Author Topic: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)  (Read 19074 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • "Look, I don't know if shooting penguins will help the environment or not. But I do know that the decision shouldn't be in the hands of people who just wanna kill for fun."
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 217,537
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,090
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #475 on: February 16, 2017, 23:54:02 »
Always get concerned when I agree with you.  ;D

I personally see nothing wrong with "internationalism" per se but have nothing but disdain for the sorry messes that are representative of "international government" particularly the EU bureaucracy and to a significant extent that of the UN.

For me "internationalism" is better met by bilateral and multilateral agreements.

 :cheers:
I share your concern FJAG.

And your observations.

 :cheers:
I'm in the room here guys!!! :waiting:
At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.
-P.J. O’Rouke-


DISCLAIMER - my opinion may cause manginal irritation.

Online cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 88,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,614
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #476 on: February 16, 2017, 23:55:12 »
I'm in the room here guys!!! :waiting:

FAKE NEWS!
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline FJAG

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 740
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Wolf Riedel Google+ Page
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #477 on: February 17, 2017, 00:18:37 »
I listened to the entire presser and came away very satisfied.Trump's goal was to speak directly to the American people and out the media for their bias. He accomplished his goal.

I guess you and I saw different press conferences. This is the one I saw (There's a transcript as well):

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjVAt_mzHXM

Transcript: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/click-for-a-full-transcript-of-trumps-first-solo-press-conference.html

I was thinking that perhaps some of the Trump stalwarts here would be starting to have a little tiny niggling doubt about this administration especially seeing that Vice-Admiral Harward (who I thought was a good candidate for the job of Nat Sec Adviser) turned down the offer after the press conference.

There are already some rumours circulating that the press conference sealed his rejection (no pun intended). While the Admiral said he turned the nomination for professional and personal reasons one would have thought that before the president would have named Harward as his candidate that his staff would have both vetted and received Harward's concurrence to be named. By turning it down after he was named it seems much more likely that he changed his mind today.

I'd put money on the fact that there's zero chance that the press conference won't be the cold open on SNL on Saturday.  ;D

 :cheers:
+300 « Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 09:27:52 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline FJAG

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 740
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Wolf Riedel Google+ Page
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #478 on: February 17, 2017, 00:22:31 »
I'm in the room here guys!!! :waiting:

We know and we love you for it.  :nod:

 :cheers:

Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 57,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,155
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #479 on: February 17, 2017, 06:23:51 »
I listened to the entire presser and came away very satisfied.Trump's goal was to speak directly to the American people and out the media for their bias. He accomplished his goal.

like FJAG I think I saw a different presser than you did. 

His goal wasn't to speak directly to the American people.  It was to speak to his base.  In that I agree that he accomplished his goal. 

This has been a weird month in US politics.

+300
Optio

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 75,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,452
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #480 on: February 17, 2017, 09:06:22 »
I'd put money on the fact that there's zero chance that the press conference won't be the cold open on SNL on Saturday.  ;D

 :cheers:

I doubt it: No role for Spicer in it!  ;D

BTW, if he comes to Canada for the president's visit (whenever that may be), I think we should "accidentally" refer to Spicer as "Keith Spicer". That would be funny!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 90,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,208
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #481 on: February 17, 2017, 10:27:46 »
like FJAG I think I saw a different presser than you did. 

His goal wasn't to speak directly to the American people.  It was to speak to his base.  In that I agree that he accomplished his goal. 

This has been a weird month in US politics.

Politicians always speak to their base first, about the only time they go beyond that is in an election to convince the undecided to vote for them, generally by offering bribes or belittling the other side effectively.
+300

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 175,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,888
  • Freespeecher
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #482 on: February 17, 2017, 11:34:08 »
President Trump is taking a page from President Reagan and bypassing the press to speak to his base (and hopefully the rest of the American people as well). President Trump is a very different person from President Reagan, being combative rather than genial, and also has access to suites of tools that President Reagan could only dream about.

The press corps is having a collective seizure seeing their "gatekeeper" role so effectively bypassed, and their hyperpartisanship, which was already openly on display when George W Bush was president and refined through the Obama Administration, simply makes them incapable of acting, but only reacting to President Trump. If they read "The Art of the Deal", they would realize how they are being played and how President Trump is using unpredictability to open new avenues and approaches to achieve his goals. (Of course, that also presupposes the press is self aware and capable of change).

Once again, here is Newt Gingrich explaining how President Trump beat the media, and providing a means of understanding who to look forward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIe95tyHQs4
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 57,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,155
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #483 on: February 17, 2017, 12:17:33 »
President Trump is taking a page from President Reagan and bypassing the press to speak to his base (and hopefully the rest of the American people as well). President Trump is a very different person from President Reagan, being combative rather than genial, and also has access to suites of tools that President Reagan could only dream about.

The press corps is having a collective seizure seeing their "gatekeeper" role so effectively bypassed, and their hyperpartisanship, which was already openly on display when George W Bush was president and refined through the Obama Administration, simply makes them incapable of acting, but only reacting to President Trump. If they read "The Art of the Deal", they would realize how they are being played and how President Trump is using unpredictability to open new avenues and approaches to achieve his goals. (Of course, that also presupposes the press is self aware and capable of change).

Once again, here is Newt Gingrich explaining how President Trump beat the media, and providing a means of understanding who to look forward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIe95tyHQs4

I have to agree that he is indeed beating the media but I don't think he's merely bypassing them, he's confronting them and unfortunately he's delegitimizing free press as a result.  But he's shown a few weak points.

The inability to understand the system.
- This why his executive order was rejected and he's back to drawing board
- I suspect his wall building project will meet the same sort of resistance from congress on both sides of the house as "who" exactly will pay for it comes up

His team. He needs to work on that. 
- Spicer is becoming Bagdad bob.  He's lost credibility and I predict will be gone sooner rather than later.
- Already a resignation/firing in scandal in under a month, and a few stepping down from the nomination process

His reaction to any criticism. 
- As partisan as some people think the media is, he is giving them plenty to attack him on.

Flip Flops
- Confusing rambling statements contradicted later by his people or himself.  Contrast what he said about Israel one state solution versus what his ambassador to the US said at the UN about the two state solution as just one example.  Or the fact that leaks are true but the news about them is fake  :dunno:

I for one want to give him a chance to see what he is going to do.  I actually try an make an effort to sift through the noise and get some of the facts but I have to tell you that my impression is that his administration looks chaotic, disorganised and uncoordinated.  But I'm in not even in the stadium to watch the show, I'm at the local bar down the street watching and discussing it.  As a Canadian looking from the outside my opinion is limited to armchair discussion like this thread. 

People mention biases and partisanship.  If you truly think he's had a good first month, take a hard look at what lenses you are using.  It hasn't been a good first month by any measure.  Resignations, international flaps, scandals and a cornerstone executive order successfully appealed doesn't make for a good track record so far.



I doubt it is ALL bad, but the bad is indeed bad and the good is meh.

And for good measure I'll list the things that I find good so far.

-Keystone approved.  Great for us IMO
-A clear answer on NAFTA and Canada.  Again good for us.
-Council of women entrepreneurs.  Got very little attention south of the border but still a good endeavour.
-James Mattis.  probably his best appointment.
-Taking NATO to task on its spending of GDP

 
+300
Optio

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 163,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #484 on: February 17, 2017, 12:32:26 »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-author-of-dodgy-dossier-accuses-uk-of-systematic-failure-a7123136.html

This is not directly related to US politics ...... but it is.   

It concerns what the Brits call Blair's "Dodgy Dossier": the presentation of intelligence used to justify Britain's intervention in Iraq in 2003.  The Chilcot Inquiry determined that the intelligence services were something less than adequate in their ability to inform anyone of much of anything.    Apparently a key element in the dossier was information gleaned, and plagiarised from, a thesis prepared by a muslim master's student studying in California.  That then found its way, through MI6, into Iraq intervention justification.

Chilcot was just published on July 6, 2016 or two weeks after the Brexit vote on June 23.  It was intentionally delayed to minimize its impact on the Brexit vote.

Now, MI6 apparently was associated in the Trump Dossier on Russian Watersports.  Which managed to find its way into the US press via US intelligence services.  The same US route currently used to reference Trump's fitness to govern.

My curiousity is about how "the press" finds credible the sources that they excoriated over the Iraq war (and a few other incidents going back to Mossadegh and Allende). 

An equally fascinating observation is how "the press"  (is that just the "quality" or is the "tabloid" variety included?) spends so much time trying to convince us, the consumer, that they are "the news you can trust."  or are "Canada's trusted news" and that their "narrative" of events is the "true", the "correct" or the "right" one.  Doesn't that suggest that they recognize that there might be another opinion and that they are fighting for their "narrative" to dominate?

The other observation that fascinates is how, especially in the English speaking world, how intertwined the press has become.  And I think, in this instance that is a good thing.  Because it means that British style newspaper warfare is appearing in the US press.  The phenomenon has not yet appeared in Canada but it is readily apparent in the US where the US press cites British sources and British opinion fairly frequently.  I offer Piers Morgan and the Daily Mail and Piers support for Donald Trump as an example.  And the associated attempts to ensure that the Quality press maintains its advantage over tabloids like New York Post or Washington Examiner or Washington Times.  Or CNN-BBC-MSNBC vs Fox. Hmmmm.  Rupert Murdoch - Agent of Change, Democrat and Profiteer?

But more importantly I sense that I am seeing an intra-mural match that spans the Anglosphere ... the nature of the fight and the sides are kind of amorphous because often it seems it is both sides against the middle with all parties willing to argue that black is white on Sunday and that cheese is chalk on Monday.

I am enjoying the disruption. 

Have you ever considered why, when the stock market collapses, how it can collapse? On its worst days, when it loses hundreds of billions of dollars of value over night, trades happen.  For every share sold at a discounted value somebody has bought that share.  Somebody is seeing different information, or is seeing the same information and interpreting it differently, or is seeing the same information and interpreting it the same way and is betting that they can use the situation to their advantage.  And sometimes they will be right.   And sometimes they will be wrong.

The only idiots out there are the people that believe they understand what is going on - and those that believe them.



Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 175,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,888
  • Freespeecher
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #485 on: February 17, 2017, 12:44:40 »
Another speech by Newt Gingrich. It seems he is doing a series about President Trump and Trumpism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzEnwohFmQI
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 363,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,226
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #486 on: February 17, 2017, 13:27:28 »
... Now, MI6 apparently was associated in the Trump Dossier on Russian Watersports.  Which managed to find its way into the US press via US intelligence services.  The same US route currently used to reference Trump's fitness to govern.  My curiousity is about how "the press" finds credible the sources that they excoriated over the Iraq war (and a few other incidents going back to Mossadegh and Allende) ...
My understanding is that ONE person who USED TO BE with MI6 did that report, first for a Republican team, the for a Democrat team (and, as always, I stand to be corrected).  That's a pretty broad & inclusive definition of "MI6 association" with said document.

If my understanding is correct, are you suggesting every person who's ever worked for an organization must be suspect because they worked an organization that's made mistakes?  #FallacyOfComposition

<tangent>If you want to watch a funny movie about war, politics and dossier "management" -- by the Brits and Americans -- "In The Loop" is for you!- hilarious, scarily close to what is probably happening @ high levels, but too sweary for younger kids to watch.</tangent>
An equally fascinating observation is how "the press"  (is that just the "quality" or is the "tabloid" variety included?) spends so much time trying to convince us, the consumer, that they are "the news you can trust."  or are "Canada's trusted news" and that their "narrative" of events is the "true", the "correct" or the "right" one.  Doesn't that suggest that they recognize that there might be another opinion and that they are fighting for their "narrative" to dominate?
As businesses, I think they're likely fighting more for their outlet to dominate re:  clicks/viewers/readers/listeners.
The other observation that fascinates is how, especially in the English speaking world, how intertwined the press has become.  And I think, in this instance that is a good thing.  Because it means that British style newspaper warfare is appearing in the US press.  The phenomenon has not yet appeared in Canada but it is readily apparent in the US where the US press cites British sources and British opinion fairly frequently.  I offer Piers Morgan and the Daily Mail and Piers support for Donald Trump as an example.  And the associated attempts to ensure that the Quality press maintains its advantage over tabloids like New York Post or Washington Examiner or Washington Times.  Or CNN-BBC-MSNBC vs Fox. Hmmmm.  Rupert Murdoch - Agent of Change, Democrat and Profiteer?
I think you & others have mentioned this before re:  if a media outlet has a preference/bias/fave team, it makes more sense to say it outright.  Agreed 110% - to stretch the cliche a bit, better the devil you know ...
“Most great military blunders stem from the good intentions of some high-ranking buffoon ...” – George MacDonald Fraser, "The Sheik and the Dustbin"

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 163,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #487 on: February 17, 2017, 14:22:26 »
Quote
If my understanding is correct, are you suggesting every person who's ever worked for an organization must be suspect because they worked an organization that's made mistakes?  #FallacyOfComposition

You don't, then, get to cite the organization's employment of a particular individual in defence of the quality of his or her work or other actions.

And I am glad you agree that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CTV, Macleans, Globe and CBC should just come out and declare their political affiliations and disavow any pretence of neutrality.

Sir.   :)

Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 363,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,226
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #488 on: February 17, 2017, 15:13:00 »
You don't, then, get to cite the organization's employment of a particular individual in defence of the quality of his or her work or other actions.
Hmmmm ... got me on that one. 

Maybe the answer's more in the middle of the two, then.
And I am glad you agree that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CTV, Macleans, Globe and CBC should just come out and declare their political affiliations and disavow any pretence of neutrality.
Never happen (esp. w/CBC), but that WOULD be more transparent and consumer friendly like the Brit (and Italian) media system.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 15:23:13 by milnews.ca »
“Most great military blunders stem from the good intentions of some high-ranking buffoon ...” – George MacDonald Fraser, "The Sheik and the Dustbin"

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,392
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #489 on: Yesterday at 11:54:13 »
>I'm genuinely curious as to why anyone has a problem with globalization and internationalism. How is it any different than federalism?

Without doing any kind of historical survey, it seems to me entities are more interested in breaking away, than entities are in coming together.  And when entities do come together, it often is in the context of escaping a greater entity.

I've concluded that federalism is workable at a moderate scale, just as socialist policies work more effectively and generate less partisan rancour as the size of the political jurisdiction decreases.  (It is natural to care about and share a sense of fellowship with - and obligations toward - your neighbours more than strangers on the other side of a continent.)  "Federalism" across what are now nation states is too tempting to "majority rules" abuses.  Pushed to the wall, what might 1,000 million people in region X vote to extract from the better-off 100 million people in region Y?
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"But injustice is a rule of the service, as you know very well; and since you have to have a good deal of undeserved abuse, you might just as well have it from your friends."  - The Ionian Mission, by Patrick O'Brian.