POTUS Donald Trump

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm failing to see how Israel is an afflicted group here.  They have all the power. They have nukes. They have a first rate military and first rate infrastructure. The only Arab nations with even a quasi-decent military are the ones that wouldn't attack them, and even then Israel is in far better condition than the Saudi's.

 

Yeah, plenty of people hate them. I'm not arguing that. But that's also a 5000 year old family feud.  There's a reason the founding fathers wanted to avoid entangling alliances, and this is it... even if it wasn't a remote possibliity when they wrote the constitution.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm failing to see how Israel is an afflicted group here.  They have all the power. They have nukes. They have a first rate military and first rate infrastructure. The only Arab nations with even a quasi-decent military are the ones that wouldn't attack them, and even then Israel is in far better condition than the Saudi's.

 

Yeah, plenty of people hate them. I'm not arguing that. But that's also a 5000 year old family feud.  There's a reason the founding fathers wanted to avoid entangling alliances, and this is it... even if it wasn't a remote possibliity when they wrote the constitution.

 

Yes, they have all the power.  And they choose to use it only to defend themselves where, if the situation was reversed, they would cease to exist.

 

The point is, no matter who you are, how much power you have, or what you stand for - if you are in a feud where one side refuses to recognize your basic right to exist and will honor no concession or offer peace.....why is it at all your fault?  Why, if you are open to talks and concessions and peace but the other side is adamantly intractable and will accept nothing but your complete surrender and death.....why are you the bad guy in that scenario?

 

Why isn't the intractable, violent side the one we're focused on?  Because we have such low expectations for them that we've just given up? 

[drjim]

Anyone enjoy Trumps New Years tweet this morning?

 

Will be interesting to see how he uses executive power against his political opponents. Might open up something that can never be bottled again.

[drjim]

I also find it pretty interesting that he has by far the highest negatives of an incoming president and they haven't really budged. It's going to be ugly.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Anyone enjoy Trumps New Years tweet this morning?

Will be interesting to see how he uses executive power against his political opponents. Might open up something that can never be bottled again.

 

There is a worrying trend of each administration broadening it's executive power now for about 20 years.  Each time the party in office defends it little realizing the power it'll give the other side later.  

 

In terms of my concern for fascism in this country, that trend is by far the most worrying aspect.  We've allowed too much already.

[DaveW]

Holy crap, that tweet.

What a tw*t.

[DaveW]

I will say this: Trump's inevitable downfall is going to be fascinating, amazing and so so satisfying.

 

[drjim]

I will say this: Trump's inevitable downfall is going to be fascinating, amazing and so so satisfying.

 

 

True, but I still don't see where it comes yet. Our institutions are weak but no individual is steong enough to take everyone one.

 

The Rs are united enough in their dislike of Obama/Dems and the desire to pass their agenda, but the first part is meaningless come Jan 20 and cracks in the second leads to cracks in the unity.

[Badsmerf]

I'm hopeful Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Rand Paul will continue to stand against Trump on egregious issues. Paul Ryan has even joined in the dissension toward Russia. The crack still exists within the Republican party. I think it's clear smart individuals in the party are toeing a fine line with Trump. Taking the side of Russia is not going to win points with people that lived through the cold war, or those whom believe Russia is a major part of the humanitarian crises in Syria. The list is long, that is just a taste. I am honestly still shocked he won.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Yes, they have all the power.  And they choose to use it only to defend themselves where, if the situation was reversed, they would cease to exist.

My issue here is that they haven't chosen to use it "only to defend themselves."  Razing farms, starving people, destroying peoples homes so you can build more of your own... I don't buy that this is only in self defense. It's not. They are doing it because they can. The world is upset about this and rightfully so.  It's wrong.  Period.  The Jews were evicted from that land in 70 AD by the Roman empire. They returned almost 1900 years later. If they want to buy that land and build their cities, by all means do so.  But forcibly evicting its inhabitants is not self defense. 

 

The point is, no matter who you are, how much power you have, or what you stand for - if you are in a feud where one side refuses to recognize your basic right to exist and will honor no concession or offer peace.....why is it at all your fault?  Why, if you are open to talks and concessions and peace but the other side is adamantly intractable and will accept nothing but your complete surrender and death.....why are you the bad guy in that scenario?

 

Have I said it is all their fault?  I've made it rather clear that there are radicals on both sides. I think we'd be wise to stay out. That's what I think. We become the bad guy when we take a side, especially one that we all know stinks just as bad as the other. We take that side for an agenda, not for right and wrong.

 

[quote name="TheLeviathan" post="570272" timestamp="1483207051"

Why isn't the intractable, violent side the one we're focused on?  Because we have such low expectations for them that we've just given up?We focus plenty on the 'violent side' in this culture. Goodness, just listen to all the anti-islam stuff out there right now. It's not like they are getting a free pass either. I'm against the whole 'the enemy of enemy must be my friend' idea that couples with the blatant hypocrisy that looks the other way when my friend does something bad.

[TheLeviathan]

 

My issue here is that they haven't chosen to use it "only to defend themselves."  Razing farms, starving people, destroying peoples homes so you can build more of your own... I

 
 
Have I said it is all their fault?  I've made it rather clear that there are radicals on both sides. I think we'd be wise to stay out. That's what I think. We become the bad guy when we take a side, especially one that we all know stinks just as bad as the other. We take that side for an agenda, not for right and wrong.
 
We focus plenty on the 'violent side' in this culture. Goodness, just listen to all the anti-islam stuff out there right now. It's not like they are getting a free pass either. I'm against the whole 'the enemy of enemy must be my friend' idea that couples with the blatant hypocrisy that looks the other way when my friend does something bad.

 

Point 1: You're hyperbolizing the Gaza blockade.  Using this sort of language one could determine that every form of sanction is "starving people to death".  Hell, we're starving Russians because of a cyber attack by your logic.  How evil are we?

 

Hardship is part of the point, certainly.  It's a recourse instead of violence that every country in the world uses when they are threatened but want to weaken their enemy in non-military ways.  The Gaza blockade is being done by Israel (and Egypt by the way) because Hamas - a terrorist organization - is using Gaza as a means to attack Israel.  The same Hamas that has legitimate authority inside Palestine because the people support them.  

 

I'd venture to guess again that if the Gaza Strip and Hamas chose not to fire rockets into Israel they'd lift the blockade.  Care to take a guess as to what Hamas promises?  More of this.  They are entitled to not die.  And the people you want to exalt as the victims elected a party that calls Bin Laden a holy warrior, promises Jewish extinction, and other doozies.  Do you just not understand what Hamas is?

 

Point 2: the sentence "There are radicals on both sides" sets about to make an equivalency.  They DO NOT stink as bad as the other.  One seeks genocide, one seeks survival.  The survival group does overstep at times.  But they never match genocide.  Not even remotely.  It is total horse *#@^$ to suggest they are as bad as each other.  

 

Point 3: This isn't enemy of my enemy, this is recognizing who is the problem.  Who is preventing peace.  Who is intractable.  Who needs to change before anything will happen.  Israel could do EVERYTHING you demand and guess what?  The other side will still want them dead.  

 

I'll try this way: Every now and then someone will retaliate against a racist in a way that I'm sure we'd all condemn, by your same logic now both sides "stink".  I guess I view that retaliation as unfortunate,but I can condemn that single act and still recognize that the larger problem isn't somehow balanced by that act.  That peace still is impossible because of the racist, not because one racist was retaliated against.  Things aren't now equal, I would never now refer to the problem of racism as "both sides stink", if I do I've lost all context.  But I'm afraid that is the root issue.

 

I love this video.  I have to imagine your average lefty, anti-Israel person, or whomever has such a misguided view of this situation was loving the beginning of it.  That it speaks to all of the things you think are true.  And then at the end you get a cold dose of reality.  

 

That's the reality of this issue.  I don't think you fully appreciate what that reaction at the end does to a people.  To be surrounded by people that will present themselves as victims and misunderstood but at the end of the day they want to see your whole people die.  That they want that. And this wasn't some hardened Hamas jihadist.  This was a student in America that isn't afraid to say she hopes Jews will gather to make their extinction easier.  This is the sentiment, the stated goal of the elected officials of her government.  Process that for a little while and tell me again that a blockade is all that terrible in light of that sentiment.

[Craig Arko]

New Zealand responds to Netanyahu's saber rattling.

 

[Craig Arko]

And in other news, the Republican-controlled Congress says "Ethics? We don't need no stinking ethics!"

[Mike Sixel]

Nothing the Party does will surprise me anymore. It's almost like they are trolling the people at this point. And yet, my right wing friends that HATE Hillary and Obama are still defending them...Obama was/is the cause of all the divisiveness, you know....

[D. Hocking]

It bothers me a little (or maybe a lot) of how the media initially fashioned their headlines to credit Trump's tweet for Congress backtracking on gutting the ethics committee, even though it was reported that it was 1000s of calls from the public that made them reconsider.  Similar to a number of the job announcements when it is later revealed he had nothing to do with the various company decisions.

 

The media is still largely treating him with kid gloves.  He will say something -- they will report whatever he is taking credit for as fact when by now they should know his definition of the truth is a little broad and not always reliable.  Later they might have a second page story clarifying how Trump's statement was misleading (reluctant to actually call him a liar).  When all is said in down, his initial statement of how he cured cancer or engineered the Cubs victory is what people remember and the tepid clarification is missed by a large portion of the population.

 

 

[drjim]

I will admit that today was the first day I felt slightly less bad about the upcoming couple of years.

 

Trump may realize that every time he bucks the Republican congress he'll get glowing national press, which is something he clearly desires. That, combined with individuals like Bannon who, despite his many terrible attributes, does want to humiliate Rs and especially Ryan.

 

All this does open up the possibility that Trump and Congress end up going at each other more than actually do anything, which is probably a best case scenario.

 

Alas, doesn't do a whole lot for foreign policy.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Alas, doesn't do a whole lot for foreign policy.

 

Which I consider to be the top place where the executive office can make a direct difference.

 

I also don't consider Paul Ryan the problem.  (He was apparently fighting the ethics committee thing from the start) I disagree with him on a number of policy issues, but I think he's generally well meaning.  

 

I'm rooting for him, someone has to reign these whackos in.  I'm not sure who else could do it.  (I guess....Trump now as well?)

[Craig Arko]

The outgoing President just published a 56 page article in the Harvard Law Review about reforming the Criminal Justice System.

 

The incoming President tweeted Saturday Night Live was being mean to him.

[Badsmerf]

Can you link it? I would (might) enjoy reading that.

[Craig Arko]

Can you link it? I would (might) enjoy reading that.

I have this:

 

http://mashable.com/2017/01/05/obama-writes-for-harvard-law-review/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link#6oNKA3PdyPqN

[D. Hocking]

 

The outgoing President just published a 56 page article in the Harvard Law Review about reforming the Criminal Justice System.

 

The incoming President tweeted Saturday Night Live was being mean to him.

 

 It takes a lot of skill to craft a response in 145 characters.  You really have to know how to get to the heart of the matter.  President Obama had it much easier by being able to ramble for 56 pages.  Plus I bet he did not have any one word statements followed by exclamation point to really bring the point across.  Sad!

 

[Do you think he has even spent time reading 56 pages in preparation for the job?  I would have to think there is some sort of learning curve he should be trying to handle.]

[Craig Arko]

It takes a lot of skill to craft a response in 145 characters.  You really have to know how to get to the heart of the matter.  President Obama had it much easier by being able to ramble for 56 pages.  Plus I bet he did not have any one word statements followed by exclamation point to really bring the point across.  Sad!

 

[Do you think he has even spent time reading 56 pages in preparation for the job?  I would have to think there is some sort of learning curve he should be trying to handle.]

Statecraft has risen to new heights.

[PseudoSABR]

[Craig Arko]

The intelligence report on Russian hacking.

 

http://documents.latimes.com/read-us-intelligence-report-russian-hacking/

[D. Hocking]

 

 

Is the lower pic the annual Twins Daily moderator holiday party?

 

[sadly would probably be better if the people in the lower pic were in charge.]

[ashbury]

[sadly would probably be better if the people in the lower pic were in charge.]

[twinsnorth49]

 

Is the lower pic the annual Twins Daily moderator holiday party?

 

[sadly would probably be better if the people in the lower pic were in charge.]

[PseudoSABR]

Interesting tidbit from Nick Carfardo:

7. House Speaker Paul Ryan’s distant cousin is former Twins GM Terry Ryan, now an adviser to the Phillies.

[DaveW]

Interesting tidbit from Nick Carfardo:

Both know how to run once respected entity's into the ground.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Let me tell you where to put that wall. Mr. President Elect.

image.jpeg

No surprise on the reversal on the wall.  I'm honestly surprised (and I shouldn't be) how many anti-establishment, anti-corruption Trump supporters are totally gun-ho about Russia and Trump's uber-elite cabinet picks.  Trump could nominate Clinton for a cabinet position and his supporters would somehow still find a way to stand behind him.  It's scary how entrenched so many Americans are.