US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7297

On April 07 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
It truly baffles me, is it possible to be quite so tone-deaf?

We didn't want you for president. We still don't want you for president. Stop making public appearances and go do something else.

On April 07 2017 23:31 LegalLord wrote:

All that proves is that to the American public as a whole, she is marginally more favorable than an utterly unqualified orange clown. Is that the standard you want to play by?

On April 07 2017 23:35 opisska wrote:
Are there any post-elections polls about how favourably people see her now where she isn't the only non-orangutan option anymore, but just one of many politicians? I can't find anything, Google is still swamped by election-related stuff and I don't really know reliable polling agencies in the US to go directly to them.

Posted April 6th, 2017 @ 9:07am in #Trump #POTUS #Syria #war crimes #Assad

According to the mainstream media – that has been wrong about almost everything for a solid 18 months in a row – the Syrian government allegedly bombed its own people with a nerve agent.

The reason the Assad government would bomb its own people with a nerve agent right now is obvious. Syrian President Assad – who has been fighting for his life for several years, and is only lately feeling safer – suddenly decided to commit suicide-by-Trump. Because the best way to make that happen is to commit a war crime against your own people in exactly the way that would force President Trump to respond or else suffer humiliation at the hands of the mainstream media.

And how about those pictures coming in about the tragedy. Lots of visual imagery. Dead babies. It is almost as if someone designed this “tragedy” to be camera-ready for President Trump’s consumption. It pushed every one of his buttons. Hard. And right when things in Syria were heading in a positive direction.

Interesting timing.
Super-powerful visual persuasion designed for Trump in particular.
Suspiciously well-documented event for a place with no real press.
No motive for Assad to use gas to kill a few dozen people at the cost of his entire regime. It wouldn’t be a popular move with Putin either.
The type of attack no U.S. president can ignore and come away intact.
A setup that looks suspiciously similar to the false WMD stories that sparked the Iraq war.
I’m going to call bullshit on the gas attack. It’s too “on-the-nose,” as Hollywood script-writers sometimes say, meaning a little too perfect to be natural. This has the look of a manufactured event.

My guess is that President Trump knows this smells fishy, but he has to talk tough anyway. However, keep in mind that he has made a brand out of not discussing military options. He likes to keep people guessing. He reminded us of that again yesterday, in case we forgot.

So how does a Master Persuader respond to a fake war crime?

He does it with a fake response, if he’s smart.

Watch now as the world tries to guess where Trump is moving military assets, and what he might do to respond. The longer he drags things out, the less power the story will have on the public. We’ll be wondering for weeks when those bombs will start hitting Damascus, and Trump will continue to remind us that he doesn’t talk about military options.

Then he waits for something bad to happen to Assad’s family, or his generals, in the normal course of chaos over there. When that happens on its own, the media will wonder if it was Trump sending a strong message to Assad in a measured way. Confirmation bias will do the rest.

There is also a non-zero chance that Putin just asked Assad to frame one of his less-effective Syrian generals for going rogue with chemical weapons, and executing him just to calm things down.

I don’t think we’ll ever know what’s going on over there. But I think we can rule out the idea that Assad decided to commit suicide-by-Trump.

On April 07 2017 23:38 LegalLord wrote:

Yah. Still bad. We Americans don't look kindly upon losers who lost and are now losing further.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

On April 07 2017 23:33 Mohdoo wrote:


You said no one wanted her. She won the popular vote. It is a valid critique of what you said.

President Trump is considering ousting both White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon, Axios reported on Friday.

Aides and advisers to the president told Axios that, while Trump is considering a major shake up in the West Wing, it's not clear when it would happen or if Trump will "pull that trigger."

"Things are happening, but it's very unclear the president's willing to pull that trigger," one top aide said.

Bannon emerged as one of Trump's closest — and most controversial — aides before the president took office. In the early days of his presidency, Trump elevated Bannon onto the National Security Council's principals committee, and the former Breitbart executive chair was said to hold considerable influence with the president.

But Bannon was removed from the NSC earlier this week, seen by many White House staffers as a sign of the aide's fall from grace inside the Trump administration. The reshuffling of the NSC came as Bannon, a self-described "economic nationalist," finds himself locked in a battle with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner over influence.

Bannon and Priebus represent divergent "wings" in the Trump administration, with the latter, a former Republican National Committee chairman, serving as the voice of the political establishment in a White House full of political neophytes.

Firing them both would be an enormous upheaval for the young presidency, which has yet to hit its 100-day mark.

Axios did not say who could replace Bannon as Trump's chief strategist, but reported that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn were among those being considered to replace Priebus as chief of staff.

On April 08 2017 02:01 TheYango wrote:
Who would even want the job at this point?

On April 08 2017 02:05 farvacola wrote:

Rumors tell of a woman with vision so precise, so far-reaching that she is able to gaze upon the leaders of other nations from her fortress in the north. Perhaps Trump will call on her.

On April 07 2017 23:52 biology]major wrote:


If your only two options for lunch were dog poop or some type of really average, unexciting, uncharismatic vegetable that was surrounded in conspiracy but everyone was telling you it's good for you, that doesn't equate to support or a ringing endorsement.

On April 08 2017 02:09 Superbanana wrote:

Stop with the silly allegories.
After the clarification that she is supported by some and not actually popular, Mohdoo's point obviously stands.
Some people supported her. Its obvious. Stop with the strawman. She had crowd rallies.
How can you be so fucking stubborn.
I came here hoping for some sober views on the bombings. I'm disappointed.

On April 08 2017 02:09 Superbanana wrote:

Stop with the silly allegories.
After the clarification that she is supported by some and not actually popular, Mohdoo's point obviously stands.
Some people supported her. Its obvious. Stop with the strawman. She had crowd rallies.
How can you be so fucking stubborn.
I came here hoping for some sober views on the bombings. I'm disappointed.