|
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 June 30 2017 07:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 07:24 Nevuk wrote:
They definitely could have repealed the AUMF during the 2008-2010 period if they had really wanted to even with GOP opposition. It would be weird to repeal the authorization while we had troops deployed and had not killed Osama. Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 07:25 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2017 07:15 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2017 06:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.
A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in an unexpected victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.
The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.
Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization. They noted that the anti-terror struggle has evolved markedly since the days when U.S. troops hunted Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Congress has never debated and authorized the fight against newer extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Members of the military “notice that we don’t have the courage to debate this and to give them the authority to go do this," said Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who served in the Air Force and comes from a family of soldiers. "And I know that from my friends who are in the military right now."
Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, echoed that sentiment. “I think we’ve seen a disproportionate sacrifice with the military community that has gone over and over again,” he said. “And I believe that we owe them the debate.”
Others on the appropriations panel credited Lee with pushing the fight for so long.
"When I came in this morning, I was going to vote 'no,'" Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said during the debate, telling Lee: "I love the fact that you are in a position to take a lot of positions that I don’t take. That’s what we need. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through."
Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) also turned to the San Francisco-area lawmaker. “You’re making converts all over the place, Ms. Lee," he said. "And indeed, you have been incredibly persistent and perseverant on this issue for a number of years. I think we recognize you, and obviously you have allies in the room. We share your concern.”
The vote comes as President Donald Trump is steadily delegating more authority to military commanders in the battle against the Islamic State and a host of other extremist groups on several continents, raising new concerns that civilians are exerting too little oversight.
Thursday's action "sends a positive signal that the time is right to have this discussion," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has pushed similar measures in the Senate to no avail, told POLITICO. "It sets a deadline to try to force congressional action, and we need congressional action."
Lee's amendment would repeal the 2001 authorization within 240 days of the enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 2018 — forcing Congress to take up a new one.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said it's all the more urgent for Congress to pass a new military-force authorization.
“I think the 2001 [law] is very ill-fitting for today," said Flake, who is offering a new authorization bill with Kaine that he expects to be marked up in July. But he added: "You shouldn’t get rid of it and have nothing, so it’s time for a replacement. And I think we’ve got the bill to do it."
Only Kay Granger (R-Texas), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke against Lee's amendment in Thursday's committee meeting, arguing that it would cripple the military's ability to conduct counterterror operations.
"The amendment is a deal-breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," Granger said.
Although the Pentagon has been reluctant to disclose the number of U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, recent reports indicate approximately 8,400 are stationed in Afghanistan, 7,000 in Iraq, and more than 900 in Syria. Source At this point, I wouldn't even mind if Dems take credit for repealing the AUMF2011 despite their silence in the Obama years. Just get it done. They were not silent during Obama's term. The GOP was just more than happen to turn it on them and claim they were against national security. They loved not having to clean up Iraq and blame it all on Obama. I never heard a damn peep. They were more than happy to let Obama drone strike his way around five or six countries because he was their guy. The Rand Paul types were the only noteworthy ones. It was after 2011 and the withdrawal from Iraq. It isn't really a headline grabbing statement by a house member or senator, wanting to do something that will never happen and won't get out of committee. .
Sounds a lot like it was indistinguishable from doing nothing and just passively letting Obama do what he wanted for political harmony. You're sure someone did something, without a source, and without anything actually happening. I only wish Republicans got that much sympathy from you and I could actually think you just thought Congress tried their best but political will prevailed.
|
On June 30 2017 07:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 07:34 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2017 07:24 Nevuk wrote:
They definitely could have repealed the AUMF during the 2008-2010 period if they had really wanted to even with GOP opposition. It would be weird to repeal the authorization while we had troops deployed and had not killed Osama. On June 30 2017 07:25 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2017 07:15 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2017 06:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.
A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in an unexpected victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.
The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.
Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization. They noted that the anti-terror struggle has evolved markedly since the days when U.S. troops hunted Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Congress has never debated and authorized the fight against newer extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Members of the military “notice that we don’t have the courage to debate this and to give them the authority to go do this," said Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who served in the Air Force and comes from a family of soldiers. "And I know that from my friends who are in the military right now."
Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, echoed that sentiment. “I think we’ve seen a disproportionate sacrifice with the military community that has gone over and over again,” he said. “And I believe that we owe them the debate.”
Others on the appropriations panel credited Lee with pushing the fight for so long.
"When I came in this morning, I was going to vote 'no,'" Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said during the debate, telling Lee: "I love the fact that you are in a position to take a lot of positions that I don’t take. That’s what we need. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through."
Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) also turned to the San Francisco-area lawmaker. “You’re making converts all over the place, Ms. Lee," he said. "And indeed, you have been incredibly persistent and perseverant on this issue for a number of years. I think we recognize you, and obviously you have allies in the room. We share your concern.”
The vote comes as President Donald Trump is steadily delegating more authority to military commanders in the battle against the Islamic State and a host of other extremist groups on several continents, raising new concerns that civilians are exerting too little oversight.
Thursday's action "sends a positive signal that the time is right to have this discussion," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has pushed similar measures in the Senate to no avail, told POLITICO. "It sets a deadline to try to force congressional action, and we need congressional action."
Lee's amendment would repeal the 2001 authorization within 240 days of the enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 2018 — forcing Congress to take up a new one.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said it's all the more urgent for Congress to pass a new military-force authorization.
“I think the 2001 [law] is very ill-fitting for today," said Flake, who is offering a new authorization bill with Kaine that he expects to be marked up in July. But he added: "You shouldn’t get rid of it and have nothing, so it’s time for a replacement. And I think we’ve got the bill to do it."
Only Kay Granger (R-Texas), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke against Lee's amendment in Thursday's committee meeting, arguing that it would cripple the military's ability to conduct counterterror operations.
"The amendment is a deal-breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," Granger said.
Although the Pentagon has been reluctant to disclose the number of U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, recent reports indicate approximately 8,400 are stationed in Afghanistan, 7,000 in Iraq, and more than 900 in Syria. Source At this point, I wouldn't even mind if Dems take credit for repealing the AUMF2011 despite their silence in the Obama years. Just get it done. They were not silent during Obama's term. The GOP was just more than happen to turn it on them and claim they were against national security. They loved not having to clean up Iraq and blame it all on Obama. I never heard a damn peep. They were more than happy to let Obama drone strike his way around five or six countries because he was their guy. The Rand Paul types were the only noteworthy ones. It was after 2011 and the withdrawal from Iraq. It isn't really a headline grabbing statement by a house member or senator, wanting to do something that will never happen and won't get out of committee. . Sounds a lot like it was indistinguishable from doing nothing and just passively letting Obama do what he wanted for political harmony. You're sure someone did something, without a source, and without anything actually happening. I only wish Republicans got that much sympathy from you and I could actually think you just thought Congress tried their best but political will prevailed.
Do you read my posts? I constantly shit on congress and their love of passing the buck to the oval office. How they whine about executive over reach, but then do nothing to limit it? The Democrats and Republicans have been tickled pink to have passed all the responsibility for the middle east to the executive branch. That is why they all became chicken shits when Obama asked for approval to strike in Syria. And three months later, the invasion of Ukraine happened and they did fucking NOTHING. It was more fun to blame Obama for it or breath a sigh of relief that you don't have to get involved with in that mess.
Congress is full of chicken shits from both parties. There are a few exceptions that have called for limiting the powers of the President from both parties. But they were few. My objection was that you claimed the they sat by happy while the GOP was trying to limit his power or even do anything.
|
Centrist House Republicans are quietly whipping opposition to a draft GOP budget that would curb entitlement spending — and are threatening to vote against the plan without a bipartisan deal to increase spending caps.
It’s the latest in House Republican's budget woes.
Tuesday Group co-chairman Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) is gathering signatures on a letter asking Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to intervene in House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black’s plan to curb $200 billion in mandatory spending in the GOP budget.
The centrists are warning that the Tennessee Republican’s proposal is “not practical” and “could imperil tax reform,” according to a draft letter obtained by POLITICO.
The letter also encourages GOP leaders to work with Democrats to reach a budget agreement setting higher spending levels for fiscal 2018 — something the letter suggests could be paired with a vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Without such a deal, some moderates may not support the budget, according to the letter, which doesn’t have a full list of signatories and is still circulating.
“[A]bsent such a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, we are reticent to support any budget resolution on the House floor,” the letter reads.
The request is the latest obstacle for Black, who has struggled for weeks to unveil a budget.
Eager to appeal to conservatives and use the GOP’s majorities to curb spending, Black crafted a fiscal blueprint that would instruct other committees to roll back spending on things like food stamps, farm subsidies, housing allowances and veterans programs. She wants to use the budget’s procedural powers to fast-track those cuts alongside a GOP tax package later in the year.
But the chairmen who would be tasked with making such cuts have balked. She’s already lowered her targeted cuts from $500 billion in cuts to $200 billion.
But even that worries the moderates, who are also concerned the spending cuts will complicate tax reform efforts.
“While fiscal responsivity and long-term budget stability is essential, requiring hundreds of billions — as much as $200 billion by some accounts — in budget savings from mandatory spending programs in the reconciliation package is not practical and will make enacting tax reform even more difficult than it already will be,” the draft letter reads.
Hard-line conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus, meanwhile, are arguing that those cuts aren't enough. They want even more mandatory savings, for fear that a bipartisan budget deal will be reached later this year to raise spending caps.
“There’s going to be a big spending increase in discretionary spending,” said Freedom Caucus leader Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “And we’re going to save only $150 billion to $200 billion over 10 years?”
That does seem to be the direction Congress is moving. In early May, more than 141 House Republican defense hawks asked GOP leadership in a letter to raise spending caps on the Pentagon.
Tuesday Group members, well aware that any spending agreement will require eight Senate Democrats to overcome a filibuster, know any deal will likely mean increases for non-defense spending programs championed by Democrats. They also know that lawmakers will need to raise the debt ceiling in the coming months, a painful vote for Republicans that a few dozen House GOP centrists will more than likely have to carry over the threshold with most Democrats.
Pragmatic-minded members argue GOP leaders should create a single spending and debt limit package.
The idea has also gained traction in the Senate, where GOP insiders say debt ceiling legislation will likely originate. But knowing their more conservative conference, House leaders have avoided the topic at all costs, saying they're focused solely on a budget and health care.
The letter’s signatories, depending how many are included, could provide GOP leaders some cover should they decide to engage in deal-making with Democrats. However, such a move would invite conservative resistance from the Freedom Caucus as well as traditional GOP leadership allies.
Source
|
Hence the narrative change from Conservative pundits and media that Collusion is not illegal.
In the midst of the 2016 campaign, a veteran GOP opposition researcher who said he had ties to ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn contacted hackers hoping to obtain emails that he believed Russian operatives had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
Peter W. Smith reached out to computer security experts in the hopes of gaining access to the email trove and explicitly outlined his connection with Flynn in his recruiting emails, according to the report.
Smith, who died at the age of 81 just 10 days after the Journal interviewed him, told the newspaper that he never explicitly said that Flynn was involved with the project. Flynn and the White House did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment, and a Trump campaign representative said Smith had no involvement in the campaign.
In one recruiting email reviewed by the newspaper, Smith said Flynn’s son, Michael G. Flynn, was helping with the effort. In another, Jonathan Safron, a law student who worked for Smith, included Flynn’s consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, at the top of a list of websites of people working with the team.
“He said, ‘I’m talking to Michael Flynn about this—if you find anything, can you let me know?’” Eric York, one computer security expert who said he searched hacker forums on Smith’s behalf to try to dig up the emails, told the Journal.
What Smith hoped to unearth were the 33,000 emails that Clinton has said she deleted from her private email server because they were personal in nature, and which Trump infamously urged Russia to find and release during a July 2016 campaign rally.
Trump and his defenders in the media and his administration have referred to the federal investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election as a “witch hunt” intended to hurt his presidency. They insist there is no evidence of collusion between Russian operatives and Trump campaign associates.
Smith acknowledged that the emails, if they existed, would likely have been hacked by Russian operatives. He ultimately received some emails from hacker groups prior to the election, he told the Journal, but urged those groups to pass the emails along to WikiLeaks so he would not have to personally vouch for their authenticity. Those emails have never surfaced, according to the report.
Though the bulk of the 2016 cyberhacking efforts focused on Democratic targets, some Republicans, including Smith himself, were apparently hacked as well.
Smith told the New York Times last December that he was unaware his emails had been hacked and published on the website DCLeaks.com until the newspaper’s reporter informed him.
“I’m not upset at all,” he said in a phone call with the Times. “I try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.”
Smith, a Chicago investment banker, has had his hand in previous messy political dealings involving the Clintons. During the 1990s, he helped subsidize a large-scale effort led by conservative donors to procure and publish damaging information about then-President Bill Clinton.
The Texas Observer reported at the time that Smith spent “$80,000 on private detectives and to subsidize American Spectator reporters in a hunt for the black baby that Clinton was rumored to have sired.”
He was a collaborator on what came to be known as the “Arkansas Project,” in addition to multimillionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, its main funder, and David Brock, then a reporter for the Spectator. Brock has since become one of the Clintons’ most ardent public defenders.
Source
|
so apparently Info wars went off the rails again (like usual). It's really in its own category of insanity.
|
Are they running it from mars?
|
Tuesday Group co-chairman Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) is gathering signatures on a letter asking Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to intervene in House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black’s plan to curb $200 billion in mandatory spending in the GOP budget.
The centrists are warning that the Tennessee Republican’s proposal is “not practical” and “could imperil tax reform,” according to a draft letter obtained by POLITICO.
Am I reading this wrong, or are they seriously trying to claim that cutting spending gets in the way of cutting taxes!?
|
On June 30 2017 11:14 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +Tuesday Group co-chairman Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) is gathering signatures on a letter asking Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to intervene in House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black’s plan to curb $200 billion in mandatory spending in the GOP budget.
The centrists are warning that the Tennessee Republican’s proposal is “not practical” and “could imperil tax reform,” according to a draft letter obtained by POLITICO. Am I reading this wrong, or are they seriously trying to claim that cutting spending gets in the way of cutting taxes!?
Tax reforms are not necessarily tax cuts. Everyone talks about closing loopholes blah blah and some are agreed upon by both parties, but if they start out with a 200$ billion curb on certain spending then they've already lost all democrats and from the sounds of it, moderate republicans in the house (I believe these may be mythical creatures).
This is just an example - another example could be that they want to raise taxes on poor people and cut them on the wealthy but in a way that winds up revenue neutral - that's a reform, not a cut. I have no idea what they actually want, and from the sounds of it, neither do they.
Politics is compromise - the choices the GOP has are either compromise and get a bit of what they want, or play hardball and get nothing. It does seem like they've forgotten that since they refused to compromise for the last decade on anything, but it's how congress is designed to function.
If a bill is experiencing issues in the house it's probably dead in the senate, as we've just seen, due to the presence of far more moderate republicans like Collins.
|
The conservative master plan of massing budget reductions at 200 billion a swipe is dead in the water. The moderates have had enough of it.
|
KY doesn't play that whole "provide us your voter rolls" thing.
A few other states have also replied in pretty much the same way, and I doubt they'll get much cooperation even in deepest Trump country (which KY is, though our SoS and AG are democrats for some strange reason)
|
|
|
|
|
~1/4 of time spent golfing I guess?
|
On June 30 2017 13:46 Amui wrote:~1/4 of time spent golfing I guess?
1/5 actually, it'll be 32/161 days. His Oval Office takes the form of a golf cart.
|
On June 30 2017 13:50 NewSunshine wrote:1/5 actually, it'll be 32/161 days. His Oval Office takes the form of a golf cart.
Better than I thought.
Still, that's essentially taking 6 all-expenses paid vacations every month (I think Trump actually makes money from the government because his staff and stuff all stay at his hotels?)
|
On June 30 2017 14:20 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 13:50 NewSunshine wrote:On June 30 2017 13:46 Amui wrote:~1/4 of time spent golfing I guess? 1/5 actually, it'll be 32/161 days. His Oval Office takes the form of a golf cart. Better than I thought. Still, that's essentially taking 6 all-expenses paid vacations every month (I think Trump actually makes money from the government because his staff and stuff all stay at his hotels?)
Yes, Trump has already literally been paid millions of dollars from the government paying him to have access to the resources they need to protect him. He's been doing it since he's been campaigning.
This is one reason I don't know why people keep bringing it up. It's not in dispute by anyone that Trump is enriching himself and his allies off the presidency, and specifically from taxpayers.
But it's not like Democrats have any room to complain.
Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded to questions about the Secret Service payments by saying “everything was done in accordance with FEC guidelines and regulations.
|
On June 30 2017 10:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hence the narrative change from Conservative pundits and media that Collusion is not illegal. Show nested quote +In the midst of the 2016 campaign, a veteran GOP opposition researcher who said he had ties to ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn contacted hackers hoping to obtain emails that he believed Russian operatives had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
Peter W. Smith reached out to computer security experts in the hopes of gaining access to the email trove and explicitly outlined his connection with Flynn in his recruiting emails, according to the report.
Smith, who died at the age of 81 just 10 days after the Journal interviewed him, told the newspaper that he never explicitly said that Flynn was involved with the project. Flynn and the White House did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment, and a Trump campaign representative said Smith had no involvement in the campaign.
In one recruiting email reviewed by the newspaper, Smith said Flynn’s son, Michael G. Flynn, was helping with the effort. In another, Jonathan Safron, a law student who worked for Smith, included Flynn’s consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, at the top of a list of websites of people working with the team.
“He said, ‘I’m talking to Michael Flynn about this—if you find anything, can you let me know?’” Eric York, one computer security expert who said he searched hacker forums on Smith’s behalf to try to dig up the emails, told the Journal.
What Smith hoped to unearth were the 33,000 emails that Clinton has said she deleted from her private email server because they were personal in nature, and which Trump infamously urged Russia to find and release during a July 2016 campaign rally.
Trump and his defenders in the media and his administration have referred to the federal investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election as a “witch hunt” intended to hurt his presidency. They insist there is no evidence of collusion between Russian operatives and Trump campaign associates.
Smith acknowledged that the emails, if they existed, would likely have been hacked by Russian operatives. He ultimately received some emails from hacker groups prior to the election, he told the Journal, but urged those groups to pass the emails along to WikiLeaks so he would not have to personally vouch for their authenticity. Those emails have never surfaced, according to the report.
Though the bulk of the 2016 cyberhacking efforts focused on Democratic targets, some Republicans, including Smith himself, were apparently hacked as well.
Smith told the New York Times last December that he was unaware his emails had been hacked and published on the website DCLeaks.com until the newspaper’s reporter informed him.
“I’m not upset at all,” he said in a phone call with the Times. “I try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.”
Smith, a Chicago investment banker, has had his hand in previous messy political dealings involving the Clintons. During the 1990s, he helped subsidize a large-scale effort led by conservative donors to procure and publish damaging information about then-President Bill Clinton.
The Texas Observer reported at the time that Smith spent “$80,000 on private detectives and to subsidize American Spectator reporters in a hunt for the black baby that Clinton was rumored to have sired.”
He was a collaborator on what came to be known as the “Arkansas Project,” in addition to multimillionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, its main funder, and David Brock, then a reporter for the Spectator. Brock has since become one of the Clintons’ most ardent public defenders. Source
An 81 year old with connections to hackers?
|
There's room to complain if Trump is worse, which would seem to be the case. Billionaire businessmen are uniquely greedy and prone to exploit the presidency, after all.
|
President Trump launched personal attacks against us Thursday, but our concerns about his unmoored behavior go far beyond the personal. America’s leaders and allies are asking themselves yet again whether this man is fit to be president. We have our doubts, but we are both certain that the man is not mentally equipped to continue watching our show, “Morning Joe.”
www.msn.com
|
This is probably the most important part of the op ed:
The president’s unhealthy obsession with our show has been in the public record for months, and we are seldom surprised by his posting nasty tweets about us. During the campaign, the Republican nominee called Mika “neurotic” and promised to attack us personally after the campaign ended. This year, top White House staff members warned that the National Enquirer was planning to publish a negative article about us unless we begged the president to have the story spiked. We ignored their desperate pleas.
Apparently the enquirer took to harassing Brzenzki's family members, including children (they talked about it on their show today)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
