Forums / Discussion / General

What Chewy's referencing.

tfw it's easier to deliver memetic humor to the middle east than it is to deliver a working democracy

…wait what?

Wasn't the whole point to avoid outright ousting Assad (ADD: or even directly approaching a situation where we would do so) to avoid us, the U.S., screwing up an entire country, again, by causing a power vacuum in the state that couldn't possibly be maintained by some rebels-- never mind the fact that there are multiple rebel groups? Never mind going to war with Russia, who backs Assad? Is Trump trying to tacitly goad Putin, who recently mentioned that their alliance isn't unconditional after the sarin gas attack (that may or may not have been him), to stop backing him altogether? If that's the case, is playing military chicken the best way to negotiate?

Have I just been misreading the situation all along? Why do people like this? Did I fall into a "-stein" universe? Trump isn't actually going to let this puff his ego and persuade him to pursue further military action in Syria while Russia still backs them…

…right?

Russia doesn't care about Syria. Russia cares about it's port in Syria. It will make fairly weak claims condemning the US attack.

But…

The US warned Russia about the impending bombing 30 minutes before it happened.

So if I was Assad, I'd be asking a very simple question to the Russians: Why didn't you stop them?

The answer is simple. Russia doesn't want to engage the US in a war, it won't win, and it can't win. It doesn't have the allies, the manpower, or the infrastructure to do so right now, not when there are elections coming up next year, and protests are starting to break out in Russia.

So, lip service, mostly for internal consumption, sending his lapdog Medvedev to criticize the US.

Perhaps Donald Trump really was seriously pissed at what he saw from the images of children being gassed. Maybe a message needed to be said and laid down, and screw the alt-Rights obsession with geo-political isolationism.

It wouldn't be the first time that the US engaged in a war because of some imagery coming out that was so dramatic. We went into the Balkans after Hillary Clinton saw images of the mother who lost her husband in the siege, had to escape to a refugee camp, and ultimately hung herself.

That it happened when it did plays very well into Trump's hands. Not only does it show the rest of the world that this isn't another Obama presidency, of creating a red line, and never crossing it. Now he's not even going to declare a red line.

Maybe it sends a clear message to China, who's President is currently visiting the US, that we aren't going to sit back and just play ball anymore.

Gorsuch has been confirmed 54-45.

Chewybunny said:

The US warned Russia about the impending bombing 30 minutes before it happened.

Don't forget Russia apparently didn't activate its anti-missile defenses. That suggests to me Assad (or some military official) decided to whip out the sarin because they thought they could get away with it after the chlorine attacks and Trump's detente with Russia. When Trump responded, Russia decided to back off as a warning to Assad to knock it off with the stupidity when you're so close to finally winning the civil war in your favor.

Soooo…
Putin is willing to throw Assad under the bus if it means a cooperation with Trump will ease US sanctions over their invasion of Crimea?

I don't know. I don't think Crimea is something that t he US or the West has the right to hold sanctions over. I'm no fan of Putin, or of Russian geopolitical goals, but Crimea is Russian. It was never supposed to be part of Ukraine. What is, however, far more serious is Putin's manipulation and intervention in Ukraine's internal affairs, and the Donetsk region. And I also don't think that Crimea or Ukraine were on the table.

I really think that Putin's main goal is to maintain a port in Syria, above all else. If it's Assad, or some Jihadi regime that runs the country, Putin doesn't care. It's the last, and only nexus Russia has to the middle-East region.

What I think threw Putin in for a loop is how strongly and rapidly Trump reacted to this. This isn't Obama he's dealing with.

Trump's one of those people that does to whatever he thinks is good for Trump.
If that means a missile strike that didn't really do much for stopping chemical weapons attacks but generates a weekend's news cycle about the attack itself, then he's happy.
And then there was that speech he gave to the joint session of Congress at the end of February. Not even lasting a full day before negative coverage starts coming out about his potential ties to Russia. And then there was the morning of March 4th. That weekend.

Remember Calexit? Their leader has announced he's seeking permanent residency in Russia and the ballot measure has been withdrawn. They intend to reorganize and refile so the hope for Civil War 2: Abe's Return isn't completely dead.

There's also a new book out detailing how incompetent and mismanaged Clinton's campaign was. Details include: her not taking the advise of her advisors and nipping the email server thing in the bud right away, severe overconfidence (with Obama even saying they had it in the bag) and underestimating the populism in the rust belt, and that leading by committee style that's already been roundly criticized.

Why are you surprised that the CalExit leader is seeking residency in Russia? I've been harping about it since the election, it is absolute insanity, that people think that Russia isn't influencing our political system, and actively encouraging destabilization across Europe and the US.

Whelp, it looks like Exxon isn't waiting for the Trump-Russia investigation to conclude.
Exxon Seeks US Waiver to Resume Oil Venture

Why would they? Is Tillerson working for Exxon-Mobil still? Does he still get money from Exxon-Mobil?

(also, interesting fact- Tillerson was also 32nd President of the Boy Scouts of America… while he was still the CEO of Exxon-Mobil)-

He still has close ties with Exxon's current CEO, who really wants that Russian oil deal with Rosneft to go through. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars.
Someone really wants that 19%.

So any news on Red Scare 2: Renewable Boogaloo?

Hold onto your seats fellow posters. The French are having their elections right now and I feel Le Pen just might take it. First was Britexit, then President Trump, and soon Frexit. Good, bad, or other wise, the mayhem this will cause will be rather entertaining at least.

New Comey behind the scenes thing. Once again, had AG Lynch not done that incredibly stupid tarmac small talk, Comey likely wouldn't have bothered making the big "no indictment" announcement and thus, the October surprise announcement.

It's a really interesting look at his decision making process and I can definitely understand why he decided to go about things the way he did. A shame the DNC will deflect Clinton's mistakes and poor message and instead pin everything on Comey and Russia.

Chewybunny said:

Why are you surprised…

Never said I was surprised. Kinda figured it was a Russia shitpost back when they opened that Russian embassy. If anything, I'm amused. Russia's behind the far right and Trump and their behind the far left and pulling California out. At this right, Putin being behind everything is going to become a meme..

BrentD15 said:

He still has close ties with Exxon’s current CEO…

Evidently not close enough.

@Jaune Arc
La Pen and Macron headed to runoff. Neither came close to winning outright and polls predict Macron will win (but we all know accurate polls have been as of late).

Thing is Brexit and the US election had close polling numbers throughout (<5% deficit). Le Pen is down 20% in polls. Then again, they are just polls so we don't know yet.

Also depends on turnout.
If enough French people are motivated to get out to vote, Le Pen may very well lose.
Then again, if people decide not to turn out to vote due to apathy or hubris, Le Pen could win.

Also, considering Macron's campaign is reporting cyber-attacks committed against them, and Le Pen was given a loan of 3,000,000 Euros from Russia, the French people aren't the only ones interested in this election's results. ;3

California fed. judge blocks Trump from trying to coerce them into following the law trying to take away federal funding from sanctuary cities.

If that's not judicial activism, I don't know what is.

I wonder why you got downvoted, it's not as if you're not telling the truth

Some people just don't like it when certain things are said.

If that’s not judicial activism, I don’t know what is.

It's not "Judicial Activism" if what you're doing violates the law.
We have 3 co-equal branches of government for a reason (Even if two of them don't act like it).

Also, how is it "judicial activism" for a Federal Court to block an Executive order to cut funding for "sanctuary cities"? What part of this Federal Court committed overreach that the court itself didn't take into consideration?

BrentD15 wrote:

It's not "Judicial Activism" if what you're doing violates the law

Fair enough, actually. I suppose I was more taken aback at the time with the fact that an EO that was meant as a punitive measure for a state that allows its municipalities to flaunt federal law at its own discretion than the fact that Trump didn't properly go through the legislative machine to dole out punishment.

I guess he has to dole out punishment another way. Perhaps by directly holding the people responsible for enforcing the flaunting of federal law? That probably would have been a good first course of action…

For cities having programs helping immigrants go through the naturalization process instead of being preyed on by ICE agents?

That's a funny way of saying "deporting people who don't have a legal right to be here in the first place (while people who do struggle to legally get in and become citizens subject themselves to the cogs of the immigration and naturalization bureaucracy)". You make it sound like they do have a legal right to be here and we're just throwing out people who we lawfully allowed to be here in the first place.

Mike Flynn seems to have violated the law

Did you read the full report and what others involved had to say?

From CNN:

Flynn's lawyer, Robert Kelner, said Tuesday that Flynn was not hiding anything, noting that he briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency on his trip to Russia.

_"As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of DoD, extensively regarding the RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any questions that were posed by DIA concerning the trip during those briefings," Kelner said in a statement to CNN Tuesday. _

Also,

White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short outlined in a letter to the House oversight committee how it would not complete the request from the panel, referring some requests to the Department of Defense, saying the office doesn't have custody of some of the other documents or simply stating "we are unable to accommodate" others.

A White House aide disputed that the White House was withholding anything from the committee, saying they could not provide documents they do not have access to. The aide said that they directed oversight investigators to the appropriate agencies.

A White House aide disputed that the White House was withholding anything from the committee, saying they could not provide documents they do not have access to.

So, you're saying that the White House doesn't have documents about their own former National Security Advisor, who was fired from his previous job years ago for mishandling classified information?

So, either Flynn didn't provide a full disclosure of his financial information regarding foreign governments paying him, the White House didn't care performing their background check on him, or the documents were destroyed.

By the way, your own post contradicts itself, stating that he did provide information regarding this. Did the White House misplace this information? Should we believe the White House? Why isn't the White House requesting this information to give to the Oversight Committee?

Also, why did Jason Chaffetz announce this yesterday a week after he said he won't seek re-election, or even finish his term?

Also from earlier: Senator Richard Burr denies Mike Flynn's request for immunity.

So, you’re saying that the White House doesn’t have documents about their own former National Security Advisor, who was fired from his previous job years ago for mishandling classified information?

Technically, I'm not saying anything on my own. I only gave citations, did I not?

More to the point,

A White House aide disputed that the White House was withholding anything from the committee, saying they could not provide documents they do not have access to. The aide said that they directed oversight investigators to the appropriate agencies.

This was already cited, but there it is again.

There may have been a cause for concern if, say, they just denied the requests, saying that they didn't have the papers. But if they referred the investigators to the appropriate agencies, they're being compliant, and there's less reason to believe that they have something to hide. Your accusative questions aren't even based on anything you know about the bureaucratic structure of the White House that may or may not compartmentalize information access-- or, if you are, you haven't made it clear.

As it stands, I have to assume that Flynn's lawyer was fraudulent to some level in his statement to think that Flynn was even likely involved in wrongdoing (if I wanted to make my suspicions known before anything conclusive was drawn), but he referred to something already reported, and CNN didn't say it was a false reference.

So, I honestly don't know, but if he did indeed brief the DIA (a "component agency" of the DoD), it's likely that he would have mentioned the payment during that briefing and the DIA would have the information.

If the information the investigators get from the referrals also turns up null, suspicion is in order.

Also, why did Jason Chaffetz announce this yesterday a week after he said he won’t seek re-election, or even finish his term?

What the heck does this have to do with anything?

Well, according to the DIA, Mike Flynn did not report his financial payments from Russia and Turkey; in fact, he was warned in 2014 to not receive payments from other countries without permission. He started receiving payments in 2015 without permission. Now the Inspector General is now launching an investigation into the matter.

So, either Flynn's lawyer is lying about Flynn reporting this information, or the Inspector General and the DIA are in on some conspiracy to bring down Flynn and, by extension, Trump. And I doubt it's the latter.

>any of that

I would imagine that a source would be in order.

Well, since you insist on proof without looking it up yourself, here.

AND the letter in question:

In case anyone wants something else, Erdoğan is yet another step closer to become Sultan of Turkey.

BrentD15 said:

And Donald Trump, who congratulated Erdogan in a fraud-ridden referendum to consolidate power, is inviting self-admitted murderer Rodrigo Duterte to the White House.

Interesting times we’re living in now…

I know. The audacity of Trump, talking with two democratically elected leaders and inviting one to the White House. Just imagine if he were going to talk to a dictator.



It would be practically unpresidential!

New developments:
Trumpcare will now consider sexual assault a pre-existing condition.

I'm hearing the same thing. Is this a liberal exaggeration? Or is it not and there's a conservative reasoning for it (and if there is, I'd like to hear it.)

from what I understand, it just takes away the universal pre-existing conditions, and instead allows states to individually decide what is a pre-existing condition…and maybe some states may implement those positions, but of course, we have to spin it that all states will do so.

I wish it was an exaggeration.
But the fact that now you can lose health insurance because you've been raped is something that is purely sickening and terrifying.
And not only that, this gives rapists an incentive to get away with it because the person they just raped won't report it due to losing health coverage for a Rape Kit testing.

What is the basis of this though, like where in the bill does it give this basis?

Pre-ACA, some insurance companies considered rape a pre-existing condition, and can deny coverage based on that.

Because of the ACA, this was no longer a problem due to a requirement saying insurance companies can't turn down coverage for pre-existing conditions, including rape.

With Trumpcare, however, an amendment (the MacArthur Amendment) allows states to opt out of protections for pre-existing conditions. This includes rape, under certain insurance companies. Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, said he would consider opting out of these protections depending on how the GOP bill fares.

That's the basis of the argument; depending on your insurance company and how Trumpcare does in the House and Senate, there may be cases where people are turned down for coverage due to medical conditions resulting from rape, or domestic abuse, or even post-partum depression.

I hope that clears some things up.

Yes it does, but it also opens up a lot of other questions.
So let's say you are someone who has been raped and you are applying for insurance. Is the assumption that every insurance company would make rape a pre-existing condition? As you said, some insurance companies did that – okay – but does that preclude someone from getting insurance from another company?

The argument then comes to applying a hypothetical worse case scenerio, that is, nationwide no access to this kind of thing.

Don't get me wrong – I am very much against Trumpcare…just as much as I am against ACA, I think both aren't treating the fundamental problem of cost, and instead focus entirely on access to insurance.

As you said, some insurance companies did that – okay – but does that preclude someone from getting insurance from another company?

As much chance as that other company deciding to include rape as a pre-existing condition, as policies rarely stay the same for insurance companies.
Thus, people can end up getting kicked off of that company's insurance as well, and then we go to the next, the same result, and it can cascade from there.

Donald Trump just fired FBI Director James Comey.

The President of the United States firing the director of the FBI while he is under investigation by them

Almost says more than an investigation could

This is insanity

"I am not under investigation"

He even had input from the Attourney General, who had recused himself from the Trump-Russia investigation.

And you can bet that virtually no Republicans will hold anyone accountable for this. In fact, the person who he might appoint as the new Director might just terminate the investigation.

It's pretty clear Trump will do anything to stay in power and the GOP will enable him.

Yep.
It's been pretty evident for months.
I know I've been downvoted for this earlier, but it bears repeating.
Blatant. Power. Grab.

Just wondering, what is the point in investigating Trump-Russia connections now, given that he has completely abandoned his election rhetoric, became another Neocon, and America and Russia are not any closer than they were before? Nothing has changed, at all. Assuming Russians did help Trump, what did they gain in return?

Because it would still be a foreign power interfering with an American election and therefore still treason

What they gained is a destabilized and weakened USA.
What they gained is a blackmailed National Security Advisor (for a short while, before he got caught).

UPDATE: Also, according to Michael S. Schmidt, both the White House and Department of Justice have been planning to fire him for at least a week, and were trying to come up with an excuse.

Also, this whole thing reeks.
Jeff Sessions recused himself from investigations involving both campaigns.

If he made his decision to fire Comey was because of the Hillary Clinton e-mails, does that mean he violated his own recusal?

@Comey
Not terribly surprising given how much shit he's gotten over the months. He was in a really bad position in October (announce it and it looks like the FBI's helping Trump, don't announce it and it looks like the FBI's helping Clinton) and I think he tried his best to steer the ship.

It is funny seeing liberals suddenly pivot from "Comey's a terrible FBI director who's directly to blame for Clinton's loss" to "Trump's Nixon for firing Comey." Trump needs to announce his support for a single payer system. That'll guarantee free market healthcare for decades.

BrentD15 said:

Blatant. Power. Grab.

From who? Trump legitimately won the election, the GOP maintained control of the Senate and House, and an empty SCOTUS seat was filled with the advice and consent of the Senate. A power grab implies the power was legitimately held by someone else and was seized

If Trump or the GOP refuses to cede control in 2020 or 2024 after losing, I'll be more than happy to join you in the ensuing civil war, but until then please tone down the rhetoric a little. We're not even at the midterms yet.

Zozzler said:

…and therefore still treason.

Reminder that treason is the only constitutionally defined crime: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Tomoya Kawakita was the most recent person convicted of treason, in 1952, for the assistance he gave Japan in WW2. No one since--not even Russian spies during the cold war--have been convicted, since we were not at war with Russia and, thus, they were not our "enemies."

If the people who stole the nuclear bomb plans weren't tried for treason, why would Trump (or any campaign officials for that matter) be?