192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
blatham
 
  4  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 09:48 am
Though it may surprise some, I actually have a lot of affinity for what Kristol says here:
Quote:
I guess I’ll make this point. You mentioned earlier about people being so unhappy. There’s something a little crazy about our discourse now, I think. I mean, America in 2016, 2017 is not the worst country in the history of the world to live in.

The liberal world order, with America at its core over the last 70 years, has not produced the worst 70 years in history of the world, let alone in the history of the last 100 years.

We kind of know what the first half of the 20th century was like. It’s not so that there hasn’t been progress in a huge number of social spheres. Here, I will argue against conservatives and give liberals some credit for that.

People are just too unhappy with the status quo, in my opinion. If you came down and looked at America and at the world, you’d say there’s a fair amount to be happy and be grateful for.

And that’s always what conservatives were pretty good at, actually, was making the point to progressives that, “Hey, slow down here. There’s a lot to be grateful for, and you shouldn’t take it for granted before you race off to change this or that.” That’s a kind of sensible conservative instinct. And it would be nice to have a bit of a return of that.


I think we've all seen that knee-jerk and unthoughtful claim or presumption from progessives like myself that "If it's old/traditional, it stinks and stultifies, so get rid of it, the faster the better". And the converse from some conservatives that "The new is untested and pushing for it will very possibly bring down working systems that time has proved stable". So he gets that right, I think.

Also, Kristol makes a profoundly important point when he says that the US (and we could include modern western nations) isn't a hell hole. I, for example, have never been hungry. It doesn't follow from this that the institutions and laws and norms we've built up apply equally to everyone of that we shouldn't fight for improvement. Likewise, it doesn't follow that our institutions, laws and norms, as positive as they are, will protect themselves or us in the future. People like Steve Bannon will always be around, with the goal of tearing everything down, and they will find followers.
BillW
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 10:09 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Trump administration does abrupt about-face, says no oil drilling off Florida coast
After pressure from Republican Gov. Rick Scott to reverse course, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke declared offshore drilling “off the table” in politically important Florida.
WP

As I've said before, integrity and consistency of principles play no part in modern conservatism. Power is everything.

and, preservation of personal wealth!
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  3  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 10:18 am
@blatham,
blatham, Brooks has always been an apologist for Republican waywardness. I know there are a major number of Republicans that deplore tRump. I am very, very hard on all Republicans because the majority give tRump and his actions a pass. They have got to take back their party in full, not just moderate like Brooks! Kristol, Frum and many others are screaming for the full throated reversal that is needed IMHO!
revelette1
 
  4  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 10:20 am
@blatham,
I don't know, but, I come at it from a different side. I am thinking what is going to work for democrats in the mid terms and beyond. If we keep being obsessed with Trump's tweets and his stupidness (not a word) so to speak, we might be in danger of overlooking what he is doing to the country with his extreme right wing agenda which has been going underneath radar almost. With another conservative like Pence or Romney, we would have the same problem. In almost every poll, most of the policies democrats have, more than half usually agree with. We need to emphasize the contrast between the republicans in congress and democrat policies.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 10:33 am
@blatham,
It's not just him though, there are others in his team who have both. As far as Iran goes,Trump's actions since becoming president are to isolate the reformists and embolden the hardliners.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 10:44 am
Quote:
The ex-British spy who compiled a dossier on Donald Trump feared he was being blackmailed by the Kremlin, US Congress has heard.

Former intelligence agent Christopher Steele took his concerns to the FBI in July 2016, the Senate was told.

It was also claimed during the hearing that someone has been killed because of the dossier.

The opposition research was reportedly funded by Trump-rival Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic party.

What was the testimony about?

Tuesday's allegations emerged in a 312-page transcript of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing from last August.

It featured testimony by Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the Washington firm that commissioned the Steele dossier.

Mr Simpson defended the research file, which purported to show financial and personal links between Mr Trump, his advisers and Moscow.

The Senate committee is one of three congressional panels investigating Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential election and claims of collusion with the Trump campaign.

The White House and many Republicans have argued the Fusion GPS dossier and claims of collusion are a political smear, devoid of credibility.

What was the Trump blackmail claim?

No evidence has emerged that Mr Trump was blackmailed by the Kremlin.

But in his closed-door session, Mr Simpson told senators: "He [former British spy Christopher Steele] thought from his perspective there was an issue - a security issue about whether a presidential candidate was being blackmailed."

The Fusion GPS founder also said: "Chris said he was very concerned about whether this represented a national security threat and said he wanted to - he said he thought we were obligated to tell someone in government, in our government about this information."

The dossier contained an unsubstantiated claim that Mr Trump was once filmed with prostitutes at a hotel in the Russian capital.

Mr Trump himself poured scorn on that allegation a year ago, saying he has always been on guard against hidden cameras in Moscow hotel suites.

There has been no comment from the FBI about Mr Simpson's testimony.

Who was supposedly killed?

During his 10 hours of congressional testimony, Mr Simpson was cagey on the origins of claims in the dossier.

The Fusion GPS chief's lawyer, Joshua Levy, interrupted to say: "[Mr Simpson] wants to be very careful to protect his sources.

"Somebody's already been killed as a result of the publication of this dossier and no harm should come to anybody related to this honest work."

Mr Levy did not identify the person he said had died.

However, a source told CNN the attorney's remark did not refer to any specific death, but instead alluded to a string of unsolved fatalities of Russians after the 2016 election that have preoccupied conspiracy theorists.

Can Simpson's testimony be trusted?

Several news organisations, including the BBC, were briefed on the dossier before the November 2016 election.

However, most decided not to report on the material because its sometimes lewd content could not be verified.

One of Mr Simpson's previous targets, US-born financier Bill Browder, has called him a liar who acts at Russia's behest.

Mr Browder, a Kremlin critic who was once the subject of damaging allegations by Fusion GPS, told the New York Times about Mr Simpson: "He's a professional smear campaigner and liar for money."

Why was the testimony released now?

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, released the transcript of the hearing from five months ago, saying Mr Simpson had asked her to do so.

She said she had taken the step because of the "innuendo and misinformation" circulating about Fusion GPS.

Ms Feinstein said this was "part of a deeply troubling effort to undermine the investigation into potential collusion and obstruction of justice".

It comes after the committee's Republican chairman, Charles Grassley, last week called for a criminal investigation into Mr Steele.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42628347
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
hightor
 
  3  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 11:58 am
@blatham,
I was glad to see Kristol's comments too but I'm wary of a guy who was known to readers of the New York Times as Bill "Always Wrong" Kristol.
Kristol wrote:
People are just too unhappy with the status quo, in my opinion. If you came down and looked at America and at the world, you’d say there’s a fair amount to be happy and be grateful for.

What about the "American carnage" that Bannon had Trump refer to in that dystopian inaugural address?

This "unhappiness" is built in to the US election cycle. One party gets their president in and maybe he manages to win two terms. It's almost guaranteed that by the time the second term is ending the opposition party will be blaming everything from the weather to some coup in East Fuckistan on the party in power. The worked-up electorate dutifully lines up to "throw the bums out".

Our culture industry works hard to fill our imaginations with visions of and desire for this "good life" which we all no doubt deserve simply by having been born here. And when economic forces upset long-established communities people stand by, helpless and resentful, wondering how they'll ever manage to snag that big screen TV that was going to be such an incredible improvement in their lives. Oh well, a few handfuls of Vicodin will make everything better for a while.
hightor
 
  6  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 12:14 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Obviously they are members of the "enlightened progressives" who voted for Hillary, eh?

No, actually it isn't "obvious". I didn't see any mention of a political connection. In fact it looks more like the work of opioid-eaters looking to make some cash. Hell, if they even voted at all they probably voted for Trump.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -4  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 02:13 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Hey, it never hurts to ask, eh? I mean, like, a HOT 17 year old, in your car, on a desolate road--who wouldn't?


That said, hell hath no fury, as they say:

Quote:
Woodson told The New York Times she was disgusted after watching Savage’s speech online. “It’s disgusting,” Woodson said while crying. Woodson told The Times the matter was never “dealt with” because she never reported her allegations to authorities. She said she went to authorities Monday to make a report, but it was not immediately clear if the statute of limitations had expired.

It aint clear what "the authorities" could have done, then or now, about the fact that this 22 year old guy was horny. Wait, I forgot--that's a crime now.

Well, that aint the important thing anyway. Maybe she can be on the cover to Time next year and be famous, eh?

Meeeetoo, I tellzya!
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
blatham
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 02:45 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
blatham, Brooks has always been an apologist for Republican waywardness.
Having watched/listened to Brooks on Lehrer's show for a few years, I have a better opinion of him that that.

It's valid (and necessary) to be critical of modern Republicans even aside from Trump, I think. Much of what we see going on would have happened with a Cruz or probably even a Jeb Bush presidency because of what the party has become.
layman
 
  -4  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 02:47 pm
@layman,
This Cooke guy sounds like an inveterate sexual assaulter, eh? It there ANYONE he hasn't harassed sexually, ya gotta ax?

0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 02:52 pm
@blatham,
In my own way, that was a good review. He and I see and think along the same lines. But, I'm not an apologist for the right, he is. I have always considered myself a centrist. Just that when the government has to step in to play, it is on the side of WE THE PEOPLE, the most important words ever put side by side in print! Not, we the rich or we the businesses or we the money.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jan, 2018 02:53 pm
@revelette1,
Quote:
With another conservative like Pence or Romney, we would have the same problem.
I see it the same way. The policies being pushed (often below the radar as you suggest) would mostly be identical.
Quote:
We need to emphasize the contrast between the republicans in congress and democrat policies.
Again, I agree. There's a very real problem in getting such messages to rise above the noise (much of it purposeful flak and smoke) but I think that is what makes Trump a rather good element for Dem goals precisely because he's so loud, so incoherent, so obviously a liar, etc. The GOP cannot easily separate themselves from his vulgarity, selfishness and stupidity.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 01/13/2025 at 03:38:58