Political Roundtable Part XIX

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Pointgod]

Lol at Tucker Carlson being some frontrunner on the issue of Syria.

There was no end of criticism from the right about Obama's inaction on Syria, and many "liberal" journalists as you say, defended him that there were no good decisions on Syria. But Trump come in, bombs an empty airfield and pulls out...and suddenly Tucker frikkin Carlson is the moral compass of the right?


GTFO

I can't believe anyone here is falling for **** Carlson's concern trolling. Yeah okay **** you fake anti war lame. This is the same asswipe that works for Fox News, which helped architect the Iraq war(I don't day this lightly) . The same company that up until a couple of weeks ago employed warhawk John Bolton. Tucker is full of **** and this segment was a thinly veiled attempt to suck Trumps ass.

He took a clip completely out of context, there's a long ago between starting another war and not letting Assad get away with killing people. You know a diplomatic effort would be effective right now, but guess which **** has purposely gutted the state department leading to an exodus of career diplomats. Tucker Carlson can get ****.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[Dat2U]

Read on Twitter

Obama's lawyer didn't pay off a porn star during an election campaign!!!

[dckingsfan]

Lol at Tucker Carlson being some frontrunner on the issue of Syria.

There was no end of criticism from the right about Obama's inaction on Syria, and many "liberal" journalists as you say, defended him that there were no good decisions on Syria. But Trump come in, bombs an empty airfield and pulls out...and suddenly Tucker frikkin Carlson is the moral compass of the right?

GTFO

I think I was one that was critical of Obama's decision to pull out early from Iraq. And also not engaging in Syria at the beginning.

I think I was even more critical of Bush going into Iraq in the first place. That put Obama in the position of either staying long-term or creating a bad situation.

Bush's move I felt was driven by bad intelligence. I think Tucker Carlson is questioning those same types of intelligence sources and reactions they cause.

I don't think being critical of Obama's decision should negate his position on the gas attack and where it came from. I haven't followed Tucker Carlson's work - he could very well be a shmuck but I think that his point is we shouldn't be pulled into these types of engagements without some serious evidence (learning from Bush).

I also don't think Trump (like Obama) has an actual effective plan for the region. And if you don't have a plan - GTFO, right?

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Obama's lawyer didn't pay off a porn star during an election campaign!!!

. Right right. Obama was the perfect human being. I forgot. Almost. But he did drugs, like cocaine. had a homosexual relationship in college (nothing wrong with that and i dont care and its his business). and he oversaw the spying on a political opponent and ordered his director of the IRS to audit members of the tea party(opposition). Abuses of power much? But yeah, Trump slept with a sex worker!!!! got blackmailed by her, and then paid her off. Trump is terrible!!!! Obama is perfect!!!!!

I said this before, i will say it again. Obama played it smart. he ruffled few feathers. Obama understands th elaw so he knows how to insulate himself from all this mischief trump has got himself into. It didn't hurt that the media by and large was very friendly, almost fond of Obama.


Playing it safe, Obama also got little to nearly nothing done. And spent 10 trillion doing that little to nothing. little change. little of anything. Thats not a knock against obama. most presidents play it safe and move no needles. because they all have too much to lose.

Trump is the first guy in my lifetime to be able to take that office with a nothing-to-lose attitude. He already has billions. His children are set. He could ruffle everyones feathers and mix things up except the DOJ. But Obama and the deep state clinton folks laid a trap.

what if it turns out that Trump and his inner circle never colluded with anyone? You never trumpers should answer that. What if he never colluded with anyone. and won the election fair and square??? yet obama and his team greased the skids for the DOJ to get a special prosecutor and to essentially find a crime.

I mean. Donald trump has essentially been treated the a thug criminal since the day he won the election. And I'm not saying Trump is a good guy. But by all accounts he is a stand up guy. he builds things. he sells the things he builds. he puts people to work. and learned a lot about international business along the way. He took a practical approach to the office of the presidency. and we the people "get to see" what happened with a practical approach. and here's the thing...outside of Russiagate, turned stormygate, turned campaign finance gate, all combined with obstruction of justice gate, outside of all that noise???? The country is doing really well. Feel like we could do extremely well if we could all just unite. support our president and allow him to make deals that make us safer, and allows our markets and economy to grow.

instead, our duly elected president has been attacked from day 1. treated like a thug with the kind of disdain that I dont treat thugs on the street. I mean if police officers talked about the people they arrest, the way the main stream media and people in chat rooms talk about the president those police officers would all lose their jobs. and we're talking about the thugs they are arresting while catching them committing crimes. we dont talk about thugs like this!!! And then if those same thugs get their lawyers offices raided?? And all those communications turned over to help convict them ??? I would literally march in the streets on behalf of the thugs because I believe in our laws. I believe in our offices of government. I believe in our bill of rights...like the right to privacy. the right to a fair trial.

This shoe is going to be on the other foot. soon. Democrats/liberals will find a leader they really believe in. and the right is going drag that mutherphukker over the gotdamned coals. and toss him out of office when they are done like a rag doll. And as much as I hate it that that is where we are at. I'm going to enjoy it. I actually cant wait. I hope it happens in the very next election.

[JWizmentality]

Lol at Tucker Carlson being some frontrunner on the issue of Syria.
There was no end of criticism from the right about Obama's inaction on Syria, and many "liberal" journalists as you say, defended him that there were no good decisions on Syria. But Trump come in, bombs an empty airfield and pulls out...and suddenly Tucker frikkin Carlson is the moral compass of the right?

GTFO

I think I was one that was critical of Obama's decision to pull out early from Iraq. And also not engaging in Syria at the beginning.

I think I was even more critical of Bush going into Iraq in the first place. That put Obama in the position of either staying long-term or creating a bad situation.

Bush's move I felt was driven by bad intelligence. I think Tucker Carlson is questioning those same types of intelligence sources and reactions they cause.

I don't think being critical of Obama's decision should negate his position on the gas attack and where it came from. I haven't followed Tucker Carlson's work - he could very well be a shmuck but I think that his point is we shouldn't be pulled into these types of engagements without some serious evidence (learning from Bush).

I also don't think Trump (like Obama) has an actual effective plan for the region. And if you don't have a plan - GTFO, right?

I have no problem with the criticisms of past administrations. I take issue with someone saying water in wet and being hailed a prophet.

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using RealGM mobile app

[gtn130]

Pulling out of Iraq was a mistake because it evidently left a massive power vacuum allowing ISIS to seize control. it was largely an environment we created by invading in the first place.

The situation in Syria is different for a variety of reasons, but generally speaking i think there is no viable way out of these military endeavors in the middle east.

Cutting off all US military presence in Syria does benefit Russia and Assad though

[stilldropin20]

Lol at Tucker Carlson being some frontrunner on the issue of Syria.

There was no end of criticism from the right about Obama's inaction on Syria, and many "liberal" journalists as you say, defended him that there were no good decisions on Syria. But Trump come in, bombs an empty airfield and pulls out...and suddenly Tucker frikkin Carlson is the moral compass of the right?

GTFO

I think I was one that was critical of Obama's decision to pull out early from Iraq. And also not engaging in Syria at the beginning.

I think I was even more critical of Bush going into Iraq in the first place. That put Obama in the position of either staying long-term or creating a bad situation.

Bush's move I felt was driven by bad intelligence. I think Tucker Carlson is questioning those same types of intelligence sources and reactions they cause.

I don't think being critical of Obama's decision should negate his position on the gas attack and where it came from. I haven't followed Tucker Carlson's work - he could very well be a shmuck but I think that his point is we shouldn't be pulled into these types of engagements without some serious evidence (learning from Bush).

I also don't think Trump (like Obama) has an actual effective plan for the region. And if you don't have a plan - GTFO, right?

most oil in the middle east is "owned"-what a farce of a word in this instance-by the english royal family(BP), and rothschild banks. from there some "rothschild anointed" middle eastern royal families, the big 4 american/english oil compaines and the big 4 banks-some of which are the same owners. Rockefellors with BOA and Standard/amaco merged with BP(british royal family) very little of the benefits of this tremendous asset serves the middle eastern people that have lived above these oil reserves for 1000's of years.

I mention this because no one ever follows the money in politics. until there is some kind of petty white collar crime. Like right now...mueller is doing one thing. following the money. But for some reason we never follow the money. when countries go to war or when significant policy is changed. we never follow the money. and in the middle east. with all this strife. the media will NOT follow the money!!!! We need to ask ourselves why!!!??? I know why. Ive done the research.

Tying this into US troops and assets in the middle east/syria. WHy??? We are not going to keep the oil. We are simply protecting english royal family, rothschild, big 4 banks, and big 4 oil interest. Why??? Are they paying us??? if so, show me the money. This mercenary work should not be paid for by the backs of the american tax payer. And the media will never follow this trail.

[Jamaaliver]

As an independent voter, this is certainly something I've pondered as well.

GOP used to be the party of fiscal responsibility and compassionate conservatism.

Now...not so much.

Conservatives irate over GOP’s spending hypocrisy

‘I don’t see how voters can distinguish between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending,’ says one critic on the right.

House Republican leaders, stung by President Donald Trump’s rebuke of Congress’ recent trillion-dollar spending spree, are moving to give their rank and file cover by passing a balanced budget amendment this week.

But many conservatives, including a good number of House Republicans, say the vote is insincere at best — and blatantly hypocritical at worst.

One conservative commentator equated the upcoming exercise to “gorging on a sumptuous feast while insisting that you want a svelte physique.”

A balanced budget amendment would tightly restrict federal spending and require two-thirds of lawmakers to approve any tax changes. Critics argue it would trigger hundreds of billions of dollars in across-the-board cuts.

Ironically, a balanced budget amendment would have potentially prevented the GOP Congress’ biggest legislative achievement this year: tax reform. With the amendment, Republicans could not have enacted tax cuts that weren’t paid for; these ones were not. The GOP also probably couldn’t have gotten the huge budget increase for the Pentagon that was included in the omnibus.

Politico

[cammac]

As an independent voter, this is certainly something I've pondered as well.

GOP used to be the party of fiscal responsibility and compassionate conservatism.

Now...not so much.

Conservatives irate over GOP’s spending hypocrisy

‘I don’t see how voters can distinguish between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending,’ says one critic on the right.

House Republican leaders, stung by President Donald Trump’s rebuke of Congress’ recent trillion-dollar spending spree, are moving to give their rank and file cover by passing a balanced budget amendment this week.

Plus the Trump spending with a very good inherited economy thanks to Obama will make other deficits look minuscule.

But many conservatives, including a good number of House Republicans, say the vote is insincere at best — and blatantly hypocritical at worst.

One conservative commentator equated the upcoming exercise to “gorging on a sumptuous feast while insisting that you want a svelte physique.”

Politico

The reality is that the Republicans have never been deficit hawks! The deficits were higher under the Republican administrations. The largest deficits we Obama, George W Bush, Reagan & George H. W. Bush. Much of Obama's deficits were the direct result of George W Bush disastrous handling of the economy and the Iraq War.

[Jamaaliver]

The reality is that the Republicans have never been deficit hawks! The deficits were higher under the Republican administrations. The largest deficits we Obama, George W Bush, Reagan & George H. W. Bush. Much of Obama's deficits were the direct result of George W Bush disastrous handling of the economy and the Iraq War.

[Jamaaliver]

Another one bites the dust --

The Republican Party is eating itself alive. And anyone who remotely works with/beside trump ends up the worse for it.

Devin Nunes, are you paying attention?

House Speaker Paul Ryan will not run for re-election, sources say

After months of speculation about his political future, House Speaker Paul Ryan is set to announce that he will not be seeking re-election in 2018, two sources familiar with the matter have confirmed to CBS News. Ryan joins a growing list of Republican House members who are stepping away from Congress. More than 30 Republicans in the House and Senate have announced that they plan to leave Congress by the beginning of 2019.

In December of last year, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said President Donald Trump had called Ryan and the president made it clear he wouldn't be happy if Ryan quit Congress.

"The Speaker assured the president that those were not accurate reports and that they look forward to working together for a long time to come," Sanders said.

CBS News

[closg00]

The reality is that the Republicans have never been deficit hawks! The deficits were higher under the Republican administrations. The largest deficits we Obama, George W Bush, Reagan & George H. W. Bush. Much of Obama's deficits were the direct result of George W Bush disastrous handling of the economy and the Iraq War.

Republicans are the biggest hypocrites indeed. If Obama had been doing half of what they are allowing Trump to get-away with, impeachment hearings would have started long ago.

[cammac]

I love looking at polls but just not the numbers that are published but how they are broken down and how they can be interpreted. If you look at the Quinnipiac University poll that came out yesterday it has some interesting information other than the raw numbers Trump approval 41% and Trump disapproval 52% a difference of 11 points.

The only subsection of the American people that Trump is wining is Republicans 85% to 10% and White non-college 58% to 37%. I all other key demographics should be scary for Republicans. In all the Special Elections with the exception of Georgia the Democrats have out preformed Hillary Clinton by substantial numbers even in losses.

Let look at why! Two age groups are important in this election 18 to 34 and 65+ in who will win in the House and Senate. In the past the 18 to 34 group has been unreliable voters with relatively low turnouts. Currently the Trump approval is 31% to disapproval 58% which is a 17% differential. The if you look at the new Harvard Poll about that demographic it become more interesting.

A new national poll of America’s 18- to 29-year-olds by Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP), located at the Kennedy School of Government, finds a marked increase in the number of young Americans who indicate that they will “definitely be voting” in the upcoming midterm Congressional elections. Overall, 37 percent of Americans under 30 indicates that they will “definitely be voting,” compared to 23 percent who said the same in 2014, and 31 percent in 2010, the year of the last “wave” election.

Young Democrats are driving nearly all of the increase in enthusiasm; a majority (51%) report that they will “definitely” vote in November, which represents a 9-percentage point increase since November 2017 and is significantly larger than the 36 percent of Republicans who say the same. At this point in the 2014 election cycle, 28 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans indicated that they would “definitely” be voting. In the Spring of 2010, 35 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of Republicans held a similar interest in voting.

This where raw numbers can be deceiving if the numbers are accurate then 29% of the eligible voters who disapprove of Trump will vote and 7.5% of those who approve of Trump will vote. That is a huge difference and will be a game changer.

The +65 voters have over the years been the most reliable Republican voters. But now 51% disapprove versus 45% who approve a 6% difference. Also in all the Special Elections the Democrats have shown a larger enthusiasm gap than Republicans and that skews results substantially. Lots more I could say but don't want to bore you.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2534

[dckingsfan]

Pulling out of Iraq was a mistake because it evidently left a massive power vacuum allowing ISIS to seize control. it was largely an environment we created by invading in the first place.

The situation in Syria is different for a variety of reasons, but generally speaking i think there is no viable way out of these military endeavors in the middle east.

Cutting off all US military presence in Syria does benefit Russia and Assad though

Yep - two equally stupid mistakes. Invading Iraq based upon nebulas intel of WOMD.

And to follow that pulling out prematurely - we should have learned from WWI.

So, gtn - should Trump pull out of Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? The middle east? Can we get our of Europe? Should we stop being the world's policeman and withdraw to the US?

[dckingsfan]

The reality is that the Republicans have never been deficit hawks! The deficits were higher under the Republican administrations. The largest deficits we Obama, George W Bush, Reagan & George H. W. Bush. Much of Obama's deficits were the direct result of George W Bush disastrous handling of the economy and the Iraq War.

Okay, so this is simple and compelling... but alas, not complete.

You have to look at state, local and federal entities. You have to look at spending vs. taxation. And you need to look at specific administrations and why they did what the did.

Federal
The biggest fiscal conservative in our time was Jimmy Carter. And his party turned on him during the process. When Reagan came to power and had an agenda to end the cold war, the Ds happily traded unsustainable defense spending for unsustainable social services. The Ds knew that if Reagan won the cold war, defense spending would decrease. They were right.

Then came Bush I who was second behind Carter. The Ds agreed to cut a bit of social spending for tax increases. Remember that Bush had promised "no new taxes" in his campaign. Clinton came along and used that nicely against him in the next election. Have we seen the Rs push new taxes since?

Then came the Clinton administration that was buoyed by the .com era for tax revenues and slowed down on spending by an R congress (mostly because they weren't going to get new defense spending). And that happened again during the Obama years after year 2.

Obama's deficits didn't come from Bush's war - it mostly came from the revenue loss of the great recession (having to do with really stupid government policy and lack of oversight) + the huge and widely unsuccessful stimulus.

Under Trump the Rs have shown their true colors spending like drunken sailor (very similar to the Reagan administration).

State/Local
In the mean time state and local government were having spending sprees. Incarceration rates soared due to stupid policies like 3-strikes, war on drugs and stupid on crime. This cut across both parties and nearly all states. Both are the equal stupid parties on this.

And then their was the collusion with politicians and unions on wages and pensions (you know, politicians like their pensions as well). And Ds were not above trading pension obligations for votes.

Additionally Medicaid promises soared as well in many states.

So, do to the reckless abandon of both parties we have a large number of our local dollars going toward prisons, unfunded pension obligations and out of control Medicaid obligations.

Both parties got us in this mess. Both blame the other. If you go on a board that is highly conservative (unlike this one), they point out what reckless spenders are the Ds. But they don't even look at their stupid policies.

#endofrant

[cammac]

Pulling out of Iraq was a mistake because it evidently left a massive power vacuum allowing ISIS to seize control. it was largely an environment we created by invading in the first place.

The situation in Syria is different for a variety of reasons, but generally speaking i think there is no viable way out of these military endeavors in the middle east.

Cutting off all US military presence in Syria does benefit Russia and Assad though

Yep - two equally stupid mistakes. Invading Iraq based upon nebulas intel of WOMD.

And to follow that pulling out prematurely - we should have learned from WWI.

So, gtn - should Trump pull out of Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? The middle east? Can we get our of Europe? Should we stop being the world's policeman and withdraw to the US?

Dckingfan you no that there are no simple solutions to the Middle East from religious to the vestige of colonial rule. Colonial powers carved up the Middle East with absolutely no regards to the people that they all felt were the same. Nations that should have been like the Kurds are now disenfranchised being part of four countries Turkey, Iran, Syria & Iraq this is one example. In Iraq and Syria the Kurds have been the most reliable allies to the west and have provided the best liberation fighters against ISIS. Now in Syria they are being hammered by Turkey.

Going into the Middle East should never have been a option unless you look at Bush41 who carried out a quick and effective strike into Iraq but left the status quo in power. There isn't a easy way to solve the situation. If the West pulls out the two Muslim regional powers in Iran and Saudi Arabia will likely have armed conflict. Israel will become more aggressive in defending its borders and lets not forget they have nuclear capabilities. Russia will continue to stir the pot to there advantage and gain much needed allies in that part of the world. I can also see Turkey becoming more imperialistic in the Region especially since it has basically become a fascist state. In many ways the Pottery Barn axiom fits "If you break it you own it".

[Jamaaliver]

Both parties got us in this mess. Both blame the other. If you go on a board that is highly conservative (unlike this one), they point out what reckless spenders are the Ds. But they don't even look at their stupid policies.

#endofrant

I don't know who you are.

But, I am officially a fan.



^High Five for Bipartisan cynicism

[cammac]

The reality is that the Republicans have never been deficit hawks! The deficits were higher under the Republican administrations. The largest deficits we Obama, George W Bush, Reagan & George H. W. Bush. Much of Obama's deficits were the direct result of George W Bush disastrous handling of the economy and the Iraq War.

Okay, so this is simple and compelling... but alas, not complete.

You have to look at state, local and federal entities. You have to look at spending vs. taxation. And you need to look at specific administrations and why they did what the did.

Federal
The biggest fiscal conservative in our time was Jimmy Carter. And his party turned on him during the process. When Reagan came to power and had an agenda to end the cold war, the Ds happily traded unsustainable defense spending for unsustainable social services. The Ds knew that if Reagan won the cold war, defense spending would decrease. They were right.

Then came Bush I who was second behind Carter. The Ds agreed to cut a bit of social spending for tax increases. Remember that Bush had promised "no new taxes" in his campaign. Clinton came along and used that nicely against him in the next election. Have we seen the Rs push new taxes since?

Then came the Clinton administration that was buoyed by the .com era for tax revenues and slowed down on spending by an R congress (mostly because they weren't going to get new defense spending). And that happened again during the Obama years after year 2.

Obama's deficits didn't come from Bush's war - it mostly came from the revenue loss of the great recession (having to do with really stupid government policy and lack of oversight) + the huge and widely unsuccessful stimulus.

Under Trump the Rs have shown their true colors spending like drunken sailor (very similar to the Reagan administration).

State/Local
In the mean time state and local government were having spending sprees. Incarceration rates soared due to stupid policies like 3-strikes, war on drugs and stupid on crime. This cut across both parties and nearly all states. Both are the equal stupid parties on this.

And then their was the collusion with politicians and unions on wages and pensions (you know, politicians like their pensions as well). And Ds were not above trading pension obligations for votes.

Additionally Medicaid promises soared as well in many states.

So, do to the reckless abandon of both parties we have a large number of our local dollars going toward prisons, unfunded pension obligations and out of control Medicaid obligations.

Both parties got us in this mess. Both blame the other. If you go on a board that is highly conservative (unlike this one), they point out what reckless spenders are the Ds. But they don't even look at their stupid policies.

#endofrant

I don't disagree with your premise but the American election of government make achieving change difficult. A party to reform the system would need basically 16 years in power to handle real reform. Plus with midterms with House Representatives having 2 year terms and Senators 6 year terms. A shift in either the House or Senate puts any real progress at risk. Plus basically House representatives are on a continuous election mode. It would be obviously better if elections were every 4 years with President, House and Senate all having 4 year terms. This gives a Administration a chance to make real reform in the likelihood of having all 3 levels of government one party.

Obviously the President would need to be a dynamic leader (none available) with vision and a ruthlessness to make hard changes in how America is run. Dckingfan we are both fiscal "Hawks" but "Socially Liberal" on most issues where the cost drivers are controlled. We can both agree that major changes need to be made.