at a time. I made the Rohingya problem its own separate thread over at the forum where I am the mod.
    Balrog99 said:

    Yes we should clearly take a stand on this because the US has never assassinated anybody in a foreign country before.

    cough ***Osama bin-Laden*** cough...

    We have assassinated one of our own citizens before.
    ThacoBell said:

    @Mathsorcerer "Define "fair" using hard numbers and/or percentages. Exactly how much should they be paying? (note: I have been asking that question for a long time and no one has ever answered it concretely) "

    Um, a few different useers have done so. More than once.

    Not that I recall, they haven't. I take your word for it, though, and I don't expect you to look backwards through time to find examples--the responsibility to perform that research is mine.
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,768
    It's not an assassination if the guy's a legitimate target of war killed by soldiers in uniform and carrying their weapons openly in accordance with the Geneva Convention. If Bin-Laden and Al-Awaki were assassinations, then so was Yamamoto. Of course this only applies if we're at war.

    This is just another example of the muddle we've made of the "war on terror" by not clearly defining what we're doing. All administrations since Clinton have tried to straddle this line and it's stupid. The rules of war and the rules of law enforcement are absolutely contradictory. If we're at war, then killing enemy commanders is legal, but we can't put anyone on trial for breaking civilian laws. If we're engaged in a law enforcement operation, then killing the capos is illegal, and we can have civilian trials. We really need to pick one and stick with it.
    Balrog99ThacoBellGrond0DreadKhan
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659


    Not that I recall, they haven't. I take your word for it, though, and I don't expect you to look backwards through time to find examples--the responsibility to perform that research is mine.

    I think I recall @semiticgod providing a progressive tax bracket with the emphasis on looking at the richest and what they might provide.



    I don't disagree with that; of course, our brains are wired to focus on one problem at a time. I made the Rohingya problem its own separate thread over at the forum where I am the mod.

    I think it's definitely fair game to look at both. Also the Rohingya as you referenced. I believe I heard earlier this week that there are emerging details of fake social media posts made by the Myanmar army to falsely blame the Rohingya of massacres and the like to try to turn the will of the people against them. This was supposedly before the cleansing even began

    However, I do want to emphasize that just because he isnt an American Citizen and didnt die in the US, that doesnt mean his death isnt meaningful to the rest of the world, as @Grond0 referenced.
    Balrog99 said:

    <
    Yes we should clearly take a stand on this because the US has never assassinated anybody in a foreign country before.

    cough ***Osama bin-Laden*** cough...

    Rather than compare the situation of Osama Bin Ladin and Kashoggi, I think it's more pressing just to note that because the American Government has been involved in assassinations around the world, doesnt mean that we (American citizens) cannot be outraged about assassinations/murders in the world in general (or at our own government).

    This is reminiscent of the argument some people use regarding the Russian meddling in the US election. They (rightfully) cite all the times the USA has meddled in foreign elections - by assassination, misinformation or military coup support. It doesnt mean that citizens of the USA cannot decry foreign meddling in our own elections. It only means we'd be hypocrites if we dont *also* decry meddling in other elections.
    semiticgoddessThacoBellGrond0
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367


    Not that I recall, they haven't. I take your word for it, though, and I don't expect you to look backwards through time to find examples--the responsibility to perform that research is mine.

    I think I recall @semiticgod providing a progressive tax bracket with the emphasis on looking at the richest and what they might provide.



    I don't disagree with that; of course, our brains are wired to focus on one problem at a time. I made the Rohingya problem its own separate thread over at the forum where I am the mod.

    I think it's definitely fair game to look at both. Also the Rohingya as you referenced. I believe I heard earlier this week that there are emerging details of fake social media posts made by the Myanmar army to falsely blame the Rohingya of massacres and the like to try to turn the will of the people against them. This was supposedly before the cleansing even began

    However, I do want to emphasize that just because he isnt an American Citizen and didnt die in the US, that doesnt mean his death isnt meaningful to the rest of the world, as @Grond0 referenced.
    Balrog99 said:

    <
    Yes we should clearly take a stand on this because the US has never assassinated anybody in a foreign country before.

    cough ***Osama bin-Laden*** cough...

    Rather than compare the situation of Osama Bin Ladin and Kashoggi, I think it's more pressing just to note that because the American Government has been involved in assassinations around the world, doesnt mean that we (American citizens) cannot be outraged about assassinations/murders in the world in general (or at our own government).

    This is reminiscent of the argument some people use regarding the Russian meddling in the US election. They (rightfully) cite all the times the USA has meddled in foreign elections - by assassination, misinformation or military coup support. It doesnt mean that citizens of the USA cannot decry foreign meddling in our own elections. It only means we'd be hypocrites if we dont *also* decry meddling in other elections.
    Just out of curiosity, what do you propose we do? 'Decrying' something accomplishes nothing. I'm sure the Saudis are terrified that we might decry their action...
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    I've mentioned this before, but Obama giving the go-ahead for the Bin Laden operation was as ballsy as Presidential decisions get. He was quite literally putting his Presidency on the line. If it had failed, he would have been branded as Jimmy Carter 2.0 (in reference to the failed Iranian hostage rescue that crashed in the desert). He would have never been re-elected if the mission had gone south. Instead, he accomplished what Bush's 6 years of endless war couldn't. And to this day, he receives almost NO credit for it whatsoever. But there is a reason one of the 2012 re-election slogans was "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive".
    ThacoBell
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    edited October 2018
    Balrog99 said:


    Just out of curiosity, what do you propose we do? 'Decrying' something accomplishes nothing. I'm sure the Saudis are terrified that we might decry their action...

    Sanctions. Stop supporting the Saudi conflict in Yemen. We've signed an arms deal with them that could be canceled or diminished.

    I mean. There's a lot.


    Also - I'm not trying to be snide. *I* can voice my concerns. *I*cannot sanction Saudi Arabia. I'm speaking about my position.
    semiticgoddessThacoBellGrond0
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    @jjstraka34 let us not forget W. Bush also claimed he was going to "get" Bin Laden, but lost all interest in actually bringing him to justice later on. I remember a journalist asked him if he was going to go after Bin Laden and his reply was along the lines of "we have no interest in this right now."
    jjstraka34ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2018
    LadyRhian said:

    @jjstraka34 let us not forget W. Bush also claimed he was going to "get" Bin Laden, but lost all interest in actually bringing him to justice later on. I remember a journalist asked him if he was going to go after Bin Laden and his reply was along the lines of "we have no interest in this right now."

    I think it was "I don't spend much time thinking about him", but yes, this is entirely correct. And considering what an anti-Islamic hysteria the right was in during that time period, the idea that Bush could say something like that and get a pass was beyond absurd. At that point, it didn't matter what Muslims we were killing, we just had to be killing Muslims somewhere.
    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2018
    In the interest of full transparency on the Keith Ellison issue, today, his divorce records that he fought to keep sealed but that conservative groups and the Minneapolis Star Tribune fought (and won) to have revealed were released today. And there are NO allegations of spousal abuse by Ellison as many were predicting (or perhaps even hoping). There WAS however, a revelation of spousal abuse committed by his ex-wife. In the end, it seems Ellison was simply trying to project the reputation of his ex-wife by fighting to keep them sealed. Does this mean the charges that he pulled his ex-girlfriend off the bed by her feet are false?? No, but it is a giant blow to the idea that he is some kind of serial abuser, especially since the assumption of both the conservative groups and the paper was that they were going to find a massive smoking gun. Instead, what was found was basically the exact opposite:

    http://www.startribune.com/keith-ellison-divorce-file-shows-no-abuse-allegation-against-him-by-ex-wife/497840751/
    smeagolheartsemiticgoddessThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited October 2018
    Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke is (was?) under 14 investigations for various misdeeds, shady business deals and wastes of taxpayer monies. So he fired the Department of the Interior Inspector General and replaced her with a Trump campaign lawyer and a loyalist who won't even need the usual fake Republican Senate confirmation.

    Mary Kendall—who’s served as acting inspector general at the DOI for ten years, and previously spent a decade as deputy inspector general—is being replaced by Suzanne Israel Tufts, a Republican lawyer who worked on the Trump campaign, and then was appointed to the role of assistant secretary of administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Tufts will not need to undergo Senate confirmation to fill the new role, as she was already approved by Congress for her job at HUD.

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/411631-hud-political-appointee-to-replace-interior-department-inspector

    This must be encouraging to Trump who plans on doing the same thing to the Mueller probe.

    After the midterms he will fire one or both of Rosenstein and Sessions. He will then decide who will replace them as the boss of the Mueller probe. It will be some corrupt jackass like Rudy Guilliani or Lindsey Graham. The new boss will tell Mueller he's done in 24 hours and write a report. Trump will classify stuff that he doesn't want out in that report and release the parts that say he didn't do it (I totally didn't collude with Russia on Tuesday a 1:13am see!) and pretend he's totally vindicated.
    DreadKhan
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2018
    Umm, what in the actual hell:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/crown-prince-under-scrutiny-in-journalists-disappearance-even-as-saudis-search-for-exculpatory-explanation/2018/10/17/8c0e19b2-d228-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.76364f7e32ab

    The first paragraph seems to suggest that the Trump Administration isn't just accepting the Saudi explanation, they are actively working with them to COVER UP the murder:

    The Trump administration and the Saudi royal family are searching for a mutually agreeable explanation for the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi — one that will avoid implicating Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is among the president’s closest foreign allies, according to analysts and officials in multiple countries.


    It apparently isn't just the Russians who have dirt on Trump. Or even more to the point, what do they have on Jared Kushner?? It doesn't matter how far down the barrel you go with these people, you will never find the floor.
    ThacoBellsmeagolheart
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    edited October 2018

    The first paragraph seems to suggest that the Trump Administration isn't just accepting the Saudi explanation, they are actively working with them to COVER UP the murder

    I thought that was obvious days ago - like I said Trump is working through the standard playbook of excuses on this one. I imagine the reason for Pompeo's visit wasn't to put pressure on Saudi Arabia, but to agree a cover story.

    The difficulty with finding a cover story though is the extremely high visibility of the case - while Trump would no doubt be satisfied with a 'rogue killers' explanation with a secret trial and execution in Saudi Arabia of a carefully chosen underling or two, most international countries would not. Prince Mohammed bin Salman wants to transform the Saudi economy away from its dependence on oil and is looking for international support with that, but this case is casting doubt on whether he will get that (the forthcoming 'Davos in the desert' conference has suffered a lot of withdrawals).

    To make an explanation credible the Saudi's really need a prominent person to blame and a public (though controlled) trial. Finding a prominent person who is willing (or sufficiently controlled) to be put on trial is the hard part though. That's getting harder by the day as information leaks about the case - making it more difficult to construct a cover story and reducing the pool of people who could realistically be blamed.
    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    They are going to blame the Ambassador probably.

    MBS has no problems locking up powerful people. Early on in his mini-revolution he ransomed a bunch of princelings and business people while claiming they were corrupt. He let them out when they paid him a large amount of money. He has the power to throw anyone in jail if it suits him.
    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305

    They are going to blame the Ambassador probably.

    MBS has no problems locking up powerful people. Early on in his mini-revolution he ransomed a bunch of princelings and business people while claiming they were corrupt. He let them out when they paid him a large amount of money. He has the power to throw anyone in jail if it suits him.

    I think the story has already developed too far to successfully blame everything on the ambassador. It seems to be something of an open secret already in government circles that MBS ordered the operation (or at the very least knew about it and someone else senior in government ordered it). His judgement about international affairs was already being questioned and this escapade will only increase that. It would not surprise me if his position as successor came into question as a result - in turn that could of course lead to a power struggle, so it's probably not a good time to be travelling to Saudi Arabia.
    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2018
    As I continue to say, the assault on voting rights is at this point an all-out blitzkrieg:

    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kz58qx/how-the-gutting-of-the-voting-rights-act-led-to-closed-polls

    Watch Georgia and North Dakota VERY closely the next few weeks. I fear the fix may already be in.
    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    Soccer While Black: #GolfCartGail Calls Cops on Father Cheering on Son at Soccer Game
    https://www.theroot.com/soccer-while-black-golfcartgail-calls-cops-on-father-1829812982?utm_source=theroot_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR0Dxt7qBN1kUxf_H2rdC97RRPIkNHa_zmEwZcIB1jiBwLyyMTi1OcIiQPc

    Now, this is ridiculous...
    Linda Harvey: Straight People Never Engage in Oral or Anal Sex
    http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/09/15/linda-harvey-straight-people-never-engage-in-oral-or-anal-sex/

    A Male Catholic Pharmacist Refused Medicine to a Woman Having a Miscarriage
    http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/10/17/a-male-catholic-pharmacist-refused-medicine-to-a-woman-having-a-miscarriage/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1ww6mavzj2z-6ettDYLqeOYm9eV5FEfPOO9TGPy2_VyofQ-c6_QQD7Xhw

    I can only shake my head at this one:
    Prominent evangelical leader on Khashoggi crisis: let’s not risk “$100 billion worth of arms sales”
    https://www.vox.com/2018/10/17/17990268/pat-robertson-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-trump-crisis?fbclid=IwAR1dQRWip3x7y1Brnpne7E8B4jTUTnubxSHSbin9t7ALoVZMxw7iJDEl0s0
    Pat Robberson, of course. :P

    GOP Candidate Scott Wagner Explains Climate Change: ‘We’re Moving Closer To The Sun’
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/10/gop-candidate-scott-wagner-explains-climate-change-were-moving-closer-to-the-sun/?fbclid=IwAR0kp58ZJn4rVV2wCqwvgSRoXxIuqRPQrK5xRVMMeLGN120sutNrSW3Yjno

    GOP IL AG Candidate: Victims Of Sexual Harassment ‘Become Very Promiscuous’
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/erika-harold-sexual-harassment-victims-promiscuous?fbclid=IwAR3XCbFxUb91Web1_SjDABK2CWkEQi5PqA1WfN25y4myOdtlMAbR90O0wis
    And this is a woman, yet no less!

    BREAKING: Mueller Ready to Release Report on Possible Trump Collusion and Obstruction
    https://hillreporter.com/breaking-mueller-ready-to-release-report-on-possible-trump-collusion-and-obstruction-10757/amp?utm_source=Ed&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=HR&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR10ZnLaVxrGNfa8refWkvdfYjNLnvchBfW_umnI8F8kaZ173rmRh9KaK6o

    Kicking out immigrants doesn’t raise wages
    https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/02/04/kicking-out-immigrants-doesnt-raise-wages?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/kickingoutimmigrantsdoesntraisewages
    DreadKhanThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Trump has reached record stupidity with claims about having a “natural instinct for science.” wtf
    DreadKhanThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    Trump has reached record stupidity with claims about having a “natural instinct for science.” wtf

    I am guessing he would say he has a natural instinct for ANY subject that was brought up to him, no matter what is is. He speaks in such meaningless generalities about everything that it's impossible to even tell what the hell he is even trying to say 90% of the time.
    FinneousPJDreadKhanThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.