The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Some things never change...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ax-reform.html

Another option being floated around on Capitol Hill would change the House GOP plan to eliminate much of the payroll tax and cut corporate tax rates and possibly requiring a new dedicated funding source for Social Security.

The change, proposed by a GOP lobbyist with close ties to the Trump administration, would transform Brady's plan on imports into something closer to a value-added tax by also eliminating the deduction of labor expenses. This would bring it in line with WTO rules and generate an additional $12 trillion over 10 years, according to budget estimates. Those additional revenues could then enable the end of the 12.4 percent payroll tax, split evenly between employers and employees, that funds Social Security, while keeping the health insurance payroll tax in place.

We have a dedicated funding source for Social Security! All you idiots have to do is stop spending it on other things and replace what you've "stolen" from it over the years.

[Gatefan1976]

Some things never change...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ax-reform.html



We have a dedicated funding source for Social Security! All you idiots have to do is stop spending it on other things and replace what you've "stolen" from it over the years.

You don't matter, haven't you worked this out yet?

[Falcon Horus]

You should trust me on these things FH, I have detailed files...........
(seriously, my dad was a plane nut, he grew up in Papua New Gueinia and played in the hulks of WW2 planes, and he spread that knowledge and love of planes to his kids)

It's the reason I opened the article in the first place -- with your post in mind.

Look out, I will counter with, "I don't think that was an issue".

It was a random notion.

The Tomahawk strike was simply the best option, trump profiting I don't think entered his mind. He saw dead babies via chemical weapons and responded viscerally, with no regard for anything else, even though he deplored it in 2013.

With no regard... that's succinct.

I really don't think Russia would be ready for all-out war.

The Russians are really good at bluffing. They caught the moment when the West is so war-weary and so disrupted that the mere hint of conflict sends all of Europe into a fit of terror, and they are milking it for all it's worth. But when the Turks shot down a Russian warplane, Russia responded with embargo, not with military tit-for-tat. Do you think they would be more willing to take on the USA than they were on Turkey?

Also, you don't have to destroy the tarmac if you can destroy the aircraft itself. The point of the strike was sending a message, making it clear to Syria that use of chemical weapons carries a heavy price. Depending on which reports you believe, between 6 and 20 Syrian aircraft was destroyed; I'd say message well sent even if it's just 6. US officials actually said that the runway was untouched.

But maybe Russia had something bigger in mind when Turkey shot down their plane. Going beyond an embargo could have taken that off the table.

The main question, really I guess for me, what's in it for them? Both in the Turkey-case, and the the Syria-case. What's their gain?

No, the target was an airbase from which said attacks were launched against his own people.

If the target was in fact al-Assad, al-Assad would likely be dead.

I wasn't talking about individual targets. The airbase is Assad-territory, not Daesh.

[Womble]

I have -ZERO- doubts that the US would win a conventional war against the Russians, absolutely none, but that is not the point I was making Womble. It's "fear factor" is being a nuclear power, and it is the same leverage North Korea wants to use as well.

Yes, you can challenge Russia, you can call it on it's bluffs, but you need to be -DAMN- careful about it.

My point is that their bluffs should be called. Carefully maybe, but if you don't have a calm and realistic view on Russia's capabilities and resolve, you will be blackmailed into submission.

Russia does not want a shooting war, and they would not escalate to nuclear stand-off over Syria. Over Crimea, yes, because they're obsessive about territory, being the last colonial empire and all. Over Syria, hardly.

[Annoyed]

Calm and realistic... That sounds like Trump..

PH, he *could* have hit that airbase or much, much more with the firepower of a carrier strike group or more. Instead, he hit them with armament from 2 Destroyers. if he had flown off the handle, that entire airbase would be nothing but a smoking hole in the ground. And you know it. And no, I'm not talking about nukes.

Sounds like his action was calm, considered and rational to me.

[SGalisa]

Haven't read whole thread to this point, but has the question been addressed about when our USA military flew under President Obama's reign, and were forced NOT to strike down any targets with missiles against the Islamic State, etc., on missions, except 2 per month if even that much? Trump goes ahead, authorizes a single mission (with 59 missiles hitting all 59 targets.. short of 2 {other missiles?} where one was aborted and one malfunctioned), and beats the u-know-what out of a certain "terrorist" situation in development, and still gets his buttt's chewed off by some folks in the world..

I think the Pentagon claims 58/59 hit their targets.
As to the rest of it, haters gonna hate.

You seem to be misinformed as to who the target was -- not Daesh/the Islamic State, but Bashar Al-Assad, currently still "legitimate" president of Syria and at war with his own people.

Saw an opinion about that very same topic, and which busters would have been needed to do some serious and actual damage. Tomahawks didn't make the cut.

Also, apparently, #45 has stock in the company that makes these missiles... how convenient.

You should trust me on these things FH, I have detailed files...........
(seriously, my dad was a plane nut, he grew up in Papua New Gueinia and played in the hulks of WW2 planes, and he spread that knowledge and love of planes to his kids)

Look out, I will counter with, "I don't think that was an issue".

The Tomahawk strike was simply the best option, trump profiting I don't think entered his mind. He saw dead babies via chemical weapons and responded viscerally, with no regard for anything else, even though he deplored it in 2013.

No, the target was an airbase from which said attacks were launched against his own people.

FH, maybe it would be best *not* to jump to conclusions before learning all the details.
It doesn't seem to matter if I write directly to the point or write a thesis in getting ultimately there.
Jumping to erroneous conclusions seems to be a habit happening on these discussions more frequently than not, which is a reason why I've stopped posting on here.. best to back off and let the rest of you folks argue this stuff out. Apologies, but I have better things to do than write novel-sized postings rephrasing what I've already said.

Anywho, I know who/what the target was in the Syrian situation. It's what Annoyed wrote. Also, smart Tomahawk missiles in question, is as Gatefan1976 wrote. Line up the options and take the one that may work the best at the most reasonable cost (effective gov't workers look at best and cheapest option with least amount of potential hassles). *That* is what a business operation does.. works with the same outcomes in both the private, public, and gov't sectors, IF the folks in control use such methods as wisely as possible.

Just because I didn't separate my paragraph doesn't translate I was referring to the I.S. in Trump's wake-up call against Syrian/suspected chemical attack on innocent civilians.
In one-half of the paragraph, I was discussing the Trump reaction against Syrian chemical attack. 2nd half of the paragraph, was about how Obama tackled the situations with the Islamic State. Trump was swift and to the point with Syria's Assad situation. Obama was basically all over the place, and over more than 4 years basically tried to avoid targeting the I.S., until he was pressured to do something with a more aggressive stance. That's the main point and difference between Trump and Obama that was being referenced here.

[Annoyed]

I just meant in general...

But Trump warned Russia that he was going to launch the attack. Russia is allied to Syria.

So.. president desperate to be liked launches "attack" (which results in minimal damage to the target) as a show of power.. or if you like, a publicity stunt, to get the hardline right wing supporters back on side, after the disastrous Muslim ban and healthcare reform failures.

But the attack isn't having the result he expected. A lot of his most extreme supporters don't like it.. After all he used the "supporting innocent civilians" line, after twice trying to ban them from entering the country, and all his talk of putting America first, and making America great again, why is he getting involved in Syria's civil war?

And the airfield is already back in use. If it was ever out of use..

So, calm, and measured, maybe.. But what exactly was he trying to achieve?

Do you really not get it? They've been warring since I don't know when. and we have been staying out of it. al-Assad went over the line using a chemical attack against his own people. Most civilized nations condemn such things.

So Trump decided to give them a little warning, using one language that al-Assad was familiar with, war. "Hey, don't do that!".
It was a very limited strike, not designed to harm them overall, just to get their attention.
This was reinforced the next day when official statements out the the White House were mentioning that we may not be done with our involvement in the region.

If you find it easier to grasp it on a smaller scale, consider it to be the equivalent of a father smacking his son on the backside of the head when said offspring blows his nose on the tablecloth and telling him not to do that.

Or would you rather nobody did anything? The UN would debate it till the cows come home and never do anything. I think it was handled quite well.

[Gatefan1976]

There was no "little warning", it was mere shiny object distraction.

[Falcon Horus]

FH, maybe it would be best *not* to jump to conclusions before learning all the details.

The airfield is on Assad territory. The target were the planes flown by the Syrian Army under the Commander-in-Chief Bashar Al-Assad, and allegedly used to carry out the chemical attack. The airfield is also used by the Russians who were warned beforehand so that they could pull back and reduce any casualties to Syrian only, and keep their material safe.

59 (or 58 Tomahawks) were launched from two cruisers in the Mediterranean and impacted with the airfield, to leave minimal damage -- depending how you view the destruction of 20% of Assad's warplanes that is. The airfield is already back in use -- was already back in use not two days after the attack happened.

How many more details would you like me to give you?

Do you see Daesh mentioned anywhere? No, because Daesh and Assad are two different entities. The first is a group of people who abuse the Quran for their own gain, and the second commits warcrimes since 2011 against his own people.

Anywho, I know who/what the target was in the Syrian situation. It's what Annoyed wrote.

Then perhaps be more clear about the next time, like Annoyed.

Just because I didn't separate my paragraph doesn't translate I was referring to the I.S. in Trump's wake-up call against Syrian/suspected chemical attack on innocent civilians.

Grammar had little to do with it.

Obama was basically all over the place, and over more than 4 years basically tried to avoid targeting the I.S., until he was pressured to do something with a more aggressive stance. That's the main point and difference between Trump and Obama that was being referenced here.

Again, DAESH is not ASSAD.

In 2013, Obama asked Congress for approval to interfere with Assad's onslaught. HE WAS DENIED APPROVAL!!

#45 didn't even bother to ask and just dropped his Tomahawks instead. At least, he warned Russia (who probably warned Assad).

They've been warring since I don't know when. and we have been staying out of it. al-Assad went over the line using a chemical attack against his own people. Most civilized nations condemn such things.

2011, for your information.

It wasn't the first time Assad (or others in that war) crossed the chemical line as you make it out to be:

Sarin (nerve gas)
* March 2013 - Khan al-Assal attack in the suburbs of Aleppo
* April 2013 - Saraqib
* August 2013 - Ghouta attack in the suburbs of Damascus
* August 2013 - Jobar
* August 2013 - Ashrafiyat Sahnaya
* April 2017 - Khan Shaykhun

Chlorine
* April 2014 - Talmenes
* March 2015 - Sarmin

Sulfur mostard - Daesh
* August 2015 - Marea

Remember, Congress said no in 2013.

[Annoyed]

In 2013, Obama asked Congress for approval to interfere with Assad's onslaught. HE WAS DENIED APPROVAL!!

#45 didn't even bother to ask and just dropped his Tomahawks instead. At least, he warned Russia (who probably warned Assad).

2011, for your information.

It wasn't the first time Assad (or others in that war) crossed the chemical line as you make it out to be:

Sarin (nerve gas)
* March 2013 - Khan al-Assal attack in the suburbs of Aleppo
* April 2013 - Saraqib
* August 2013 - Ghouta attack in the suburbs of Damascus
* August 2013 - Jobar
* August 2013 - Ashrafiyat Sahnaya
* April 2017 - Khan Shaykhun

Chlorine
* April 2014 - Talmenes
* March 2015 - Sarmin

Sulfur mostard - Daesh
* August 2015 - Marea

Remember, Congress said no in 2013.

And all of the events that you list occurred under the Apologizer-in-Chief, Obama.

Regarding asking Congress, there is ample precedent for a President using the military without congressional approval. He simple doesn't need to ask them.

[Falcon Horus]

Regarding asking Congress, there is ample precedent for a President using the military without congressional approval. He simple doesn't need to ask them.

Err... no, he can't actually -- well, technically speaking he can, but he can't.

"There’s no bright line about when something counts as a war that Congress must approve, and when it’s simply a military action the president can direct. (All of this is separate from the question of whether a given military operation is legal under international law — which is also a valid question about Trump’s strikes against Assad.)"

So, when Obama asked instead of acted he wasn't weak. He was being smart about it. Drumpf was crying out that it was a mistake to go in --- oh how, his views changed.

Same as with him golfing his time away -- if Hillary had done it, you too would have cried murder.

[Falcon Horus]

Tillerson forgot to re-read his copy of Diplomacy for Dummies again, before opening his mouth.

He wants Russia to choose: Assad, Iran and the Hezbollah, or the US and its allies.

It's too bad he can't offer them more oil.... oh wait.... I'm sure they could figure something out that would appease Russia to drop Assad. I reccommend he reads his book.

[Annoyed]

Err... no, he can't actually -- well, technically speaking he can, but he can't.

"There’s no bright line about when something counts as a war that Congress must approve, and when it’s simply a military action the president can direct. (All of this is separate from the question of whether a given military operation is legal under international law — which is also a valid question about Trump’s strikes against Assad.)"

So, when Obama asked instead of acted he wasn't weak. He was being smart about it. Drumpf was crying out that it was a mistake to go in --- oh how, his views changed.

Same as with him golfing his time away -- if Hillary had done it, you too would have cried murder.

OR... Obama knew Congress wouldn't approve action, so he asked them, knowing the answer would be no, allowing the blame to be placed on Congress's head, rather than his own.

And as far as Hillary goes, if Hillary had been in office, and did the exact same thing, (Or Obama, if he had taken this action) I would have agreed as much as I do with Trump for doing it.

[Gatefan1976]

What Obama thought congress may or may not do is irrelevant, it is what presidents are -supposed- to do. As for him "doing nothing", he tried diplomatically to get rid of Assads chemical weapons, which was supposed to be agreed to and some was destroyed, possibly all he had at the time and look at FH's list, Lo and behold, no sarin gas attacks until Obama was gone.

As for you agreeing with the action, it does not matter. -I- agree there should have been a response, it was still not done the way it should have been done. Russia (the ally of the people being attacked) knew more about the attack than your own government, does that not raise any eyebrows with you at all?

The system that Trump and his fans seem so intent on tearing down created the most powerful nation on the planet in all human history, is that really a good goal, to start tearing that down?

[Gatefan1976]

technically, they did not destroy the tarmac, it was barely scratched.