Octopus Overlords

RunningMn9 wrote: What I'm trying to understand is the issue that it looked like was being discussed here - that Obama has departed from conventional US policy with regard to settlements. My understanding was that the US backed a two-state solution, and certainly it seems reasonable to me that further Israeli settlement (at least outside the blocs you referenced), would be antagonistic and not likely to improve the chances of that outcome (the two-state solution).

Well, for a start, there's no distinction being made between those outside the blocs and those inside the blocs and Jerusalem. The resolution refers to all of them as illegal from remote settlements, to the Jewish quarter and Western wall in Jerusalem. All of them are, according to the resolution, rightfully owned by the Palestinians, which will only harden their position - why should they accept anything less than what the UN says, if only symbolically, is theirs?

It's also something that is supposed to be worked out through negotiations between the two parties, not imposed by external parties. And it undercuts what has been the basis for negotiations.

Can we put in place a temporary ban on all inauguration activities until we can figure out what the hell is going on?

Captain Caveman wrote:

Can we put in place a temporary ban on all inauguration activities until we can figure out what the hell is going on?

Yet another example of Trump openly siding with a foreign power against his own domestic political opponents.

How many times does this happen before we forget that this was never, ever, ever, ever normal in American democracy?

What Putin delay is he referring to?

Defiant wrote:What Putin delay is he referring to?

Putin is delaying any response to Obama's response to Russia's meddling until after the inauguration. Once the Manchurian Candidate is in office, no action will be required.

Max Peck wrote:

Defiant wrote:What Putin delay is he referring to?

Putin is delaying any response to Obama's response to Russia's meddling until after the inauguration. Once the Manchurian Candidate is in office, no action will be required.

Ah, ok.

I do have to wonder how effective Obama's responses to Russia are going to be with Trump coming in. I mean, he can expel the diplomats, but won't that just be a three week holiday for them?

I could be missing something, but the only things I can think of that he' can do that will have something more than an ephemeral effect is 1) having the agencies reveal the info on Russian meddling which he's done and 2) maybe if he can get congress to pass some form of sanctions or something on Russia before he leaves office (that Trump wouldn't be able to undo without support from congress)

Is there something else he can do? (short of starting a war, I guess)

Obama is also coordinating with our European allies, who have their own knowledge of Russian hacking and are commited to extending the sanctions. Obama's endgame is about making it much harder for Trump to pivot towards Moscow.

Incidentally, while it's barely being reported here in the US, the German elections are experiencing Russian hacking and shamelessly pro-Russian WikiLeaking in ways that look very familiar.

If Trump takes office and starts downplaying or rejecting U.S. intelligence agencies, their Euro counterparts are ready to step in with reports of their own.

Holman wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

Can we put in place a temporary ban on all inauguration activities until we can figure out what the hell is going on?

Yet another example of Trump openly siding with a foreign power against his own domestic political opponents.

How many times does this happen before we forget that this was never, ever, ever, ever normal in American democracy?

Siding with them?

By welcoming the news they wouldn't be kicking people out and shutting things down?

How dare he!

Rip wrote: Siding with them?

By welcoming the news they wouldn't be kicking people out and shutting things down?

How dare he!

Yes. It's no surprise that it's too nuanced for you.

Is there a point where inauguration fascination gets its own thread?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau ... a08f76147?

Never heard of her until I saw this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_White

Wait, Trump converted to Christianity? From what?

https://paulawhite.org/product/2016-eff ... evotional/

http://www.ndcc.tv/

Not a single thing on charity or community or God on her website, but rather $80 books on how to use God to get stuff? Well, I suppose it would make sense this would be Trump's pastor.

Dammit, this is going to be just like Nam all over again, isn't it? Kids shirking their responsibilities and heading for the Great White North (all things considered, you'd think that sobriquet would scare them off).

For some college-bound students distressed by the election of Donald Trump, Canada is calling.

Colleges from Quebec to British Columbia say applications and website traffic from the United States have been surging since Trump's victory Nov. 8. Although many Canadian schools had also ramped up recruiting in the U.S. recently, some say dismay over the presidential election has fueled a spike in interest beyond their expectations.

Lara Godoff, a 17-year-old from Napa, California, said she scrapped any notion of staying in the U.S. the day after the election. Among other concerns, Godoff, a Democrat, said she fears Trump's administration will ease enforcement of federal rules against sexual assault, making campuses less safe for women.

Godoff had applied to one college in Canada but added three more as safety schools after the election.

"If we live in a country where so many people could elect Donald Trump, then that's not a country I want to live in," she said.

Applications to the University of Toronto from American students have jumped 70 percent compared with this time last year, while several other Canadian schools have seen increases of 20 percent or more. U.S. applications to McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, are up 34 percent.

Hereafter, let them be known as Drumpf Dodgers™. Alternatively, if you're an alt-Reichist, you may also refer to them as Freedom Flighters™.

Defiant wrote:
Well, for a start, there's no distinction being made between those outside the blocs and those inside the blocs and Jerusalem.

Kind of like what I wrote, but more eloquent:

By failing to distinguish between settlement expansion deep into the West Bank and reclaiming historical Jewish areas in the heart of Jerusalem, Kerry made the same fundamental error that the Security Council resolution made. Moreover, equating Jewish Jerusalem with Amona and other Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank plays into the hands of Jewish hard right extremists who also believe there is no difference between Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria: both are equally part of the historic Jewish homeland. Kerry thinks they are equally illegal; the right wing extremists believe they are equally legal. Both wrongly believe they are equal.

Kerry's Speech Will Make Peace Harder

Honestly anyone who has been to Jerusalem would be able to say that in no possible peace agreement will Israel give up Jerusalem to Palestine. They never will. Putting Jerusalem with the rest of the west bank makes peace talks a non starter. If that is the official new us policy it's dead on arrival.

Hard to read this without getting the impression that he views his opposition as enemies.

Once he makes the leap from perceiving his "enemies" as not just his own personal adversaries but enemies of the state, we'll be entering really dark times.

I can't imagine Barack Obama mocking his opponents like this even in private.

At least we now know what Donald Trump thinks "Love" means.

Have we ever elected someone as ridiculously childish as this asshat in the past?

If his allure to someone is that he speaks like they do, they should be told they're an asshole.

It's going to be difficult to teach my kid how to not be a sore winner with Trump as President. I mean, I can try telling him "See what the President is saying and doing? That's being a sore winner, don't do that." But then, it's the President saying it, and that's a position that's supposed to be something he can aspire to being, and then it gets complicated.

hepcat wrote:Have we ever elected someone as ridiculously childish as this asshat in the past?

I am far less concerned with this blithering idiot than I am at the disturbingly large number of fellow citizens who see that and *like* it.

We have elected "O'Doyle Rules!" as our President. He'll meet you out by the flagpole after class, unless you're too chicken.

Unreal.

RunningMn9 wrote:

hepcat wrote:Have we ever elected someone as ridiculously childish as this asshat in the past?

I am far less concerned with this blithering idiot than I am at the disturbingly large number of fellow citizens who see that and *like* it.

Sorta agree - he concerns me greatly but I think I can see how people felt in the 30s when they saw the storm coming but couldn't do anything about it. The guy who wrote that tweet can end the world. I know people thought they had good reasons - but they were all bad reasons. He is most likely going to deliver disaster. It is just the form that is unknown. And the long-term damage is astounding already.

malchior wrote:It is just the form that is unknown.

Choose the form of the Destructor!

Abraham Lincoln wrote:"Why, madam, do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"

Abraham Lincoln in response to an elderly lady who had chastised him for not calling Southerners, who he had referred to as fellow human beings who were in error, irreconcilable enemies who must be destroyed. (clipped from Wikipedia of course)

I assume it will take about 10 seconds for Trumptards to latch on to that being Trump's strategy with Putin, but of course, that misses Lincoln's entire point.

malchior wrote:And the long-term damage is astounding already.

I don't even think we've fully come to grips with what a post-Trump Presidency (+4,+8 years) looks like at this point. Pick any of the issues he's mentioned addressing and try to work out what it looks like a decade from now based on the changes he's mulling over via Twitter. I'll pause here to allow die-hard Republicans to come in and complain about how they've been living with the changes made by Barack HUSSEIN Obama so now it's our turn.

Smoove_B wrote:

malchior wrote:And the long-term damage is astounding already.

I don't even think we've fully come to grips with what a post-Trump Presidency (+4,+8 years) looks like at this point. Pick any of the issues he's mentioned addressing and try to work out what it looks like a decade from now based on the changes he's mulling over via Twitter. I'll pause here to allow die-hard Republicans to come in and complain about how they've been living with the changes made by Barack HUSSEIN Obama so now it's our turn.

The fear is that a nation that overturns liberal democracy for authoritarianism can't just go back as if it hadn't happened. The institutions that make our culture work depend on public trust, stability, continuity. Once those institutions lose their foundations they can't just pick up where they left off once sanity is restored. We might need to build a new society because we can't revive the old one.

Read an interesting argument a few days ago about why fascism is rising all over the western world. It went like this: For the first several thousand years of civilization, all forms of governance revolved around an authoritarian strongman. In exchange for obedience you were protected and rewarded. This was easy to understand and it had worked since time immemorial. Then along came the Enlightenment and liberal democracy; suddenly we are sovereign and must govern ourselves. That's a lot harder -- it requires literacy, science, education, etc, and it brings uncertainty and insecurity. Now we yearn for a return to the good old days when everything was simpler. The Enlightenment was just a several-century blip in the many millennia of human societies, and an awful lot of people will be glad when it's over. Trump is a symptom of this movement, not its cause.

The Russians never had anything else.

I should probably clarify that while I find that argument interesting and relevant to Smoove's comment, I think it's a little premature to foretell a new Dark Age.

It's an interesting observation and not one I really considered. I guess I just more or less assumed the trajectory from the Enlightenment continued to go up. It never occurred to me that it could be something that has run its course and we'd might be slowly returning to the way things were. If you happen to recall what you were reading, I'd like to see a link. Again, not that we're going back to Plague Doctors, but the general notion that you further clarified is an interesting one, yes.

Jaymann wrote:The Russians never had anything else.

But they sure had the PR campaign to suggest that they did.

Smoove_B wrote:It's an interesting observation and not one I really considered. I guess I just more or less assumed the trajectory from the Enlightenment continued to go up. It never occurred to me that it could be something that has run its course and we'd might be slowly returning to the way things were. If you happen to recall what you were reading, I'd like to see a link. Again, not that we're going back to Plague Doctors, but the general notion that you further clarified is an interesting one, yes.

Found it. For those who won't click the link, I can't resist posting the accompanying artwork here.

With its emphasis on science, the Enlightenment reshaped the world. Modern prosperity is its legacy — but so is the social upheaval that made prosperity possible. Humanity’s immense material progress has not been matched by moral or political progress. Instead, leadership failures have set off explosions of frustration and discord. Even the two countries where the Enlightenment was born, Britain and France, are being shaken by reactionary movements that reject Enlightenment ideals.

(...)

Our experiment with individual whim as a basis for government is faltering. Popular democracy will survive, but in many places it will fall under the control of greedy elites and cease to be truly popular — as is happening in the United States. Voters cannot help seeing the corruption of their political systems. They express their anger by turning to demagogues who promise a return to the traditional structures that for centuries gave society a predictable order.

In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.

Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/h ... ght-233111

Defiant wrote:

In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.

Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/h ... ght-233111

Morning in America!

Holman wrote:

Defiant wrote:

In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.

Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/h ... ght-233111

Morning in America!

It's a beautiful morning here in the swamp!

Drain the Swamp­™

I am going to hold my breath because we will see Trump protect his working joe and the American peeps any time now...

Serious commentary - this is the NC playbook gone national. Banning livestream quietly. Special sessions announced at the last minute or not announced at all. The GOP coup is under way. Our country is not going to be recognizable to ourselves in a manner of a few year I believe.

Another aside about the tariffs - I am playing a Seafall game on Thursday and the host works for a major International manufacturer of goods. They already did an analysis of the various tariff proposals being kicked around. They were in the middle of spinning up a new manufacturing plant in Mexico and there is 0% chance they will change the plan no matter what happens with a tariff.

The problem is that modern factories are far too expensive now to just shift production back. He explained that for a 10-15 year investment the tariff might set their ROI back something like 8 months from the original plan. Plus they'll just be passing the tax along to the consumer because there aren't any local competitors to undercut it. It is just going to be an extremely regressive tax on goods. I expect they'll see a windfall from it (maybe 2 years?) and agitate to cut taxes on the wealthy even further than is proposed already.

Holman wrote:

Defiant wrote:

In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.

Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/h ... ght-233111

Mourning in America!

Because homonyms are fun!

Let's hear it for the reduction in federal interference!

Let the in-fighting begin!

I think he sees the potential backlash and he's setting himself up as the guy who tried to stop this. Smart move, I must say. I may dislike the man intensely, but he is a consummate survivor.

...as is a cockroach.

malchior wrote:I am going to hold my breath because we will see Trump protect his working joe and the American peeps any time now...

Well color me pleasantly surprised (though he still calls the current process unfair for some reason). Maybe we are going to see chaos instead of pure corruption.

Interesting note - he still shows he doesn't understand how Congress works. This isn't their first priority - it is one of the last acts of the soon to be ended Congress. Not that the every man cares but it shows a disconnect that his frenemies in Congress will possibly exploit.