The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

The repubs just flushed a 200 year rule of your governing body, and don't point to 2013, because the dems were smart enough to keep the highest offices of the land above this.

You can't just ignore the Democrats being stupid enough to set the precedent in 2013. Whether you like it or not, it happened. I knew it was a stupid move on their part then, and now they pay for it. And it could easily turn out to be very expensive from their perspective.

Particularly, since they compounded their stupidity with their actions this week.

These are questions you and those on the left should be asking the Democratic leadership.

Consider: The atmosphere at this time is highly charged, very partisan. Far moreso than "normal". No matter what choice they made this time around, there was no way in hell the Democrats could have blocked Gorsuch. If they chose to filibuster, they had to know the Republicans would go nuclear, as they did in 2013 because the Republican leadership had been saying they would since Trump nominated him. And that is precisely how it played out. The Dems forced a fight they had no way to win, and they lost.

And as a result, precedent has been set. It now requires merely 51 votes to shut down debate. The only weapon the minority party had in fights like this has been rendered inert.

Here is where the stupidity comes into play. Breyer (Clinton, liberal) is 78 years old, Kennedy (Reagan, leans right) is 80 and Ginsburg (Clinton, liberal) is 84.

So there are very good odds that Trump may be able to nominate several more justices in the near future.

Thanks to the Democrats insisting upon pushing a fight they could not possibly have won, the only chance they had of pushing back is now gone. Wouldn't it have been smarter to play it smart this time, acquiesce on Gorsuch, and hope the environment might be less highly charged the next time a seat opens up? Maybe there wouldn't have been enough support for a nuclear option in a year or so, particularly if Trump screws up royally so the public no longer supports him?

They effectively traded a potential win in the future for a guaranteed loss this time around. I don't care what team you're coaching, that's a stupid move.

SCOTUS is now split 5-4, advantage Conservatives. Suppose those 3 justices, or even the 2 liberals retire/pass away/whatever (Kennedy would be a wash) ? That would give us a 7-2 court, advantage Conservatives.

While that is an excellent situation for those who think as I do, if I was a liberal/progressive, I would be wanting the Democrats who chose the strategy this time head(s) on a platter.

[SoulReaver]

I don't think trump could afford to loose anyone on this operation

F117s are stealth (outdated but the mericans also have much stealthier ones)
when's the last time a US stealth plane got shot down?

[Falcon Horus]

Actually, Russia is furious. I guess they really did think Trump was in their pocket.

Yeah, I saw that after my thoughts.

Well, the US did attack a Russian ally, which usually means they might as well have attacked Russians.

In response, Russia has cancelled coordination with the USA that is meant to avoid incidents between Russian and American forces in Syrian airspace, and they are ceasing exchange of military information. They are also promising to build up air defenses in Syria, and sending a frigate armed with cruise missiles into the Mediterranian.

I thought I read that the air-thing was already back in place.
Could be wrong, it was in passing.

(On a side note, the Russians claim that only 23 out of 59 Tomahawks actually reached the target, while the Pentagon says that 58 out of 59 did).

From the looks of the sattelite images, they could very well be right.
Where did the others drop out of the sky though?

I just hope it's no rusky ploy or something

as in, Putin phones his b- at the white house & tells him "psst let's put an end to the rumors about us I'll call Bachar & tell him to evacuate important personnel & hardware from the base then you can bomb it"
result: a couple mig17's destroyed & 7 casualties (7 janitors)

The Russians did get warning -- 60 to 90 minutes before the strike.

Darn it, Soul... you could be right.

In non syria news, Gorsuch got confirmed via nuclear option, so well done. On the plus side, it now will only take 51 votes to impeach trump.

Did you expect anything less? It was the only way they could get him confirmed.

I hope the middle class is ready to deal with consequences of that appointment. He favors the big companies over the little men (and women, disabled and LGBTQ can forget it entirely with him on the board).

As far as Syria goes, I think Trump handled it just right.

Did he, really?

Why now? He didn't inform Congress, which he should have. He did inform Russia.

Why not after the first chemical attack? Obama was denied by Congress to step in.
Trump sure tweeted it was a mistake to go in and make Assad pay for it. And look at him now, dropping missiles on an airfield, from which already planes are leaving again.

He claims the chemical attack was awful, yet still blocks the entry of those refugees -- children, women and men. Hypocritical is what I call that.
People who need help -- cause I'm fairly certain whatever gas was used, these people's lungs and bodies are ravaged by it, and could probably use all the medical help they could get at this point. Safe places too.

A carefully targeted and limited response, not meant to say anything more than "Stop That!

The airfield is already back in use.

He hit them with armament from 2 destroyers. He could have just as easily used a carrier strike group.

And what would have accomplished that?

You really want the powder keg exploding, don't you.

If it already hasn't...

For the record, and not that this matters here, been spending my spare time admiring kitty cat pics & videos of Maine Coons and British Longhair cats. Refreshing thru the newbies some memories of our former 4-legged, longhaired-furry kitties -- thru a few absolutely gorgeous (approx. foot high) substitutes that even Falcon Horus might like..

Cats are always nice. They are the world's overlords.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your comment incorrectly or what. If you're referring to the entire egg with complete and intact DNA, then strangely, we *are* talking about the same thing, but from a different approach ("the egg" = the entire creature's genetic DNA minus the sperm portion to fertilize it).

Trust me, when I say we lost the egg-plot a few pages ago. Everyone came out more confused than before it started.

so when Hillary provokes the ruskies verbally = dangerous warmonger
but when the LSOS provokes the ruskies with an airstrike = competent peacekeeper?

YES!

No?

From what I've read, we notified Russia of the strike beforehand, and our weapons were deliberately targeted to avoid Russian barracks. We were deliberately telling them that they weren't the target.

You targeted Assad, who happens to be back by Russia. You attack an ally, you attack both. Generally how it works, really.

But Putin can't DO anything about it. As is proper, the international community considers this a justified strike. He can hold his breath until he turns blue in the face, but his hands are tied, Unless he wants to fight the whole world, or most of it anyway.

Putin took Crimea.
Russian anti-aircraft missile shot down Dutch commercial airplane.

And nobody said anything.

We tried putting down sanctions, and were hit right back with them. Didn't do either side any good.

Putin can do as he likes -- nobody's going to oppose him, unless you're ready to deal with the consequences.

But a strike with Tomahawks does not risk the lives of any U.S. pilots or other military personnel. Granted, I suspect it would have been a low-risk mission, but not zero risk. I would rather spend money on expensive military hardware than spend servicemen's lives.

Funny, you should say that, cause from what I've read your fine specimen of a president would love to drop "boots" on the ground.

Daesh would love that, I'm sure.

[SoulReaver]

The Russians did get warning -- 60 to 90 minutes before the strike.

Darn it, Soul... you could be right.

in the end either the LSOS is a lying warmonger or he's still Putin's b--ch

btw http://abcnews.go.com/US/syrian-jets...ry?id=46646770 that was quick :/

[Falcon Horus]

From the article:

"The official noted that up to 20 Syrian aircraft were destroyed in Thursday's airstrikes but added that the missiles did not target every aircraft at the base and that the runway was untouched."

You know, Annoyed, if #45 had wanted to make a point, he could have at least made sure one of the missiles had blown a crater in that runway.

And also:

"U.S. President Donald Trump, who blamed Syria's leader for the chemical weapons attack, said on Thursday night that the airstrikes were in the "vital national security interest" of the United States."

What vital national security interest of the US?
I thought this was in retaliation of a chemical attack on innocent women, children and men -- and since when is Syria located in US territory? Also, aren't Syrians blocked from entering the US anyway? Whose national security is really at risk here?

[Gatefan1976]

Tomahawks are no good for runway destruction, you need a HEAP (High Explosive Armour Piercing) weapon for that, a 1000lb payload just isn't enough to do the job. You need to crater in -then- detonate to cause the tarmac to blow upwards.

[Annoyed]

From the article:

"The official noted that up to 20 Syrian aircraft were destroyed in Thursday's airstrikes but added that the missiles did not target every aircraft at the base and that the runway was untouched."

You know, Annoyed, if #45 had wanted to make a point, he could have at least made sure one of the missiles had blown a crater in that runway.

And also:

"U.S. President Donald Trump, who blamed Syria's leader for the chemical weapons attack, said on Thursday night that the airstrikes were in the "vital national security interest" of the United States."

What vital national security interest of the US?
I thought this was in retaliation of a chemical attack on innocent women, children and men -- and since when is Syria located in US territory? Also, aren't Syrians blocked from entering the US anyway? Whose national security is really at risk here?

As I noted earlier, the point of the strike wasn't to do a great deal of damage. It was simply to send a message to al-Assad; "Stop That!". Do you really think that there would even be a base there anymore if Trump had wanted it gone?

And al-Assad's treatment of his own people has no bearing upon the immigration policies of the US or any other nation. It is not required that we, or any other country accept any refugees that result from this or any other action. It is required that al-Assad stop gassing his own people. And that feeling seems to be quite popular; weren't the open refugee polices of the E.U. pivotal in the Brexit decision?

Oh, and there was also another message delivered. As I recall, despite our former sorry excuse for a president having laid down a "line in the sand" in 2013? regarding prior behavior of this sort, he was on pretty safe ground assuming that our former apologist-in-chief wouldn't take any action.
al-Assad should now clearly be aware that he can't count on that anymore.

[SoulReaver]

As I noted earlier, the point of the strike wasn't to do a great deal of damage. It was simply to send a message to Assad; "Stop That!".

with an addendum? ("PS. the tsar told me to go easy on you")

[Gatefan1976]

You can't just ignore the Democrats being stupid enough to set the precedent in 2013. Whether you like it or not, it happened. I knew it was a stupid move on their part then, and now they pay for it. And it could easily turn out to be very expensive from their perspective.

You have real problems with using the excuse I specifically say not to use, don't you.
The precedent did not involve the highest officers in the land, there was a line, and the repubs just crossed it. Absolutely -anything- is up now.

Particularly, since they compounded their stupidity with their actions this week.

These are questions you and those on the left should be asking the Democratic leadership.

Consider: The atmosphere at this time is highly charged, very partisan. Far moreso than "normal". No matter what choice they made this time around, there was no way in hell the Democrats could have blocked Gorsuch. If they chose to filibuster, they had to know the Republicans would go nuclear, as they did in 2013 because the Republican leadership had been saying they would since Trump nominated him. And that is precisely how it played out. The Dems forced a fight they had no way to win, and they lost.

So, in other words, just give up, so when they go for re-election, their constituents tell them to bugger off. As for the Atmosphere, it's not changing anytime soon, so that's not even worth considering.

And as a result, precedent has been set. It now requires merely 51 votes to shut down debate. The only weapon the minority party had in fights like this has been rendered inert.

It already was inert, the Repubs dropped the hammer, and were going to drop the hammer no matter what. The only way to avoid it was to sacrifice 8 democrats by having them vote for Gorsuch.

Here is where the stupidity comes into play. Breyer (Clinton, liberal) is 78 years old, Kennedy (Reagan, leans right) is 80 and Ginsburg (Clinton, liberal) is 84.

So there are very good odds that Trump may be able to nominate several more justices in the near future.

Possibly.

Thanks to the Democrats insisting upon pushing a fight they could not possibly have won, the only chance they had of pushing back is now gone. Wouldn't it have been smarter to play it smart this time, acquiesce on Gorsuch, and hope the environment might be less highly charged the next time a seat opens up? Maybe there wouldn't have been enough support for a nuclear option in a year or so, particularly if Trump screws up royally so the public no longer supports him?

The environment is not changing, all you are asking the dems to do is just sit down, shut up, and do what you say. Be a party of non opposition to a party that did nothing -but- oppose for 8 years, being lead by one of the loudest proponents of the previous president being illegitimate.
Yeah, see, that's not going to happen.

They effectively traded a potential win in the future for a guaranteed loss this time around. I don't care what team you're coaching, that's a stupid move.

There was no potential future win, as long as Repubs hold senate power, the will just keep using the nuke option, they will not stop using it, and if you think they will, you are more delusional than I thought.

SCOTUS is now split 5-4, advantage Conservatives. Suppose those 3 justices, or even the 2 liberals retire/pass away/whatever (Kennedy would be a wash) ? That would give us a 7-2 court, advantage Conservatives.

While that is an excellent situation for those who think as I do, if I was a liberal/progressive, I would be wanting the Democrats who chose the strategy this time head(s) on a platter.

They had no choice, They had their choice -stolen- by Repubs, and they knew he would be confirmed no matter what they did, so instead of rolling over like a whipped dog, they retaliated according to the rules. Repubs did not like the rules, so they changed them. Before you bring up "2013 precedent" like a broken bloody record, -many- things still got filibustered post 2013 and the Dems did not engage it again. I have zero faith that the Repubs will show the same restraint. Look at you, salivating over a 7/2 republican SCOTUS, and you are not even a politician, they are positively drowning in drool. Any position of consequence, the repubs will drop the nuke, and don't pretend otherwise. The Democrats did all they could do, resist according to the laws of the system.

[Gatefan1976]

As I noted earlier, the point of the strike wasn't to do a great deal of damage. It was simply to send a message to al-Assad; "Stop That!". Do you really think that there would even be a base there anymore if Trump had wanted it gone?

And al-Assad's treatment of his own people has no bearing upon the immigration policies of the US or any other nation. It is not required that we, or any other country accept any refugees that result from this or any other action. It is required that al-Assad stop gassing his own people. And that feeling seems to be quite popular; weren't the open refugee polices of the E.U. pivotal in the Brexit decision?

Oh, and there was also another message delivered. As I recall, despite our former sorry excuse for a president having laid down a "line in the sand" in 2013? regarding prior behavior of this sort, he was on pretty safe ground assuming that our former apologist-in-chief wouldn't take any action.
al-Assad should now clearly be aware that he can't count on that anymore.

You clearly missed the part where Obama went to congress (you know, following the law, rather than acting unilaterally like trump did) asking for permission to do it and got shot down by (surprise!!) Republicans. You know the party that loves going to war has dug it's heels in to just deny deny deny when they even stop that.

[SoulReaver]

You have real problems with using the excuse I specifically say not to use, don't you.
The precedent did not involve the highest officers in the land, there was a line, and the repubs just crossed it. Absolutely -anything- is up now.

he's got a point though - if the Democrats opened that door the Republicans just kicked it down

now I say the Republicans would've still done so even if the Democrats hadn't started it but we'll never know now will we

[SoulReaver]

SCOTUS is now split 5-4, advantage Conservatives. Suppose those 3 justices, or even the 2 liberals retire/pass away/whatever (Kennedy would be a wash) ? That would give us a 7-2 court, advantage Conservatives.

in other words no more justice in corporate america (and there would be no more legal means for the People to restore justice, if you get my meaning)

[Gatefan1976]

he's got a point though - if the Democrats opened that door the Republicans just kicked it down

now I say the Republicans would've still done so even if the Democrats hadn't started it but we'll never know now will we

They did not "open that door", they opened the door next to it, sure. Still not the same door.

[Falcon Horus]

Tomahawks are no good for runway destruction, you need a HEAP (High Explosive Armour Piercing) weapon for that, a 1000lb payload just isn't enough to do the job. You need to crater in -then- detonate to cause the tarmac to blow upwards.

Oh well... then why bother at all...

As I noted earlier, the point of the strike wasn't to do a great deal of damage. It was simply to send a message to al-Assad; "Stop That!". Do you really think that there would even be a base there anymore if Trump had wanted it gone?

*snort*

Sorry, I read that in a whiny voice... cause that's what it really is, isn't it.

If #45 had bombed it to hell, without asking Congress first ... oh yeah, that would have gone over well.

How far are you willing to go to end the Syrian war?
And how much do you care about the collateral damage which will continue to happen in the process?

Do you care about civillian lives?
Or do you only care about America First, cause that he skillfully threw out of the window.

And al-Assad's treatment of his own people has no bearing upon the immigration policies of the US or any other nation. It is not required that we, or any other country accept any refugees that result from this or any other action. It is required that al-Assad stop gassing his own people. And that feeling seems to be quite popular; weren't the open refugee polices of the E.U. pivotal in the Brexit decision?

So, you don't care about the Syrian people... as long as Assad stops with the chemical attacks?

How do you think the people will feel about the US in general?
How does one form an opinion in any situation about a country in general?

Oh, and there was also another message delivered. As I recall, despite our former sorry excuse for a president having laid down a "line in the sand" in 2013? regarding prior behavior of this sort, he was on pretty safe ground assuming that our former apologist-in-chief wouldn't take any action.
al-Assad should now clearly be aware that he can't count on that anymore.

Fact check: Obama asked Congress. Congress said no.

You clearly missed the part where Obama went to congress (you know, following the law, rather than acting unilaterally like trump did) asking for permission to do it and got shot down by (surprise!!) Republicans. You know the party that loves going to war has dug it's heels in to just deny deny deny when they even stop that.

What he said.

in other words no more justice in corporate america (and there would be no more legal means for the People to restore justice, if you get my meaning)

People like Annoyed will be screwed -- but that's okay... He thinks it's alright.

[Gatefan1976]

Oh well... then why bother at all...

Because we are talking about this rather than Russian hacking in the US elections.
Or as Womble would say, we are looking at the wrong shiny ball.

*snort*

Sorry, I read that in a whiny voice... cause that's what it really is, isn't it.

Nope, more a desperate one

If #45 had bombed it to hell, without asking Congress first ... oh yeah, that would have gone over well.

Of course.............

How far are you willing to go to end the Syrian war?
And how much do you care about the collateral damage which will continue to happen in the process?

He's not (trump). Once more it's just a shiny ball.

Do you care about civillian lives?
Or do you only care about America First, cause that he skillfully threw out of the window.

Glad to see you noticed that

So, you don't care about the Syrian people... as long as Assad stops with the chemical attacks?

How do you think the people will feel about the US in general?
How does one form an opinion in any situation about a country in general?

The Syrians were -to a degree- happy about it, less planes to drop bombs and deliver nerve agents, not exactly a bad thing. Russia is propping up Assad, never forget that. The strike was also very targeted, so in this show of force, it was probably the best option, so thank whomever that trump at least has competent military advisors. IF trump wanted to wipe the airfield off the map, he could have, replace some of the warheads on the Tomahawks with nuclear materiel, or use the 117's that SR was speaking of earlier to deliver full bunker buster munitions. These would not have delivered massive radiation and such, but the whole area would have been a smoking crater.

Fact check: Obama asked Congress. Congress said no.



What he said.

Indeed.

People like Annoyed will be screwed -- but that's okay... He thinks it's alright.

Naw, he will be fine, for probably around 10 years, by then all the effects will have filtered down.