|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Do I win a MSc in pol sciences now? 
On October 10 2019 04:07 Vivax wrote:Here's my take: A reminder of what Trump is trying to achieve in the grand scheme of things. https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/26-years-on-russia-set-to-repay-all-soviet-unions-foreign-debtHe wants China to become the next post-USSR Russia and kneel before global capital linking our fates together. They are more or less the missing link. He will keep trying to destroy them economically while dragging along all other economies before inevitably, the turnaround happens under not so nice circumstances. By kneeling before global capital I mean, kicking themselves out of their corporations so the US and whoever is with them can grab a cut and start influencing their politics more.
I quote Edward Lawrence from Twitter:
Chinese trade sources say China is offering to remove the requirement for forced joint ventures in Financial Services by Jan 2020. The Chinese would like to see if further tariffs could be suspended or rolled back. We will see if that is enough for US Trade Team.
I would also like to add that a lot can happen Trump can froth from the mouth over twitter some more until then.
|
On October 12 2019 01:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2019 01:04 IyMoon wrote:On October 12 2019 01:00 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2019 00:49 IyMoon wrote:On October 12 2019 00:49 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2019 00:09 Ben... wrote:On October 11 2019 23:49 Nouar wrote:On October 11 2019 23:37 IyMoon wrote:On October 11 2019 23:28 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 11 2019 23:24 JimmiC wrote:
Pompeo has has resigned as secretary of state.
One of Pompeo's advisors resigned. Not Pompeo. I think he just had a typo where he typed has twice instead of pompeo advisor has resigned. I am just guessing though Not a typo as he said "has resigned as secretary of state". Pompeo is the secretary of state. But yes, the advisor resigned. And yovanovitch is in Congress to testify, as will be sondland next week. The Sondland testimony is a big deal because it seems he is explicitly going against the WH to do so, and his lawyer has basically stated as much in a letter. The WH stifling all testimony of government staff will only work so long as people listen to them. Their justification for preventing testimony isn't legally strong at all, so now that one person has gone against the WH, I wouldn't be shocked if others follow. It's much like the whole whistleblower thing. Now that one has come forward, it is much more likely that others will too (as we have already seen with the two additional potential whistleblowers). Can someone be punished for not following the WH orders? I mean they can fire him, it's a REAL bad look but when has trump ever cared about that Weird, it always seems like the WH is able to block people against their will, as if there is some kinda legal punishment. Is it really just people saying "but I don't wanna be fired"? Ianal but I am pretty sure there are no legal consequences for saying no to your boss. Just job ones If all you're doing is saying stuff your boss doesn't want you to say, then there are only job consequences. If what you're talking about is classified information, then there are legal ones. The hearings are held before House committees and some of those, like the Intelligence committee, have clearance so they can discuss (certain) classified information.
|
The former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified today under subpoena, also did so against the wishes of the State Department and White House, who had apparently instructed her not to appear for this hearing. The hearing was initially supposed to be voluntary but a subpoena was issued this morning after the Committee leaders learned about the WH and State Department's demands made to her last night.
It does seem like if subpoenas are issued, the WH and State Department are starting to back off. My guess is they know it's a legal fight they can't win.
|
On October 12 2019 03:33 Ben... wrote:The former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified today under subpoena, also did so against the wishes of the State Department and White House, who had apparently instructed her not to appear for this hearing. The hearing was initially supposed to be voluntary but a subpoena was issued this morning after the Committee leaders learned about the WH and State Department's demands made to her last night. https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1182720801918914566It does seem like if subpoenas are issued, the WH and State Department are starting to back off. My guess is they know it's a legal fight they can't win.
So then why not just subpoena everyone?
|
On October 12 2019 03:33 Ben... wrote:The former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified today under subpoena, also did so against the wishes of the State Department and White House, who had apparently instructed her not to appear for this hearing. The hearing was initially supposed to be voluntary but a subpoena was issued this morning after the Committee leaders learned about the WH and State Department's demands made to her last night. https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1182720801918914566It does seem like if subpoenas are issued, the WH and State Department are starting to back off. My guess is they know it's a legal fight they can't win.
They did not back off. The WH issued talking points to The Hill saying that this is endangering yovanovitch's job since no department lawyers are present and she could discuss privileged or classified info (veiled threat to fire her at the first opportunity).
They cannot physically stop her from testifying. Just putting pressure so others don't do the same.
|
On October 12 2019 01:33 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 23:53 brian wrote:On October 11 2019 22:35 Nouar wrote:On October 11 2019 19:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 11 2019 18:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2019 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2019 06:29 Lmui wrote:
The US is shitting away any chance of co-operation in the middle east. It's caused shitshows in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Having the Kurds assist is the most politically sensible decision. It involves a group which is trusted by the local populace, shares the same values as the foreign power (US), and a common goal (fight ISIS). It's the cheapest investment to achieve power in the region.If this doesn't get reversed in the next few days, I'd expect the GOP to fully break with Trump on Syria.
It was just a braindead decision by Trump I still firmly believe that if Democrats win in 2020, the world will be like: "So, that was fucked, but if you make systematic changes to make your system less volatile, we're cool", everyone will move on and clean up the pieces. Some damage can't be undone, but Trump is so unique that I don't think it is difficult for people to understand Warren/Biden/Sanders would immediately cancel tariffs and stuff like that. Trump is weird. No one else is. If we are able to show the world we learned from our mistakes, I really think we'll be welcomed back. Remember this is pretty much what happened after Bush. The world collectively went 'ok, this was just an anomaly, America is back to being our reliable ally and friend'. Only for 8 years later to go even more bat shit crazy. I'm not so sure you will find the world as forgiving the 2nd time. Sure publicly they will smile and pat the US on the back in front of the camera's but behind closed doors I think the cat is out of the bag and the world known America can go crazy every 4/8 years at random and cannot be relied upon beyond the current President. i think the world would be more forgiving, because the entire world wants to believe that america has their shit together again. every country in the world is literally rooting for it and if they see it happen theyll probably try their hardest to keep that as the status quo. if america votes in another retard down the line the rest of the world would probably lose faith again, but honestly i dont think most people lose faith in the american government, because eventually things will get better again. its the american people that become a mockery and become targets of insults, memes, laughter etc for letting another idiot in again. i mean americans are "half jokingly" considered to be the dumbest people in the world already. when a meme like that follows an entire countrys population it isnt for no reason Not half-jokingly. I will only trust the US again if Trump is beaten by a huge margin, more than 60%. Which won't happen. So that means I have to root in my head that nearly 50% of American voters either don't care about the world and are selfish bastards, or are complete idiots willing to elect anybody that lies convincingly enough (cause it doesn't get worse than a billionaire born millionaire telling to poor people he gets them). Thus I cannot trust it won't happen again, so I cannot trust the promises of the US long term. this seems a bit of an over reaction, bearing in mind the man lost the popular vote. he only took 46% in 2016. 40% doesn’t seem even remotely unrealistic. which ignores entirely motivations for voting trump don’t need to boil down to stupidity, the reasons certainly aren’t binary. he was the only republican nominee. you’ve destroyed nuance in an area that probably calls for it, and seem to not have the proper perspective of reality in framing it anyway. if nothing changed in the 2020 election, then i could understand the sentiment. Yes and no. 60/40 I said, I should have said a 20-point Delta. (As it was 48/46 in 2106). Electoral college is still there, so I need to add a landslide as well in electors, as even if ny or California go 80/20 it has no impact. I meant to say that if it's a close election after everything that had happened, I will still not restore my faith in America. It was already heavily damaged with Bush's reelection, and nearly at the point of no return for Trump. You say there was only one nominee, well the first issue is that he was nominated.... He was already a known persona. With thousands of lawsuits against his business practices for decades.... The choice in the us is binary, and not even 10years later, they made an even worse mistake than bush already. What would happen in 10years? This is just my way of working : I give my full trust immediately, until proven otherwise. After that, it's a steep hill to climb. If you find me extreme, look at French election results. In 2002, people swallowed their pride and voted for the opposing party to bar the road to Le Pen. 82% to 18. I was already sad the guy reached the 2nd leg... But that result restored a bit of my trust in my country. In 2017, same issue. 66/34. I still find that to be an awful lot, but it's acceptable. The USA are so polarised that not enough people can fathom going against their party when this one appoints a bullshit candidate. So I can't trust the people, nor the institutions that allow this less than 50% amount of people to reach that result, repeatedly, as they have already proven they are willing to continue on the path to selfishness and idiocy.
i mean if you want a pat on the shoulder for a country more able to identify stupid out the gate, take one. your bar for acceptable is only 12 points away from this debacle, and entirely within the realm of possibility come 2020.
i did specifically avoid the spread, a twenty point spread is unlikely because we have more than two candidates. but a result of either 66% or 34% for any one of the candidates is not as unlikely. you’re not comparing apples to apples if you focus on the spread.
i’m totally on board with shitting on people for making him the nominee, but unfortunately half the country has no say in that.
i do think voting for party got us here in round one, but we’ll see a modest change in that direction in my own opinion assuming we keep this steady course of self destruction in the GOP
|
The Trump administration lost in 3 federal courts today :
- the mazars subpoena for 8 year of tax returns (the Trump judges argued that the case was weak since the full house didn't vote on it. The full house voted, she dissented anyway on the basis that the request should have been made as an impeachment inquiry instead of for legislative purposes)
- it was found that Trump violated the law when he declared a national emergency to build the wall (lots of emphasis on his baseless allegations about El Paso county and the damage done to its reputation in the few bits I skimmed through, not enough time to read the whole court decision sadly...)
- Trump's policy of Penalizing green card applicants that might need government assistance (public charge policy) has been subjected to a Nationwide injunction due to the irreparable harm it would bring immediately if allowed.
@brian : I am ashamed that my country allowed twice an extreme right winger to reach the runoff. But at least most of the population reacted. In the USA, I have yet to see a large margin in a presidential election (popular vote) in my life, especially when it mattered. Most I've been politically aware through were 7 point-spread to Obama after 8 years of bush, and 9points for Clinton in 96 against Dole but that was ages ago in another less polarized world with an independent at 10 or 20%, unbelievable today. The other candidates have not totalled more than 3% in the last 20years, barring 2016 at an amazing 6%.
Reaching even 55% would be an achievement, let's not talk of 60...
|
So maybe it's my anti-Trump glasses that are deceiving me but the optics of leaving the Kurds to fend for themselves and then just days later announcing big additional troop deployments to defend Saudi Arabia... well it seems kind of bad.
Given that the Saudi's did not play a big role in the invasion of Normandy, I wonder why Trump would help them.../s
I wonder how smug Mohammed Bin Salman feels. The guy basically rules the world by pure monetary power.
The Pentagon announced Friday that the U.S. will deploy additional personnel, aircraft and missile defense equipment to Saudi Arabia in response to Iranian aggression.
The U.S. will send two fighter squadrons, one Air Expeditionary Wing, two Patriot missile system batteries holding missiles and a launcher, and one Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.
“As we have stated, the United States does not seek conflict with the Iranian regime, but we will retain a robust military capability in the region that is ready to respond to any crisis and will defend U.S. forces and interest in the region,” Hoffman said.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper had authorized the deployment last month at the request of U.S. Central Command and informed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the country's defense minister of the action earlier Friday.
“Taken together with other deployments this constitutes an additional 3,000 forces that have been extended or authorized within the last month,” Hoffman said.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/465410-us-to-deploy-additional-troops-aircraft-missile-systems-to-saudi-arabia
The same defense secretary Mark Esper is saying how he is disappointed that Turkey launched an invasion but the US vetoed (with Russia of course) a UN security council resolution against Turkey...
|
On October 12 2019 03:48 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2019 03:33 Ben... wrote:The former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified today under subpoena, also did so against the wishes of the State Department and White House, who had apparently instructed her not to appear for this hearing. The hearing was initially supposed to be voluntary but a subpoena was issued this morning after the Committee leaders learned about the WH and State Department's demands made to her last night. https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1182720801918914566It does seem like if subpoenas are issued, the WH and State Department are starting to back off. My guess is they know it's a legal fight they can't win. They did not back off. The WH issued talking points to The Hill saying that this is endangering yovanovitch's job since no department lawyers are present and she could discuss privileged or classified info (veiled threat to fire her at the first opportunity). They cannot physically stop her from testifying. Just putting pressure so others don't do the same. getting fired or going to jail. gee tough choice there.
Trump doesn't earn the loyalty that would make people sit in jail to protect him.
|
On October 12 2019 04:20 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:So maybe it's my anti-Trump glasses that are deceiving me but the optics of leaving the Kurds to fend for themselves and then just days later announcing big additional troop deployments to defend Saudi Arabia... well it seems kind of bad. Given that the Saudi's did not play a big role in the invasion of Normandy, I wonder why Trump would help them.../s I wonder how smug Mohammed Bin Salman feels. The guy basically rules the world by pure monetary power. Show nested quote +The Pentagon announced Friday that the U.S. will deploy additional personnel, aircraft and missile defense equipment to Saudi Arabia in response to Iranian aggression.
The U.S. will send two fighter squadrons, one Air Expeditionary Wing, two Patriot missile system batteries holding missiles and a launcher, and one Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.
“As we have stated, the United States does not seek conflict with the Iranian regime, but we will retain a robust military capability in the region that is ready to respond to any crisis and will defend U.S. forces and interest in the region,” Hoffman said.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper had authorized the deployment last month at the request of U.S. Central Command and informed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the country's defense minister of the action earlier Friday.
“Taken together with other deployments this constitutes an additional 3,000 forces that have been extended or authorized within the last month,” Hoffman said. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/465410-us-to-deploy-additional-troops-aircraft-missile-systems-to-saudi-arabiaThe same defense secretary Mark Esper is saying how he is disappointed that Turkey launched an invasion but the US vetoed (with Russia of course) a UN security council resolution against Turkey...
I'm from Normandy, please, use liberation and not invasion 😂
|
Shepard Smith just announced he has left Fox News. This was apparently a surprise to staff. He was also apparently escorted out by security despite making it sound on his show like he had quit himself. Very strange and sudden.
People are curious if this has any relationship with Barr mysteriously meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Neither side would comment on what the meeting was about.
Normally this would be too conspiracy-like for me to put any weight into, but it's Barr so anything is possible.
edit: The other concern is that he was one of the few people on Fox that was openly critical of Trump on his show on a regular basis.
|
On October 12 2019 05:59 Ben... wrote:
Shepard Smith just announced he has left Fox News. This was apparently a surprise to staff. He was also apparently escorted out by security despite making it sound on his show like he had quit himself. Very strange and sudden.
People are curious if this has any relationship with Barr mysteriously meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Neither side would comment on what the meeting was about.
Normally this would be too conspiracy-like for me to put any weight into, but it's Barr so anything is possible. Entirely possible he was escorted out after telling his boss he was quitting.
Barr meeting with Murdoch can be for a lot of reasons, big chance its about control of the narrative in regards to Turkey/Impeachment.
|
On October 12 2019 05:59 Ben... wrote:
Shepard Smith just announced he has left Fox News. This was apparently a surprise to staff. He was also apparently escorted out by security despite making it sound on his show like he had quit himself. Very strange and sudden.
People are curious if this has any relationship with Barr mysteriously meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Neither side would comment on what the meeting was about.
Normally this would be too conspiracy-like for me to put any weight into, but it's Barr so anything is possible.
edit: The other concern is that he was one of the few people on Fox that was openly critical of Trump on his show on a regular basis.
I am not willing to entertain any possibility that has nothing to do with Barr. Trump gets salty about bad polls and coverage, Barr shows up, suddenly Shep is gone? Yeah right.
My theory: The DOJ could essentially make anyone's life miserable if they really wanted to. Especially something as big as Fox. All Barr needs to say is that the DOJ is considering investigating ____ or ____. He doesn't even need to mention Trump. Barr showing up and talking about potential investigations so soon after Trump's rage tells everything. Once Shep is gone and Fox stops talking about impeachment, Barr never follows up. Easy manipulation.
I see this no different than Epstein. We don't gain anything by trying to convince ourselves he maybe really did kill himself. Maybe there isn't a conspiracy, but if I was told I would die if I guessed wrong, I would not hesitate to guess Barr had something to do with this.
|
On October 11 2019 23:53 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 22:35 Nouar wrote:On October 11 2019 19:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 11 2019 18:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2019 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2019 06:29 Lmui wrote:
The US is shitting away any chance of co-operation in the middle east. It's caused shitshows in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Having the Kurds assist is the most politically sensible decision. It involves a group which is trusted by the local populace, shares the same values as the foreign power (US), and a common goal (fight ISIS). It's the cheapest investment to achieve power in the region.If this doesn't get reversed in the next few days, I'd expect the GOP to fully break with Trump on Syria.
It was just a braindead decision by Trump I still firmly believe that if Democrats win in 2020, the world will be like: "So, that was fucked, but if you make systematic changes to make your system less volatile, we're cool", everyone will move on and clean up the pieces. Some damage can't be undone, but Trump is so unique that I don't think it is difficult for people to understand Warren/Biden/Sanders would immediately cancel tariffs and stuff like that. Trump is weird. No one else is. If we are able to show the world we learned from our mistakes, I really think we'll be welcomed back. Remember this is pretty much what happened after Bush. The world collectively went 'ok, this was just an anomaly, America is back to being our reliable ally and friend'. Only for 8 years later to go even more bat shit crazy. I'm not so sure you will find the world as forgiving the 2nd time. Sure publicly they will smile and pat the US on the back in front of the camera's but behind closed doors I think the cat is out of the bag and the world known America can go crazy every 4/8 years at random and cannot be relied upon beyond the current President. i think the world would be more forgiving, because the entire world wants to believe that america has their shit together again. every country in the world is literally rooting for it and if they see it happen theyll probably try their hardest to keep that as the status quo. if america votes in another retard down the line the rest of the world would probably lose faith again, but honestly i dont think most people lose faith in the american government, because eventually things will get better again. its the american people that become a mockery and become targets of insults, memes, laughter etc for letting another idiot in again. i mean americans are "half jokingly" considered to be the dumbest people in the world already. when a meme like that follows an entire countrys population it isnt for no reason Not half-jokingly. I will only trust the US again if Trump is beaten by a huge margin, more than 60%. Which won't happen. So that means I have to root in my head that nearly 50% of American voters either don't care about the world and are selfish bastards, or are complete idiots willing to elect anybody that lies convincingly enough (cause it doesn't get worse than a billionaire born millionaire telling to poor people he gets them). Thus I cannot trust it won't happen again, so I cannot trust the promises of the US long term. this seems a bit of an over reaction, bearing in mind the man lost the popular vote. he only took 46% in 2016. 40% doesn’t seem even remotely unrealistic. which ignores entirely motivations for voting trump don’t need to boil down to stupidity, the reasons certainly aren’t binary. he was the only republican nominee. you’ve destroyed nuance in an area that probably calls for it, and seem to not have the proper perspective of reality in framing it anyway. if nothing changed in the 2020 election, then i could understand the sentiment.
This is missing the point. It's not about blame or unfairly tarring all Americans for the republicans' issues, it's just cold realpolitik. The US has been Jekyll/Hyde for some time now, but the Hyde version is getting worse and worse, and has probably started doing meth.
Anything less than an unequivocal repudiation of Trump and his policies at the next election means we'll likely be doing this dance again in 8 years, and if that's the case the US simply cannot be trusted as a long-term partner. That's it. It's not Jekyll's fault, it just is.
|
On October 12 2019 08:03 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 23:53 brian wrote:On October 11 2019 22:35 Nouar wrote:On October 11 2019 19:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 11 2019 18:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2019 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2019 06:29 Lmui wrote:
The US is shitting away any chance of co-operation in the middle east. It's caused shitshows in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Having the Kurds assist is the most politically sensible decision. It involves a group which is trusted by the local populace, shares the same values as the foreign power (US), and a common goal (fight ISIS). It's the cheapest investment to achieve power in the region.If this doesn't get reversed in the next few days, I'd expect the GOP to fully break with Trump on Syria.
It was just a braindead decision by Trump I still firmly believe that if Democrats win in 2020, the world will be like: "So, that was fucked, but if you make systematic changes to make your system less volatile, we're cool", everyone will move on and clean up the pieces. Some damage can't be undone, but Trump is so unique that I don't think it is difficult for people to understand Warren/Biden/Sanders would immediately cancel tariffs and stuff like that. Trump is weird. No one else is. If we are able to show the world we learned from our mistakes, I really think we'll be welcomed back. Remember this is pretty much what happened after Bush. The world collectively went 'ok, this was just an anomaly, America is back to being our reliable ally and friend'. Only for 8 years later to go even more bat shit crazy. I'm not so sure you will find the world as forgiving the 2nd time. Sure publicly they will smile and pat the US on the back in front of the camera's but behind closed doors I think the cat is out of the bag and the world known America can go crazy every 4/8 years at random and cannot be relied upon beyond the current President. i think the world would be more forgiving, because the entire world wants to believe that america has their shit together again. every country in the world is literally rooting for it and if they see it happen theyll probably try their hardest to keep that as the status quo. if america votes in another retard down the line the rest of the world would probably lose faith again, but honestly i dont think most people lose faith in the american government, because eventually things will get better again. its the american people that become a mockery and become targets of insults, memes, laughter etc for letting another idiot in again. i mean americans are "half jokingly" considered to be the dumbest people in the world already. when a meme like that follows an entire countrys population it isnt for no reason Not half-jokingly. I will only trust the US again if Trump is beaten by a huge margin, more than 60%. Which won't happen. So that means I have to root in my head that nearly 50% of American voters either don't care about the world and are selfish bastards, or are complete idiots willing to elect anybody that lies convincingly enough (cause it doesn't get worse than a billionaire born millionaire telling to poor people he gets them). Thus I cannot trust it won't happen again, so I cannot trust the promises of the US long term. this seems a bit of an over reaction, bearing in mind the man lost the popular vote. he only took 46% in 2016. 40% doesn’t seem even remotely unrealistic. which ignores entirely motivations for voting trump don’t need to boil down to stupidity, the reasons certainly aren’t binary. he was the only republican nominee. you’ve destroyed nuance in an area that probably calls for it, and seem to not have the proper perspective of reality in framing it anyway. if nothing changed in the 2020 election, then i could understand the sentiment. This is missing the point. It's not about blame or unfairly tarring all Americans for the republicans' issues, it's just cold realpolitik. The US has been Jekyll/Hyde for some time now, but the Hyde version is getting worse and worse, and has probably started doing meth. Anything less than an unequivocal repudiation of Trump and his policies at the next election means we'll likely be doing this dance again in 8 years, and if that's the case the US simply cannot be trusted as a long-term partner. That's it. It's not Jekyll's fault, it just is.
Then shouldn't nations start demanding some kind of...insurance from the US going forward? A monetary or materiel expenditure that says "Hey fuckers, you step out of line, you owe us $xxxxxx or xxx years amount of support."?
Sanctions. That it. Shouldn't the rest of the world hang potential sanctions over the US?
|
Here is Trump explaining how he's turning the US military into a mercenary army
Meanwhile in Syria apparently the US special forces did not retreat far enough, they got accidentally shelled by Turkey and were almost forced to fire back in defense...
A contingent of U.S. Special Forces was caught up in Turkish shelling against U.S.-backed Kurdish positions in northern Syria, days after President Donald Trump told his Turkish counterpart he would withdraw U.S. troops from certain positions in the area. A senior Pentagon official said shelling by the Turkish forces was so heavy that the U.S. personnel considered firing back in self-defense.
And the previous leader of the western allied forces in Syria/Iraq McGurk thinks it's not even an accident, but on purpose, because Turkey had precise grid coordinates. Though an accident seems way more likely to me. Shelling on purpose to make sure the US leaves seems way to risky a move to me. But McGurk is a policy expert of the area...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
The Trump hates the Military narrative seems like it’d be such a good attack angle.
He’s done a lot to denigrate service members, but letting them get shelled? Talk about a cherry on the shit fuckin’ sundae.
I hope they throw the sundae bowl, cherry, and all in his face over and over during campaigning season. If only to see how many people who support the US military actually stick by him
|
The whole Shep Smith leaving Fox thing was in the works for a while, but was kept quiet. There's a CNN piece on what happened with it. It's certainly an interesting read. He just hit his breaking point apparently since his side, the "news" side of Fox was in an escalating war with the "opinion" side. I remember there being a lot of rumours about this type of argument about what Fox was doing, but to see it this explicit in an article is quite interesting.
Why Shep Smith finally walked out of Fox News for good
But he had had enough. In September, according to a well-placed source, he went to Fox News management and asked to be let out of his long-term contract. Tensions with the opinion shows were the breaking point.
Executives at the network leaned on him to stay, but to no avail. On Friday afternoon he announced his departure on the air, then exited the building immediately, clearly emotional about saying goodbye to his television home of twenty years.
For months I have been working on a book about Fox News in the Trump age. Staffers have been confiding in me about the challenges of covering the news inside a network that is increasingly defined by sychophantic pro-Trump personalities like Sean Hannity.
Staffers on the news side unanimously point to Smith as a role model.
But "it was clear he wasn't happy, on air and off air," one of the staffers said after Friday's stunning resignation announcement.
Two other staffers also said he'd indicated he "wanted to leave" -- meaning that he was not forced out by management, as some outsiders immediately speculated on social media.
"I think it probably just got to be too much," one of Smith's allies inside Fox News headquarters said.
In my reporting, in the months before Smith's resignation, I have been asking sources about Smith and why he has decided to stay put at Fox while other top journalists have left.
"Some of the top names among the news side at Fox" have been "leaving voluntarily one by one," a former staffer pointed out, as big chunks of the network have basically been co-opted by Trump.
|
On October 12 2019 11:40 Zambrah wrote:
The Trump hates the Military narrative seems like it’d be such a good attack angle.
He’s done a lot to denigrate service members, but letting them get shelled? Talk about a cherry on the shit fuckin’ sundae.
I hope they throw the sundae bowl, cherry, and all in his face over and over during campaigning season. If only to see how many people who support the US military actually stick by him
Being a former Marine, a lot of shit that happens to the military irks me to high hell. I know a lot of former military that aren't onboard with a lot of the shit we do these days. This, I'm sure, is one of those moment where the vets come out against it. We'll see how it plays out, but this is one of those groups you don't wanna piss off. If they bring up the McCain thing during the real debates, I'm 100 that they'll grab a very large group of voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
