US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2795

On January 27 2016 12:21 m4ini wrote:


If by whimper you mean "only one killed, one injured", then yes.



edit, nvm first CNN news didn't clarify that. The dead is not a cop apparently.

On January 27 2016 12:52 ticklishmusic wrote:


yeah, i was unaware of any casualties at the time of posting. i guess i could say "it could have been worse" which is true, but it's a shame it couldn't end without blood.

yeah, i was unaware of any casualties at the time of posting. i guess i could say "it could have been worse" which is true, but it's a shame it couldn't end without blood.

On January 27 2016 11:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


And plays right into his hands.

The key to becoming a master negotiator like this, Trump wrote, was to “use your leverage.”

“The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it,” he wrote. “That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead. The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you have. Leverage is having something the other guy wants. Or better yet, needs. Or best of all, simply can’t do without.”

But, Trump acknowledged, “that isn’t always the case, which is why leverage often requires imagination, and salesmanship. In other words, you have to convince the other guy it’s in his interest to make the deal.”

On January 27 2016 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
Trump doesn't need the debate nearly as much as the debate needs him.

On another note I started looking into that Police Lt. Joe Gliniewicz guy, and just wow... How he even had a job let alone be considered a local hero is astounding.

On January 27 2016 14:48 Doublemint wrote:

absolutely. and that is also why xdaunt is very much on spot when he says that this guy throws conventional wisdom about elections, campaigning etc. basically overboard.

I still don't think it will suffice for the presidency - yes I am stubborn that way - but the primary process got spicier - again.

when has it reached its climax though? I think trump will actually shoot someone in the next 4 weeks.

//edit: if poll numbers don't move the way he intended them to ^^

On January 27 2016 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
Trump doesn't need the debate nearly as much as the debate needs him.

On another note I started looking into that Police Lt. Joe Gliniewicz guy, and just wow... How he even had a job let alone be considered a local hero is astounding.

On January 27 2016 15:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


Caucus night in Iowa will probably be the climax. Lest a miracle/disaster it will all be over but the crying after New Hampshire and SC.

The drama in the Democratic nomination could very well go all the way to the convention though.

On January 27 2016 16:21 Seuss wrote:


There will be plenty of Republican drama after Iowa. Trump can't win the nomination outright with only 35% support, so in the long run the last establishment candidate standing could beat him and/or create wonderful brokered convention drama. Alternatively if Trump fades out there'll be a feeding frenzy as the establishment races to prop someone up to beat Cruz.

Basically no matter what happens with Trump it'll be a glorious mess, though I'm privately hoping that Trump carries this all the way to a brokered convention with just enough delegates to make him favored but still an unknown.

On January 27 2016 16:21 Seuss wrote:


There will be plenty of Republican drama after Iowa. Trump can't win the nomination outright with only 35% support, so in the long run the last establishment candidate standing could beat him and/or create wonderful brokered convention drama. Alternatively if Trump fades out there'll be a feeding frenzy as the establishment races to prop someone up to beat Cruz.

Basically no matter what happens with Trump it'll be a glorious mess, though I'm privately hoping that Trump carries this all the way to a brokered convention with just enough delegates to make him favored but still an unknown.

BURNS – Oregon standoff spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum was killed and other leaders of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation were arrested Tuesday after the FBI and state police stopped vehicles about 20 miles north of Burns.

Authorities did not release the name of the person who died at the highway stop, but Finicum's daughter confirmed it was Finicum, 55, of Cane Beds, Arizona, one of the cowboy-hat wearing faces of the takeover.

"My dad was such a good good man, through and through," said Arianna Finicum Brown, 26, one of Finicum's 11 children. "He would never ever want to hurt somebody, but he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved."

Ryan Bundy, 43, of Bunkerville, Nev., suffered a minor gunshot wound in the confrontation about 4:30 p.m. along U.S. 395. He was treated and released from a local hospital and was in FBI custody, authorities said.

Also arrested during the stop were his brother, Ammon Bundy, 40, of Emmett, Idaho, Ryan W. Payne, 32, of Anaconda, Mont., Brian Cavalier, 44, of Bunkerville, Nevada, and Shawna J. Cox, 59, of Kanab, Utah. They were charged with conspiracy to impede federal officers, a felony.

On January 27 2016 18:10 Danglars wrote:
One dead in that Oregon standoff with the two bundies and their posse. The leaders of the occupying group have been arrested.

The Oregonian

(I see already posted once, just a second source then)

On January 27 2016 17:47 GreenHorizons wrote:


I believe the term is "falling action", I think it will be sorted out before the convention, not that anyone will be happy about it.

On January 27 2016 18:10 Danglars wrote:
One dead in that Oregon standoff with the two bundies and their posse. The leaders of the occupying group have been arrested.

The Oregonian

(I see already posted once, just a second source then)

On January 27 2016 17:29 Wegandi wrote:


Most of the people commenting have no clue about the GOP, the RNC, and the state of the party. The Establishment candidates are dead in the water this election. Even if you add all the Rubio, Jeb, Christie, etc. number's they don't even amount to 20%. We're probably going to see a 4 or 5 person race all the way to the convention.

To the people believing the polls...you're going to be surprised in Iowa and NH and that's going to have repercussions once the veneer of Trumps "I'm a winner" balloon pops. There is going to be a huge scramble for delegates and the convention is going to be wild.

A lot of the candidates are regional. Almost no one has universal appeal. Rand is going to do extremely well in all the caucus states. The Establishment candidates will overperform in primary/southern states, but do hideously in places like Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, the Midwest in general, etc. The GOP is much much more fractured than the Democrats and have always been.

If Bernie stumbles in the first few states, Hillary will have wrapped it up, unlike on the GOP side where candidates have particular pockets of support to buoy them.


PS: When Trump gets 3rd in Iowa, I'm going to be laughing out loud how he's going to parlay his I'm a winner routine.

No, the real motive behind the neoconservative holy war against Trump is rooted in his foreign policy positions, which the neocons rightly view as a direct threat to their internationalist project.
....

Neocon Mona Charen was appalled by Trump’s suggestion that “we let Russia fight ISIS.” Trump is “oblivious” to the “global jihad,” fumed Andrew McCarthy, angered by Trump’s vow to “stay out of the [Syrian] fray (leaving it in Vladimir Putin’s nefarious hands).” Bill Kristol was one of the signers, a man whose key role in ginning up the Iraq war is well-known to my readers.

A recent piece in Politico was more explicit about the danger Trump poses to the internationalist-interventionist consensus that reigns supreme in the Washington Beltway:

“One of the most common misconceptions about Donald Trump is that he is opportunistic and makes up his views as he goes along. But a careful reading of some of Trump’s statements over three decades shows that he has a remarkably coherent and consistent worldview, one that is unlikely to change much if he’s elected president. It is also a worldview that makes a great leap backward in history, embracing antiquated notions of power that haven’t been prevalent since prior to World War II.

“It is easy to poke fun at many of Trump’s foreign-policy notions – the promises to “take” Iraq’s oil, to extract a kind of imperial ‘tribute’ from U.S. military allies like South Korea, his eagerness to emulate the Great Wall of China along the border with Mexico, and his embrace of old-style strongmen like Vladimir Putin. But many of these views would have found favor in pre-World War II – and even, in some cases, 19th century – America.

”In sum, Trump believes that America gets a raw deal from the liberal international order it helped to create and has led since World War II. He has three key arguments that he returns to time and again over the past 30 years. He is deeply unhappy with America’s military alliances and feels the United States is overcommitted around the world. He feels that America is disadvantaged by the global economy. And he is sympathetic to authoritarian strongmen. Trump seeks nothing less than ending the U.S.-led liberal order and freeing America from its international commitments.”

All this is heresy in the circles in which the author – Thomas Wright, director of the Project on International Order and Strategy at The Brookings Institution – travels. Brookings is in hock to the Gulf emirate of Qatar to the tune of $14.8 million, according to the New York Times. This accounts for Wright’s discomfort with The Donald’s view of America’s expensive and often tragic commitments to defending other nations “that would be wiped off the face of the earth if not for us,” as the former real estate mogul puts it.

Wright’s characterization of Trump’s attitude toward Putin as an “embrace” is a typical ploy by the War Party, which always portrays a non-belligerent stance as a love affair: what Trump actually said, however, is that “I could get along with Putin” – a definite no-no in Washington, where the new cold war is raging on both sides of the aisle. Contrast this with the position taken by most of the other GOP candidates, such as Christie, Rubio, and Bush, who proudly proclaim they’d confront Russian planes in the skies over Syria, risking World War III.

Examining Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements over the years – the GOP frontrunner wonders why we are stationing 28,000 troops in South Korea, complains that we’re defending Japan while they slap tariffs on our products, and says we have no business stationing tens of thousands of soldiers in Europe, which can damn well take care of itself – Wright trots out the hate figures interventionists love to excoriate. Trump is like Robert A. Taft, who didn’t want us to join NATO: he’s like Charles Lindbergh, a leader of the anti-interventionist America First Committee, a particular hate-figure of the interventionist-neocon foreign policy Establishment. And, of course, Trump is an “isolationist,” because he’s sick of coddling our shiftless “allies” while they rip us off and laugh at us behind our back, all the while huddling under the protective wingspan of the American eagle.