|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 12 2017 02:09 xDaunt wrote:
I've never been one to place much stock in conspiracy theories surrounding the military-industrial complex, but WTF is going on. Not only has Trump done an about-face on his prior positions and is relentlessly beating the war drums, but now democrats are trying to get rid of Gabbard.
Same thing happened with Obama. There is clearly a conversation that happens after inauguration which gets presidents in line.
|
The president is just the head of one branch of goverment. The whole return to pre-NATO/WW2 isolationist USA was about as realistic as his secret plan to beat ISIS. He can't just close down all our bases in the EU because he feels like it. Or just tell Iraq that we are done in the Middle East and leave.
|
On April 12 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 02:09 xDaunt wrote:
I've never been one to place much stock in conspiracy theories surrounding the military-industrial complex, but WTF is going on. Not only has Trump done an about-face on his prior positions and is relentlessly beating the war drums, but now democrats are trying to get rid of Gabbard. Same thing happened with Obama. There is clearly a conversation that happens after inauguration which gets presidents in line.
Seeing how Syria is playing out, it seems Obama letting congress decide if we escalated in Syria was the only thing that stopped it. From some of the interviews I've seen it wasn't a popular choice within his administration.
Lol at plansix defending Democrats going full out to try to get rid of Tulsi (a promise made when she backed Bernie) but over asking for some evidence that we know Assad even did this.
If it's so obvious it should be easy to provide some evidence.
|
In hindsight I'm not sure why people (including me) really believed there was even a smidgeon of a chance of isolationist President Trump with respect to foreign adventurism. Between his drum beating against ISIS, an executive thirsting for war, and how quick he is to react to...well...anything, it should have never seemed possible.
|
Pretty sure they are grumpy with her because she A: met with Assad without telling anyone and B: Could just ask the US intelligence services to provide her with evidence they have. Its not like she is a private citizen who can't ask for that stuff.
Unless she doesn't like that evidence and doesn't trust it. Which I guess you could do if you didn't want to make friends in the goverment you work in.
|
Government should be all about being friends with politicians, after all.
|
On April 12 2017 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2017 02:09 xDaunt wrote:
I've never been one to place much stock in conspiracy theories surrounding the military-industrial complex, but WTF is going on. Not only has Trump done an about-face on his prior positions and is relentlessly beating the war drums, but now democrats are trying to get rid of Gabbard. Same thing happened with Obama. There is clearly a conversation that happens after inauguration which gets presidents in line. Seeing how Syria is playing out, it seems Obama letting congress decide if we escalated in Syria was the only thing that stopped it. From some of the interviews I've seen it wasn't a popular choice within his administration. Lol at plansix defending Democrats going full out to try to get rid of Tulsi (a promise made when she backed Bernie) but over asking for some evidence that we know Assad even did this. If it's so obvious it should be easy to provide some evidence.
Something something wiretapping claims about obama, politics is amazing. For every event just ask yourself how would I react if the opposing party did this? Am I using similar standards to assess these events not related to partisanship?
|
On April 12 2017 02:37 a_flayer wrote:
Government should be all about being friends with politicians, after all.
You can pick fights with politicians, just don't expect to get much accomplished with you are a junior representative from a small state. She only gets one vote in the House, just like every other member.
|
Well, we're well on our way to having two wars. On a credit card, I presume.
|
So 8 years later usa debt 45 trillion and the next democratic candidate : " we could have gone to the beach and relaxed would be better off than where these politicians have gotten us!"
After inauguration: "nvm"
|
On April 12 2017 02:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:
In hindsight I'm not sure why people (including me) really believed there was even a smidgeon of a chance of isolationist President Trump with respect to foreign adventurism. Between his drum beating against ISIS, an executive thirsting for war, and how quick he is to react to...well...anything, it should have never seemed possible.
I personally never thought so. He seemed like someone who would change his mind on a whim. That he supported a massive increase in DoD funding while cutting hard everywhere else should have been a dead giveaway. The pressures against doing what he claimed to want to do were severe and he's no committed ideologue; just an idiot buoyed into a position of power. Still, I could appreciate the sentiments while realizing that there was no chance for real change. Also you can appreciate the chaos if you try hard enough.
|
Man, I am sure that very rational, not reactionary North Korea will take those tweets in jest and see them as saber rattling. And China will have the cultural nuance to understand that Trump isn't serious. Those won't be taken at face value when translated into another language.
|
More likely on a small business loan from his father.
|
On April 12 2017 02:46 biology]major wrote:
So 8 years later usa debt 45 trillion and the next democratic candidate : " we could have gone to the beach and relaxed would be better off than where these politicians have gotten us!"
After inauguration: "nvm"
being in office does tend to change things indeed. and bashing politicians is the most normal thing to do 
vote me for president, I won't change my mind after entering office! (because my mind is never made up much on things anyways, and I won't win)
|
On April 12 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 02:37 a_flayer wrote:
Government should be all about being friends with politicians, after all. You can pick fights with politicians, just don't expect to get much accomplished with you are a junior representative from a small state. She only gets one vote in the House, just like every other member.
I suppose it's possible that there was no basis for xDaunt's statement where he said the Democrats were "trying to get rid of Gabbard".
Will there, though, as a result of this, be e-mails being sent back and forth between people who are friends with the 'correct' politicians to work towards preventing Gabbard from getting funding for her re-election, I wonder? It would all be legal and just "good/cunning politics", of course. Nothing nefarious about it at all.
Also,
Gabbard spokeswoman Emily Latimer said the trip wasn’t funded using taxpayer dollars and was approved by the House Ethics Committee but wouldn’t provide further information when pressed by POLITICO. The lawmaker is currently on the trip, though it's not clear exactly when she'll be returning.
Source
Sounds like it was a legitimate trip and she most certainly did "tell people" (perhaps in contrast with what you said, depending on what you meant by "people"). Nothing wrong with that. It was even, one might say, "ethical", for a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees to do this.
|
I'm actually quite terrified that Trump is going to find some way to cause a war with North Korea. I'd like to think his advisors are not complete morons that would goad him into military action, but...
|
On April 12 2017 03:01 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm actually quite terrified that Trump is going to find some way to cause a war with North Korea. I'd like to think his advisors are not complete morons that would goad him into military action, but...
It's the advisors who are probably pushing it. And even if they're not stupid, military folk tend to push for war. Usually you have more civilian leadership to keep them in perspective but our leader is kind of a clown...
|
The House Ethics Committee just confirmed she didn’t do anything illegal or against the House ethics rules. They didn’t approve the trip, as much as say she wasn’t in directly violation of the law. And if I remember correctly, she didn’t tell anyone why she was going to Syria. The info dump came after she returned.
There are many things you can do as a house member that are not illegal, but won’t help you accomplish things in the House. Like meeting with foreign leaders without first discussing it with your peers.
|
On April 12 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 03:01 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm actually quite terrified that Trump is going to find some way to cause a war with North Korea. I'd like to think his advisors are not complete morons that would goad him into military action, but... It's the advisors who are probably pushing it. And even if they're not stupid, military folk tend to push for war. Usually you have more civilian leadership to keep them in perspective but our leader is kind of a clown...
War with a middle eastern country that no one else around them cares about anyway is one thing.
Reducing Seoul to rubble because you want to have something to do is another.
|
On April 12 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 03:01 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm actually quite terrified that Trump is going to find some way to cause a war with North Korea. I'd like to think his advisors are not complete morons that would goad him into military action, but... It's the advisors who are probably pushing it. And even if they're not stupid, military folk tend to push for war. Usually you have more civilian leadership to keep them in perspective but our leader is kind of a clown...
The military officers are probably keenly aware that there's nothing to gain from a war with NK except millions of dead South Koreans and possibly a nuke. At least I hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
