Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Marshall said:

Regarding the Palestinians, I agree with what you say re the outcome of any process but they should have been invited to be part of the discussion so at the very least they can not say they didn't have the opportunity to change their position.  There was no hurry to conclude an agreement based on any time constraint. 

“ Many Arab countries are fed up with Palestinian extremism “

 

To top it off, many Arab countries are fed up with Palestinian extremism, which has yielded nothing positive for more than 70 years.

Sitting in the room while Trump and Netanyahu made their announcements were the ambassadors of the UAE, Oman and Bahrain. This, a day after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas implored the Arabs to boycott the event, just as he had refused to take Trump’s phone call a day earlier. Immediately following the announcement, Egyptian, Saudi, Emirati, Omani and Bahraini press all urged the Palestinians to seize this opportunity to engage meaningfully with the Israelis. This public rebuke of the Palestinians by their Arab cousins is momentous. Beyond huge. Cosmically game-changing.

Not at all surprising, but disappointing nevertheless, is Abbas’s unequivocal rejection of the American-Israeli overture to negotiate. As have all Palestinian leaders, he continues to tow an absolutist, obstructionist line. Even Yasser Arafat was prepared to pretend to accede to negotiations with the Israelis. Abbas has done nothing to indicate a true interest in negotiating peace.
 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/vivian-bercovici-the-arabs-are-losing-interest-in-the-palestinians-this-is-a-game-changer

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

They receive a tremendous amount of aid from the US and EU… that will have to be leveraged in order to prevail and, for good or ill, Trump is just the guy to do that. The Nobel prize announcements are in Oct, so there isn’t much time.

I believe the US cut aid to Palestine and also to several UN bodies that were working with Palestine.

Trump has stated that he will reinstate the previous funding and more if Palestine will sign the accord.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mo32a said:

I believe the US cut aid to Palestine and also to several UN bodies that were working with Palestine.

True enough, it was cut from the UNRWA.

I really don't see much hope for a negotiated settlement though, they will have to be compelled with carrot and stick. For good or ill, I think Trump is one of the few who not only gets that but is willing to cut a switch and do the compelling.

The history there is interesting and also supports the notion that they have a legitimate grievance, but it's of little value beyond that IMO, they have been overcome by the events of history, there is no going back and they are (mostly) not willing to accept anything less than resetting the clock.... as many who condemn them for it would be in their place. Not an easy nut to crack and the longer they wait, the worse the deal will be for them.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democratic dogs insist on eating their own puppies.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/pete-buttigieg-backlash-american-heartland

It seems those who know nothing about dogs are adept at identifying dog whistles even though they can't actually hear them.

Now, how many moderate Democrats think it's a good idea to run Bernie against the president?

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on the 2nd point....   https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/05/why-working-class-people-vote-conservative

” Here's a more painful but ultimately constructive diagnosis, from the point of view of moral psychology: politics at the national level is more like religion than it is like shopping. It's more about a moral vision that unifies a nation and calls it to greatness than it is about self-interest or specific policies. In most countries, the right tends to see that more clearly than the left. In America the Republicans did the hard work of drafting their moral vision in the 1970s, and Ronald Reagan was their eloquent spokesman. Patriotism, social order, strong families, personal responsibility (not government safety nets) and free enterprise. Those are values, not government programmes.“

” The Democrats, in contrast, have tried to win voters' hearts by promising to protect or expand programmes for elderly people, young people, students, poor people and the middle class. Vote for us and we'll use government to take care of everyone! But most Americans don't want to live in a nation based primarily on caring. That's what families are for.“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another Be Careful What You Wish For scenario: in a fantasy world, the Senate convicts Trump and he is removed from office.

Guess who takes over?

 

Pence.jpeg

Edited by Moon The Loon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chief Justice Roberts position there doesn’t allow him to be swept along with partisan posturing…. Warren knew that before posing the question.  He is there because it is his constitutional duty to be there. This show now belongs to the Senate; lock stock and barrel, they decide.

The collective loss of faith with government doesn’t emanate from people like him, it comes from partisans like Warren…. a cheap shot IMO that only plays to other partisans.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, you could always take the time to override executive privilege in the supreme court and get him to read the transcript. The House could have followed the Clinton impeachment model too.... what happened there?

IMO, the whistle blower is the very definition of superfluous.... the transcript is there for anyone to read, his interpretation of that transcript is no more authoritative than your's or mine.

Any witness called by the Democrats would be countered by one from the Republicans. Biden was in charge of the Ukraine file. He elected to withhold aid until the Ukraine Chief Prosecutor was fired and that sounds (to me) like the very abuse of power the Democrats allege took place in the conversation we have the transcript of.

Was he motivated by the fact that Hunter would be implicated? Want to find out? I say call the witnesses and let the great axe fall where the offence lies. There had better be a bunny, and he better be a big bunny,

I would also contend that Bernie has a grievance here as well, a few months from the election, and with the Iowa primary pending, there he is.... mandatory attendance in the Senate hearings. Much like Chief Justice Roberts. Lest you think I'm taking sides here.... my interest is purely tactical. Based on that assertion, I still maintain that my neighbours blind goat could have orchestrated this better than the Democrats have. Do you want to be right or do you want to win?

In other news, the old guard DNC members are in a panic, they know Bernie is unelectable so individual contributor rules have been dropped for Nevada.... they are shouting ""GO MIKE" and don't even care who notices or how it looks. I say it looks transparent, stop snowing the Snow Queen... snow is her specialty, did you think she wouldn't notice?

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas: "I'm concerned if we don't impeach this President, he will get reelected.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, D-N.Y.: “[Impeaching Trump] is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome [in 2020].”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.: “The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box.”

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy Green: The impeachment spectacle is politics at its most dismal

am900-hamilton_headshots_300x300_roy-green.png?w=68&h=68&crop=1
BY ROY GREEN GLOBAL NEWS
 

Was there a time when politics was truly honourable? You know, a time when good people set aside private pursuits and dedicated their lives to the public good? A time when exhortation, accusation and blatantly false promising weren’t the building blocks for assuming stewardship of the people’s interests?

OK, perhaps a cynic’s perspective, but let me assume for the time it takes to read this commentary that my view is shared by a significant crosssection of society. And here’s the case for you, the jury.

Watching the spiderweb attempt to impeach Donald John Trump, 45th president of the United States, has become alternately confusing, irritating and underwhelming.

In presentation, the impeachment effort was from the start a sidebar to the Nov. 3, 2020, federal election, with Democratic Party members of the House of Representatives attempting to engineer a presidential phone call into a coup.

To be sure, there were no banana republic colonels wearing fatigues and sporting .45-calibre pistols on web belts engaged here. Just familiar faces barking well worn shrill demands for the ouster of a president because they fear the American people won’t do it for them in the fall. the courage or not to do, he will be impeached forever’: Pelosi on Trump

Republican Party adversaries predictably shouted their defence of Trump, which at its most fundamental consisted of something akin to “wellwhataboutwhatObamadid?”

 

 ‘There’s nothing new here’: Republicans downplay allegations from John Bolton

In recent days, as the impeachment effort relocated from the House to the trial in the U.S. Senate, the scene has become more formal but hardly more relevant.

The Senate chamber has been populated by not only its bespoke-suited regular occupants, but also by brilliant lawyers and constitutional university professors, with the entire proceeding overseen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

As the process wobbles to a conclusion, the question becomes, what have we witnessed?

A sham! Why? Because the outcome from the beginning was never in doubt, no more so than it was during a similar attempt to dethrone William Jefferson Clinton about 20 or so years ago. Only that time, it was Republicans shouting accusations and Democrats defending the political turf, read, the Oval Office.

I’m not suggesting either Trump or Clinton are citizens with records of completely ethical behaviour. Far from it. But were their actions, and in Clinton’s case, documented lying over his sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, ever going to result in removal from office?

The objective of the current impeachment television spectacle is to sow as much doubt as possible in the minds of voters in swing states who will on Nov. 3 more than likely prove to be the ultimate arbiters on whether Trump leaves office after only one term.

If cynicism about politics and political process abounds, the goings-on in Washington at this time just might underscore why.

Roy Green is the host of the Roy Green Show on the Global News Radio network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"After hours of debate during the day on Friday, the Senate voted 51 to 49 to block a Democratic motion to call new witnesses. The vote came after vehement demands from Democrats to call former national security adviser John Bolton to testify about the Trump-Ukraine saga."

It's over.... war doesn't determine who is right, only who is left.

They will now turn the guns on each other. By removing the donor threshold, the DNC has paved the way for Bloomberg to participate in the next debate, essentially allowing him to buy his way in.... I'm guessing this won't play well with those constantly maligning the 1%.

Since progressives are unelectable, and the only people who don't believe that are progressives, the party stands on the brink of a civil war. The only unifying force here is their collective hatred of DJT and the old guard must be horrified at what they see. 

"Unity of command" is a principle of war and (IMO), politics and warfare have much in common. What makes this interesting to me is their total disregard of each and every such principle along the way. So far, this has served them poorly. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

Sadly, I don't think this one is satire...

It's actually the continuous continuation of what hasn't been working for them. If nothing else though, I salute the dogged determination of Democrats to annoy those not already annoyed, to alienate moderates within their own party, and their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of easy victory. 

Im curious, if you were in charge of the DNC war room at what point would you pivot.... or would you? Do you think the road they have chosen is the path to victory or is it riddled with IEDs?

The first thing I would do is remove Lord Cardigan (or the reincarnation of same) from command and replace all of the staff officers. Then I'd stop insulting people who voted for Republican candidates and set Congress to work on the issues of the day. The squad would be read the riot act and would either toe the line or be cut loose to sit as independents. 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it matter if I was in charge?

The order to obstruct came down from the top and the GOP closed ranks and stood by it's leader regardless of legality or constitutionality.

What this does do is set the precedent for more abuse of power.  After the party a Mar a Lago this weekend, come Monday the deconstruction of the constitution will accelerate.

Not good for the U.S..  Definitely not good for those dealing with them.

Following this example, which was approved by the GOP Senate, if Trump isn't re-elected in Nov, then it would also be legal for him not to turn over the presidency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

What does it matter if I was in charge?

 

I thought this was an opinion forum.

Invoking executive privilege isn't obstruction and there is a remedy for it.... unless you are in a hurry, have a deadline or assert that future presidents shouldn't invoke it either.

In any case, if you can identify the wrong path, surely you can change the compass heading based on the observed deviation..... no? By definition, the wrong path takes you somewhere you don't want to go. Unless you think they are on the right path.... in which case stay the course. Personally, I don't but again, my interest is in the tactics.

If there is no rational discussion of rational alternatives and the means of achieving them, all we are left with with is monkeys hurling their excrement at members of other monkey troops. It's not a winning strategy in the face of organized opposition.

If people who support a party don't have an opinion on how it should conduct itself in the face of opposing forces.... well, I don't know where ya go with that and all I can say is bonne chance and welcome to the Democratic Party.

BTW, morale is one of those pesky principles as well and this has energized Trumps base in a way he likely couldn't have engineered without the willing assistance of Democrats.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

if Trump isn't re-elected in Nov, then it would also be legal for him not to turn over the presidency?

Yes... clearly I and others have been suggesting that very thing as a rational consequence. In light of an impeachment attempt doomed to failure from day one, It's the only reasonable conclusion a thoughtful person could come to, right?

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Chief Justice Roberts position there doesn’t allow him to be swept along with partisan posturing…. Warren knew that before posing the question.  He is there because it is his constitutional duty to be there. This show now belongs to the Senate; lock stock and barrel, they decide.

The collective loss of faith with government doesn’t emanate from people like him, it comes from partisans like Warren…. a cheap shot IMO that only plays to other partisans.

This episode only goes to show the cowardly nature of the right wing.

People elect governments to uphold the rules.  What has happened here is the GOP has cowardly hidden behind the excuse of 'letting the people decide' in the next election.  The unfortunate thing with that is twofold.  First, the jerrymandering in republican states has tilted the playing field severely one way.  They know that. That's why they failed to do their job and enforce the rules of the U.S. Constitution.

Secondly, they know their core supporters aren't smart enough to figure out what is really going on.  They rely on that.  They know that MAGA stands for Make America White Again.  Why do I say that?  Here's a study that proves it.  https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters

So by being cowardly and kicking it down the road, they know they are going to usurp the Constitution to ensure their own profitable existence.

 

Non Educated.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, a couple of posts above I suggested a moratorium on insulting those cowardly, racist, stupid-white Republican voters because it’s demonstrably counterproductive. I take it all back, stay the course, you’re doing great.

Is it white-stupid or stupid-white? When insulting the freaks it’s important to get the finer points right…

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this