The Trump Agenda
terp said:
Say what you will about Trump's agenda. Like it or not, it seems he is going after his campaign promises aggressively.
IIRC Obama ran 8 years ago as the Constitutional/peace candidate. He even took home a nobel. He then doubled down on cracking down on 4th amendment violations, was the harshest president ever on whistle blowers. Ran drone attacks across the middle east and de-stabilize the entire region. Gave up on closing Guantanamo when it became politically difficult.
He has broken his promise to release his tax returns, which has ramifications for his entire agenda.
His nomination of Price to HHS raises doubts about his commitment to Medicare and his nomination of Mulvaney raises doubts about his commitment to not cut Social Security or Medicare.
hoops said:
there were 41 prisoners left in Guantanamo when Obama left. I'd say he did as well as could be expected with that.
Obama was never the "peace" candidate.
He just isnt the war profiteer that the republicans vote for every cycle. Drone attacks very likely are the method and reasoning why al Qaeda is neutralized and ISIS is losing, so you can pick your poison.
Of course terp, you can have your isolationist point of view and determine whatever you like from that viewpoint. I would just caution you to not twist your description of the former president in order to prop up the current one. I think history is going to be very kind when looking at the differences between prior to Obama and subsequent to Obama.
Drone attacks, which kill innocent civilians, were a big factor in the rise of ISIS.
It's debatable whether Al Qaeda "is neutralized" and ISIS "is losing."
The amount of civilian deaths in Yemen, caused by US-supported Saudi air strikes is staggering. Trump's first drone strikes were in Yemen, killing 10 Al Qaeda "suspects." How many new terrorists were recruited by that action?
huffpo.com: Federal Workers Told To Halt External Communication In First Week Under Trump
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-communication-freeze_us_58878b3ae4b0441a8f7114e2
paulsurovell said:
hoops said:
there were 41 prisoners left in Guantanamo when Obama left. I'd say he did as well as could be expected with that.
Obama was never the "peace" candidate.
He just isnt the war profiteer that the republicans vote for every cycle. Drone attacks very likely are the method and reasoning why al Qaeda is neutralized and ISIS is losing, so you can pick your poison.
Of course terp, you can have your isolationist point of view and determine whatever you like from that viewpoint. I would just caution you to not twist your description of the former president in order to prop up the current one. I think history is going to be very kind when looking at the differences between prior to Obama and subsequent to Obama.
Drone attacks, which kill innocent civilians, were a big factor in the rise of ISIS.
It's debatable whether Al Qaeda "is neutralized" and ISIS "is losing."
The amount of civilian deaths in Yemen, caused by US-supported Saudi air strikes is staggering. Trump's first drone strikes were in Yemen, killing 10 Al Qaeda "suspects." How many new terrorists were recruited by that action?
Your first statement is utterly false. ISIS is risen directly from the Bush administrations war in Iraq and the disbandment of the Basque forces.
I'll trust what Obama has said publicly regarding these organizations, you can trust your Greenwald or whoever you prefer.
Heres a very disappointing and frankly fascist action by the Trump administration
hoops said:
paulsurovell said:Your first statement is utterly false. ISIS is risen directly from the Bush administrations war in Iraq and the disbandment of the Basque forces.
Drone attacks, which kill innocent civilians, were a big factor in the rise of ISIS.
It's debatable whether Al Qaeda "is neutralized" and ISIS "is losing."
The amount of civilian deaths in Yemen, caused by US-supported Saudi air strikes is staggering. Trump's first drone strikes were in Yemen, killing 10 Al Qaeda "suspects." How many new terrorists were recruited by that action?
I'll trust what Obama has said publicly regarding these organizations, you can trust your Greenwald or whoever you prefer.
I said drones were a "big factor." Apart from using drones as propaganda, ISIS recruits from areas under attack by drones.
The phrases "is neutralized" and "is losing" are very imprecise and debatable, regardless of who said them.
DottyParker said:
huffpo.com: Federal Workers Told To Halt External Communication In First Week Under Trump
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-communication-freeze_us_58878b3ae4b0441a8f7114e2
Correct.
Federal communications to the public has to approved and cleared by the Trump's Office for the Enlightenment of the Public.
regardless of what one thinks of the military actions in the Middle East and Africa (and I'm opposed), hoops is right on one thing -- Obama never campaigned as a "peace" candidate. During the campaign he made it clear he supported the war in Afghanistan. He opposed the war in Iraq, but that didn't make him a "peace" candidate.
drummerboy said:
I did not know that about KG.
She's got my vote for Prez so far.
shoshannah said:
drummerboy said:
the Dems have about one spine between them. They truly suck. Every one should be voting NO every time.
I can't even. WTF is going on with these Dems?? Kirsten Gillibrand is the only one who voted against all three and is planning to vote against DeVos. I just don't get it. What are they thinking??
You should not be surprised. We do not have single-payer health insurance because many Democrats would not support it.
The Tea Party actively opposed "Moderate" Republicans. Eric Cantor, a top leader of the Republican Congress, lost his seat in a Primary because he was perceived as being too willing to "work across the aisle".
Will "Progressives" similarly oppose "moderates" in the Democratic Party? Should they?
I thought Chuckie would be a major leader of the resistance. I barely hear anything from him. I expect a ot more from the minority leader in this environment. He should be the de facto leader of the Democratic party and the anti-Trump movement right now.
And that guy on Rachel Maddow last night who is running for head of DNC -- Tom Perez -- OMG. Awful. I couldn't even listen to him after 30 seconds. He had diarrhea of the mouth. Maybe he has good ideas but he has no idea how to talk about the ideas. This guy needs very serious media training. When the "interview" was done, Rachel looked at the camera with a just-barely-there eyeroll to signal that she too thought this guy was insufferable.
This Country needs a true Left Wing movement. It can be allied with and support the Democratic Party at times but it should remain independent.
ml1 said:
regardless of what one thinks of the military actions in the Middle East and Africa (and I'm opposed), hoops is right on one thing -- Obama never campaigned as a "peace" candidate. During the campaign he made it clear he supported the war in Afghanistan. He opposed the war in Iraq, but that didn't make him a "peace" candidate.
In both the primary and the general campaigns of 2008, his call for talks with Iran were opposed by Clinton and McCain.
His successful negotiation of the Iran Nuclear Deal was a historic achievement for peace. In my opinion, Obama's greatest achievement.
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
regardless of what one thinks of the military actions in the Middle East and Africa (and I'm opposed), hoops is right on one thing -- Obama never campaigned as a "peace" candidate. During the campaign he made it clear he supported the war in Afghanistan. He opposed the war in Iraq, but that didn't make him a "peace" candidate.
In both the primary and the general campaigns of 2008, his call for talks with Iran were opposed by Clinton and McCain.
His successful negotiation of the Iran Nuclear Deal was a historic achievement for peace. In my opinion, Obama's greatest achievement.
this is true. But to me a "peace" candidate would not have invaded Libya or used drones as extensively as we did during Obama's presidency. As with most presidents, his legacy with regard to war and peace will be mixed, with more war than peace.
How incredibly ironic that his voter fraud craziness is met with actual voter fraud - within his circle!
Steve Bannon REGISTERED TO VOTE IN TWO STATES! 
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/AAmeM2p?ocid=se
hoops said:
there were 41 prisoners left in Guantanamo when Obama left. I'd say he did as well as could be expected with that.
Obama was never the "peace" candidate.
He just isnt the war profiteer that the republicans vote for every cycle. Drone attacks very likely are the method and reasoning why al Qaeda is neutralized and ISIS is losing, so you can pick your poison.
Of course terp, you can have your isolationist point of view and determine whatever you like from that viewpoint. I would just caution you to not twist your description of the former president in order to prop up the current one. I think history is going to be very kind when looking at the differences between prior to Obama and subsequent to Obama.
Isolationist? I didn't realize you were a neo-con. When did it occur to you that the only sensible foreign policy was to kill a lot of poor children as a matter of course? The banality of evil indeed.
Let me ask you a question, if the Obama administration was so interested in "neutralizing Al Qaeda" why were they funding Al Qaeda associated groups in Syria?
I agree with this.
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
regardless of what one thinks of the military actions in the Middle East and Africa (and I'm opposed), hoops is right on one thing -- Obama never campaigned as a "peace" candidate. During the campaign he made it clear he supported the war in Afghanistan. He opposed the war in Iraq, but that didn't make him a "peace" candidate.
In both the primary and the general campaigns of 2008, his call for talks with Iran were opposed by Clinton and McCain.
His successful negotiation of the Iran Nuclear Deal was a historic achievement for peace. In my opinion, Obama's greatest achievement.
no he's not. He's issuing vague executive orders as if he's Il Duce.
but yeah, ooga booga Obama was a bad man.
I'll ask you for the gazillionth time - what was the alternative to drone attacks?
terp said:
Say what you will about Trump's agenda. Like it or not, it seems he is going after his campaign promises aggressively.
IIRC Obama ran 8 years ago as the Constitutional/peace candidate. He even took home a nobel. He then doubled down on cracking down on 4th amendment violations, was the harshest president ever on whistle blowers. Ran drone attacks across the middle east and de-stabilize the entire region. Gave up on closing Guantanamo when it became politically difficult.
drummerboy said:
no he's not. He's issuing vague executive orders as if he's Il Duce.
This. To a malignant narcissist -- which he is -- all that matters is SAYING that something is so or APPEARING as something is so, not that it is actually so. Posturing and grandstanding are the only things that matter.
I wish people would freaking understand this.
These EO's , almost to a one, are simply meant to tell his cult (and I've decided that's what they are) that he is following through on his promises.
They mean nothing more. Very little will change merely based on these orders. Many of them need congressional action to put in place. One day he announces a hiring freeze except for x, and today he says he's going to hire more ICE agents, who unfortunately don't fall under x.
It's sad to see so many non-Trump supporters falling for this.
shoshannah said:
drummerboy said:
no he's not. He's issuing vague executive orders as if he's Il Duce.
This. To a malignant narcissist -- which he is -- all that matters is SAYING that something is so or APPEARING as something is so, not that it is actually so. Posturing and grandstanding are the only things that matter.
Let me guess. 8 years ago Executive Orders bad. Then they suddenly turned good. Last Friday bad again. I remember Obama running against them as well. And its not about him being a bad man. Its about your hypocrisy.
drummerboy said:
no he's not. He's issuing vague executive orders as if he's Il Duce.
but yeah, ooga booga Obama was a bad man.
I'll ask you for the gazillionth time - what was the alternative to drone attacks?
terp said:
Say what you will about Trump's agenda. Like it or not, it seems he is going after his campaign promises aggressively.
IIRC Obama ran 8 years ago as the Constitutional/peace candidate. He even took home a nobel. He then doubled down on cracking down on 4th amendment violations, was the harshest president ever on whistle blowers. Ran drone attacks across the middle east and de-stabilize the entire region. Gave up on closing Guantanamo when it became politically difficult.
Totals are an imperfect yardstick, because they don't account for content, impact or era, but let the record show that Obama signed the fewest executive orders on an annual basis since Grover Cleveland.
yeah, as if your response was not completely expected. And of course, non-responsive.
I didn't say Trump's EO's were either good or bad. I said they were B.S. And that you've been taken in by it. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Anyway, Obama issued EO's because he had a congress that refused to cooperate with him. And bully for him.
Trump does not have that problem. So why is he issuing meaningless EO's? He can't just direct a department to build a g.d. wall on the border. That's not how our country works.
Unbelievable.
Oh yeah - still no answer on the drone attacks huh? You'd think that for something that is so obviously stuck in your craw you'd have some clear ideas on what should have been done instead.
terp said:
Let me guess. 8 years ago Executive Orders bad. Then they suddenly turned good. Last Friday bad again. I remember Obama running against them as well. And its not about him being a bad man. Its about your hypocrisy.
drummerboy said:
no he's not. He's issuing vague executive orders as if he's Il Duce.
but yeah, ooga booga Obama was a bad man.
I'll ask you for the gazillionth time - what was the alternative to drone attacks?
terp said:
Say what you will about Trump's agenda. Like it or not, it seems he is going after his campaign promises aggressively.
IIRC Obama ran 8 years ago as the Constitutional/peace candidate. He even took home a nobel. He then doubled down on cracking down on 4th amendment violations, was the harshest president ever on whistle blowers. Ran drone attacks across the middle east and de-stabilize the entire region. Gave up on closing Guantanamo when it became politically difficult.
drummerboy said:
yeah, as if your response was not completely expected. And of course, non-responsive.
I didn't say Trump's EO's were either good or bad. I said they were B.S. And that you've been taken in by it. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Anyway, Obama issued EO's because he had a congress that refused to cooperate with him. And bully for him.
Trump does not have that problem. So why is he issuing meaningless EO's? He can't just direct a department to build a g.d. wall on the border. That's not how our country works.cally difficult.
He can. It may not be legal but he can. Congress may not object.
The courts may. But if he disregards the courts and congress allows him to disregard the courts, then how can he be stopped?
dave said:
paulsurovell said:
Dutch government launches international program for birth control and abortion to counter Trump's termination of US program:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/01/25/netherlands-counters-trump-international-abortion-fund
Trump said he would get others to pay for things, so he's delivering in a way.
You know, that's the first thing that popped into my head. I've no doubt they feel that this is what happens when someone says no-- someone else will inevitably pull out the checkbook, so let them. Wait for it with NATO.
When you ask what the alternative is to drone strikes, what exactly is the outcome you are looking for?
I'm saying that you're being a bit disingenuous in your criticism of the drone strikes. I have contended many times that with the drones, Obama took a horrible situation (bombing raids with collateral damage) and made it somewhat better by replacing them with drones, as they're more precise. A drone strike provides less risk for everyone involved, except for the target. Soldiers are at less risk and civilians are too. That's not even arguable.
You can argue that we shouldn't be targeting these people in sovereign countries at all. That's fine. But that was hardly an option for Obama. He did the best he could do, and made a terrible situation somewhat better.
So again, what is your alternative (a politically viable one, mind you) to the drone strikes? What should Obama have done instead?
terp said:
When you ask what the alternative is to drone strikes, what exactly is the outcome you are looking for?
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
there were 41 prisoners left in Guantanamo when Obama left. I'd say he did as well as could be expected with that.
Obama was never the "peace" candidate.
He just isnt the war profiteer that the republicans vote for every cycle. Drone attacks very likely are the method and reasoning why al Qaeda is neutralized and ISIS is losing, so you can pick your poison.
Of course terp, you can have your isolationist point of view and determine whatever you like from that viewpoint. I would just caution you to not twist your description of the former president in order to prop up the current one. I think history is going to be very kind when looking at the differences between prior to Obama and subsequent to Obama.