|
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 |
On March 23 2018 09:03 Danglars wrote:
Since I see we've already had the article fitting him into the vast Russian conspiracy that involves Sessions, Tillerson (hiring & firing), Trump, here's a different backgrounder (when we're not talking about how this starts the Nuclear War, that is):
(Several tweets are in that thread, and I encourage anyone not in the camp that stops thinking after hearing Russia and Nuclear Apocalypse to read it. I'm starting to have more compassion for people that have tuned out politics after hearing that everything's treason and everything's the end of the world)
The impression of John Bolton in 2011 given by that twitter thread is that he is a more reasonable and levelheaded person than the MSM is currently giving him.
HOWEVER, Bolton's own words over the last year have given me ample reason to fear his appointment as NSA. His argument in the Wall Street Journal for a first strike on North Korea was completely insane. That alone should have permanently disqualified him for holding any public office again forever.
His argument that the Iraq War was a good idea, 15 years after it began, was almost as crazy. It's also extremely ironic given that Trump said "Bush lied and people died" about the Iraq War in one of the primary debates.
Lastly, Danglars and xDaunt, I want to ask you two a question: what foreign policy did you think you were getting with Trump? I thought "America First" meant a uniformly isolationist policy that would perhaps be too isolationist for my taste, not warmed-over Bushism, crazy adventurism in the Middle East and Asia, and simultaneously trying to abandon NATO, where our real allies are.
|
I look forward to Trump supporters as well as "I don't want to admit it" Trump supporters trying to make Bolton's interventionism seem like it's in line with Trump's platform.
|
The man has been whispering in Trumps ears for weeks to be granted access to the West Wing and power again. This is how Trump select our national security adviser. With Bolton as the NSA, Mike Pompeo at State and the CIA about to be headed by someone who ran a torture site, we are exactly where everyone feared we would be, Bush administration 2.0.
|
On March 23 2018 09:03 Danglars wrote:Since I see we've already had the article fitting him into the vast Russian conspiracy that involves Sessions, Tillerson (hiring & firing), Trump, here's a different backgrounder (when we're not talking about how this starts the Nuclear War, that is): https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/976955937205489666https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/976957122750664705(Several tweets are in that thread, and I encourage anyone not in the camp that stops thinking after hearing Russia and Nuclear Apocalypse to read it. I'm starting to have more compassion for people that have tuned out politics after hearing that everything's treason and everything's the end of the world)
In case anyone was reading this as Bolton not being a chicken-hawk, let me clarify, Bolton is all about US empire, he's just doing away with the false pretenses in US foreign policy regarding spreading democracy and nation building.
He's perfectly happy to destroy a country and let them beg for access to their resources back. To keep placing dictators until he finds one suitable to US ambitions. Assassinate democratic leaders antithetical to US imperialism and so on.
And he's got a hollowed out state department run by the CIA (who will get Dem votes), and a CIA yes woman to work with.
The world is so f'd. The revolution will not be televised.
|
On March 23 2018 08:09 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 08:07 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 23 2018 08:06 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2018 08:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A war with Nirth Korea us WWIII. A war with Iran is America alone and easily several hundred thousand Americans dead. I don't get why that would be WW3. NK has exactly zero allies. China and Russia haven't been supporting them for a long while now China has a defense treaty with NK. China also has nukes. China is never going to go to war with US. Both economies would plummet unrecoverable levels. The reason China doesn't want anyone to invade NK is because they don't want the hassle of several hundred thousands to millions of immigrants. That doesn't mean they intend for one second to follow through.
I don't find this super convincing. In 1913 people said the Germany would never declare war on France and Brittain, because it would ruin them all. They did and it did.
People in the west haven't seen real war in a long time. I would argue that America, blessed with weak neighbours and large oceans hasnt seen one since the civil war.
It would not surprise me if China would rather fight a war than see American troops in North Korea. It also wouldn't surprise me if Bolton thought a nuclear exchange with China could be won. America doesn't have a national memory of having her cities levelled, she doesn't understand what it means.
I hope it'll be ok. But yeah, there are reasons to worry I think.
|
Also, Japan convinced itself it could win a war with the US.
|
On March 23 2018 09:33 Doodsmack wrote:
I look forward to Trump supporters as well as "I don't want to admit it" Trump supporters trying to make Bolton's interventionism seem like it's in line with Trump's platform.
To be fair, his supporters are super hawkish on Iran and North Korea.
|
On March 23 2018 09:33 Doodsmack wrote:
I look forward to Trump supporters as well as "I don't want to admit it" Trump supporters trying to make Bolton's interventionism seem like it's in line with Trump's platform.
Given that the strongest predictor for supporting Trump is authoritarianism this isn't a problem. The correct position to hold is simply whatever Trump says or does. Two exhibits
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 23 2018 09:26 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 09:14 Danglars wrote:On March 23 2018 09:09 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On March 23 2018 08:56 Danglars wrote:On March 23 2018 08:24 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On March 23 2018 08:11 Danglars wrote:On March 23 2018 08:01 Excludos wrote:
Why do people think Iran over North Korea? Trump seems to have had a beef with "little rocket man" for some time now. NK is less about funding terrorists that attack Israelis. Their missiles are literally found in planned attacks or intercepted attacks. Israel is our ally. NK has more of the vibe of the country always starving, using the brinkmanship for goodies, and big brother China with the hand on and off the shoulder. Anyways, three cheers for Bolton and congratulations to Trump. When hundreds of thousands, if not many more, die or suffer indirectly as a result of whatever the sam-hell it is this madman intends to do, please remember your cheers. Pfft, I'll try to remember the craven response of the eternally forgetful. Actually, there's so many examples every week that it will be unlikely. Trump dooms any chance of NK. This is up until they do their song and dance again with talks. Response: Silence. It's a pretty fun gig, you're always right, and even when you're wrong, it never mattered because we never talk about that again. And when you remember, please use the fullest extent of your imagination. Imagine a mother hearing their child was killed by an explosive in a fight they weren't involved in, and how they'd process that. How every single day they'd wake up and think to check on them, make breakfast, whatever it is, only to realise their child is gone. Now imagine that for a different mother every single night for the rest of your life, because it's not even a blip on the radar compared to the potential damage someone like Bolton might do. Very poetic. I suppose the compassionate response is to imagine that nothing is worth dying for, or that millions of dead Israelis is the price we pay for peace? Thank you for being so honest, here. I must admit fault here, I literally cannot understand your value system. To cheer for Bolton seems antithetical to any notion of one I could imagine having. I mean this as a serious inquiry, what is it that makes you cheer for this? What do you imagine coming of it that you perceive as good, and why is that good? And how does it mitigate the obvious evil? The protection of our allies and interests in the area. If you're never willing to fight against mad regimes seeking nuclear weapons with clear targets of who to use them on, then you're broadly proclaiming that nothing is worth dying for outside our narrow domestic interests. I think an obvious evil was fought in WWII, but your arguments are as callow now as others were then. I think there's also obvious evil in taking a pacifist attitude towards the world ... that it's truly a willingness to never confront evil because somebody might get hurt. I know there's a lot to hash out on the details of where that line lies. But you just got done talking about dead kids and impossible to believe value systems (Even now, I think you believe it, and this is all a pretense to claim the moral high ground. I think people let on to be a lot more dumb than they really are. Is nothing beside your own health and well being worth dying for?) Except... you know... the diplomatic deal that prevents all those points about dead Israelis from being at all relevant. The one actually being upheld pretty well. The one Agent Orange is now putting up in the air. But war is better for the ego, the empire, and not being affected by investigations and such. Sure, some wars need to fought, like WWII. But christ those wars are in the minority, especially where the US is concerned. And whatever the hell it is Bolton would want, that won't be one of them. Looking at history since WWII, which is much more relevant here, the whole "pacifism is evil" thing reeks of bullshit. You and I have very different takes on the diplomatic deal you're so proud of. Let's just say I think Iran has a clear series of steps in front of it that would lead to a justified war without complete disarmament of it's nuclear weapons program + inspections. You should know a lot about the ego, having soothed it just now pretending the advocation of war under certain conditions is about the other person's ego and the empire. Dead kids into hawks longing for empire is a very nice fit for you. This is all very humorous. Bolton has literally misled with the intent of military action in the past. Stirring unjustified war is literally his MO. There's no way that crap could have been spun differently unless you admit him to be legitimately insane. So yes, hawk longing for empire seems like a pretty damn fair characterization here. And as long as you can keep a diplomatic deal functioning, that is much, much better than launching into war. And in a purely pragmatic (in some narrow view of the word) sense, it is much easier to ensure that they aren't actually making nuclear weapons when you have a deal that involves being able to inspect the facilities. Unless you think rolling the dice on a strike which will certainly prevent any semblance of peace for the region is a good bet. If only there were some ability to know how such things worked out in the past...
I would make the case that he acted on faulty intelligence instead of consciously misleading. Everybody said no blood for oil before the 9/11 commission concluded (in part) that Bush didn't have foreknowledge that Hussein did not possess WMDs. You can even see echos of this in the left's insistence that all the classified leaks from the intelligence community is fine, because Trump & Co are just that bad. I don't really think we'd see such a switch from right to left to embracing clandestine agencies of the United States, but I'd say the politics demand it and people just get along with it. I really question your seriousness when you say "Stirring unjustified war is literally his MO." That sounds like a trite propaganda line better suited for a protest sign than a forum, particularly because you just unload a laundry list of conclusions lacking evidence.
I think the Iran Deal lacked enforcement and gave Iran diplomatic cover to obtain nukes slowly with the tacit approval of the US. I read a couple articles detailing how the sanctions were starting to have real teeth before Obama's backchannels let off the pressure. I don't know how much I want to get into this with the "dead kids" and "literally his MO is unjustified war" type, but that's my opinion on the matter based on what I've read on both sides. I think the deal gave Iran everything it wanted without any aim for peace, so frankly that insane regime that literally chants "Death to America. Death to Israel" has no reason to change.
|
China strikes back in trade spat, aims tariffs at $3 billion U.S. goods
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China unveiled plans on Friday to impose tariffs on up to $3 billion of U.S. imports in retaliation against U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum products, as the world’s two largest economies stood on the brink of a trade war.
China was considering a 15 percent tariff on U.S. products including dried fruit, wine and steel pipes and a 25 percent tariff on pork products and recycled aluminum, the commerce ministry said in a statement on it website.
China has assembled a list of 128 U.S. products in total that could be targeted if the two countries are unable to reach an agreement on trade issues, the ministry added.
U.S. President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Thursday targeting up to $60 billion in Chinese goods with tariffs, but only after a 30-day consultation period that starts once a list is published.
Beijing’s disclosure of its planned retaliation to proposed tariffs on Chinese metal exports to the United States, served as a warning to Washington as both sides brandished their weapons while holding off from starting a full-blown trade war.
The commerce ministry said China would implement the measures in two stages: first the 15 percent tariff on 120 products including steel pipes and wine worth $977 million and later the higher 25 percent tariff on $1.99 billion of pork and aluminum.
[...]
source: www.reuters.com
"Man, I'm really surprised by that", Noone
User was warned for this post (include your own discussion with tweets/articles)
|
Do worry, we will have a war to make up for that sagging economy cause by the trade wars. We will pay for it with the 60 billion is taxes Trump just ordered.
|
On March 23 2018 09:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 09:03 Danglars wrote:Since I see we've already had the article fitting him into the vast Russian conspiracy that involves Sessions, Tillerson (hiring & firing), Trump, here's a different backgrounder (when we're not talking about how this starts the Nuclear War, that is): https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/976955937205489666https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/976957122750664705(Several tweets are in that thread, and I encourage anyone not in the camp that stops thinking after hearing Russia and Nuclear Apocalypse to read it. I'm starting to have more compassion for people that have tuned out politics after hearing that everything's treason and everything's the end of the world) The impression of John Bolton in 2011 given by that twitter thread is that he is a more reasonable and levelheaded person than the MSM is currently giving him. HOWEVER, Bolton's own words over the last year have given me ample reason to fear his appointment as NSA. His argument in the Wall Street Journal for a first strike on North Korea was completely insane. That alone should have permanently disqualified him for holding any public office again forever. His argument that the Iraq War was a good idea, 15 years after it began, was almost as crazy. It's also extremely ironic given that Trump said "Bush lied and people died" about the Iraq War in one of the primary debates. Lastly, Danglars and xDaunt, I want to ask you two a question: what foreign policy did you think you were getting with Trump? I thought "America First" meant a uniformly isolationist policy that would perhaps be too isolationist for my taste, not warmed-over Bushism, crazy adventurism in the Middle East and Asia, and simultaneously trying to abandon NATO, where our real allies are.
America first also means treating our allies well because it is in our interest to reward and cooperate with our friends. We have trading interests in the region. We have terrorism concerns because Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Isolationism is too trite of a saying to wrap up the policies I thought were likely to come out. It's a lot deeper than that. It's more seen in opposition to neoconservatism--partly the exportation of Democracy through military force--and Global Community/Utopian Globalism/our military and national wealth is the world's peacekeepers and paychecks (for all Hillary's bluster, still very popular in her world of supporters if you really sit them down).
Take this all with a grain of salt, though. It was not on the list of the three things that persuaded me to vote for Trump. I just thought, and continue to think, that his foreign policy is at least neutral on the harm/help spectrum. Hillary's was a stiff 'no,' take that reset button and shove it. Leave the Clintonian approach to North Korea and Palestine/Israel in the 90s where it belongs.
|
https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-lone-dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-slipped-up-and-revealed-he-was-a-russian-intelligence-officer
Working off the IP address, U.S. investigators identified Guccifer 2.0 as a particular GRU officer working out of the agency’s headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street in Moscow. (The Daily Beast’s sources did not disclose which particular officer worked as Guccifer.)
Interesting detail behind the DNC hacking. Something that was always suspect and stated by the intelligence community, but the source has now been IP-tracked (he forgot to turn on his VPN, oops) to Moscow. Destroys that Seth Rich bullshit-theory.
edit: sorry Kyadytim, didn't see this story was posted in last page, but in my defense, it was a two-part post and that was the 2nd part.
|
On March 23 2018 09:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 09:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 23 2018 09:03 Danglars wrote:Since I see we've already had the article fitting him into the vast Russian conspiracy that involves Sessions, Tillerson (hiring & firing), Trump, here's a different backgrounder (when we're not talking about how this starts the Nuclear War, that is): https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/976955937205489666https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/976957122750664705(Several tweets are in that thread, and I encourage anyone not in the camp that stops thinking after hearing Russia and Nuclear Apocalypse to read it. I'm starting to have more compassion for people that have tuned out politics after hearing that everything's treason and everything's the end of the world) The impression of John Bolton in 2011 given by that twitter thread is that he is a more reasonable and levelheaded person than the MSM is currently giving him. HOWEVER, Bolton's own words over the last year have given me ample reason to fear his appointment as NSA. His argument in the Wall Street Journal for a first strike on North Korea was completely insane. That alone should have permanently disqualified him for holding any public office again forever. His argument that the Iraq War was a good idea, 15 years after it began, was almost as crazy. It's also extremely ironic given that Trump said "Bush lied and people died" about the Iraq War in one of the primary debates. Lastly, Danglars and xDaunt, I want to ask you two a question: what foreign policy did you think you were getting with Trump? I thought "America First" meant a uniformly isolationist policy that would perhaps be too isolationist for my taste, not warmed-over Bushism, crazy adventurism in the Middle East and Asia, and simultaneously trying to abandon NATO, where our real allies are. America first also means treating our allies well because it is in our interest to reward and cooperate with our friends. We have trading interests in the region. We have terrorism concerns because Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Isolationism is too trite of a saying to wrap up the policies I thought were likely to come out. It's a lot deeper than that. It's more seen in opposition to neoconservatism--partly the exportation of Democracy through military force--and Global Community/Utopian Globalism/our military and national wealth is the world's peacekeepers and paychecks (for all Hillary's bluster, still very popular in her world of supporters if you really sit them down). Take this all with a grain of salt, though. It was not on the list of the three things that persuaded me to vote for Trump. I just thought, and continue to think, that his foreign policy is at least neutral on the harm/help spectrum. Hillary's was a stiff 'no,' take that reset button and shove it. Leave the Clintonian approach to North Korea and Palestine/Israel in the 90s where it belongs.
Aaaaaand hiring John Bolton is how you take a strong stance in opposition to neoconservatism? Got it.
I don't understand, do you think Hillary was too pacifistic or too militant? Or too pacifist vs NoKo and too militant vs Gaddafi or something like that?
What are the three things you mention, by the way? I've never heard you mention that before.
|
On the former DNI, the report says that Clapper, now a contributor to CNN as a national security analyst "provided inconsistent testimony to the committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN."
A CNN spokeswoman did not return an email seeking comment. Clapper could not be reached for comment.
The report also states that leaks of classified information about Russian intentions to sow discord in the U.S. presidential election began prior to Election Day. The disclosures of U.S. secrets alleging Russia was working to help elect Trump "increased dramatically" after the Nov. 8, 2016 election.
The panel suggested that the leaks "correlate to specific language" in a U.S. intelligence community assessment of Russian election meddling.
The finding suggests that leaks of classified information were politically motivated to undermine Trump after he won the election.
Washington Free Beacon
I'm wondering just what kind of evidence they cite to conclude Clapper lied/mislead Congress during his testimony. We know he lied in the past about breaking into Senate computers. He's also the one that claimed the NSA was not collecting data on millions of Americans. Lately, the FBI has been shown to be a very political entity, organizing opposition to the duly elected president of the United States and his campaign through leaks and FISA abuse and lying under oath to Congress. I wonder if there will be any revelations in the Intel committee report that we don't already know.
|
On March 23 2018 10:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On the former DNI, the report says that Clapper, now a contributor to CNN as a national security analyst "provided inconsistent testimony to the committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN."
A CNN spokeswoman did not return an email seeking comment. Clapper could not be reached for comment.
The report also states that leaks of classified information about Russian intentions to sow discord in the U.S. presidential election began prior to Election Day. The disclosures of U.S. secrets alleging Russia was working to help elect Trump "increased dramatically" after the Nov. 8, 2016 election.
The panel suggested that the leaks "correlate to specific language" in a U.S. intelligence community assessment of Russian election meddling.
The finding suggests that leaks of classified information were politically motivated to undermine Trump after he won the election. Washington Free BeaconI'm wondering just what kind of evidence they cite to conclude Clapper lied/mislead Congress during his testimony. We know he lied in the past about breaking into Senate computers. He's also the one that claimed the NSA was not collecting data on millions of Americans. Lately, the FBI has been shown to be a very political entity, organizing opposition to the duly elected president of the United States and his campaign through leaks and FISA abuse and lying under oath to Congress. I wonder if there will be any revelations in the Intel committee report that we don't already know.
This post is not in accord with the facts.
User was warned for this post (don't post just to say a post is wrong, whether it is actually wrong or not)
|
The best part is this finally confirms where Wikileaks got the leaks from too. And I have no doubt Roger Stone knew exactly who he was talking to. That man is a snake.
Edit: The Washington Free Beacon is the Think Progress of the conservative world and should be viewed with the same amount of salt.
|
On March 23 2018 10:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On the former DNI, the report says that Clapper, now a contributor to CNN as a national security analyst "provided inconsistent testimony to the committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN."
A CNN spokeswoman did not return an email seeking comment. Clapper could not be reached for comment.
The report also states that leaks of classified information about Russian intentions to sow discord in the U.S. presidential election began prior to Election Day. The disclosures of U.S. secrets alleging Russia was working to help elect Trump "increased dramatically" after the Nov. 8, 2016 election.
The panel suggested that the leaks "correlate to specific language" in a U.S. intelligence community assessment of Russian election meddling.
The finding suggests that leaks of classified information were politically motivated to undermine Trump after he won the election. Washington Free BeaconI'm wondering just what kind of evidence they cite to conclude Clapper lied/mislead Congress during his testimony. We know he lied in the past about breaking into Senate computers. He's also the one that claimed the NSA was not collecting data on millions of Americans. Lately, the FBI has been shown to be a very political entity, organizing opposition to the duly elected president of the United States and his campaign through leaks and FISA abuse and lying under oath to Congress. I wonder if there will be any revelations in the Intel committee report that we don't already know.
Is this the report that was written only by the Republicans on the committee? I didn't see the article clarify that one way or another. The article also states that the report claims that the FBI improperly charged Flynn with lying to the FBI, because no deception took place in the interview. Except there is the not so small detail that Flynn was never charged; instead, he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, which means that Flynn himself confesses to the lies. Given such a glaring falsehood, I am inclined to view everything else in that report as pack of lies.
|
On March 23 2018 10:08 Plansix wrote:The best part is this finally confirms where Wikileaks got the leaks from too. And I have no doubt Roger Stone knew exactly who he was talking to. That man is a snake.
It's a pretty fundamental piece of evidence for any prosecution on that front.
edit-- since you guys are talking about the GOP House Intel report -- notice how this story isn't in it. And how critical it is to everything they were supposed to be investigating... Thanks for protecting America, GOP. o7
|
On March 23 2018 10:08 Plansix wrote:The best part is this finally confirms where Wikileaks got the leaks from too. And I have no doubt Roger Stone knew exactly who he was talking to. That man is a snake. Edit: The Washington Free Beacon is the Think Progress of the conservative world and should be viewed with the same amount of salt.
Does this do that, or is it a rumor to that end? I'm not sure it even makes that inference in the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://graphics.jsonline.com/jsi_news/graphics/2017/WISVOTER16.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Czpy5fiWgAAJ_CP.jpg)
