The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

As the cases gets higher, we are in some real trouble. I see no way we are putting the genie back in the bottle and getting people to stay home again. I am rarely seeing masked used anywhere outside of major chains that enforce employees to wear them. Gas stations, small shops and restaurants, etc. No one is wearing them anymore. As for customers, I see mostly non-whites wearing mask, but hardly any white people. It is like nothing is going on.

Still a regional phenomenon. In rural Michigan, between 80-90% mask wearing, no discernible difference between ethnic groups; mostly whites around here but not all.

I think it all depends on how bad it gets. It will have to get worse than the spring probably for people to be ok with staying home ... but if it gets bad enough, they will.

[miked]

In rural GA, there is almost no mask wearing, unless you are in Home Depot or Ingles, even then people wear it to walk through the door and immediately pull it down.

[Flasch186]

I tried hard on Facebook to convince the cultists that by wearing masks they'd be protecting their freedoms and preserving their capitalism/economy... But 'merica! So now they'll get a lockdown and be up in arms over that when if they'd have worn masks the R factor would've been low enough to nip it. Now they reap what they sow.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I tried hard on Facebook to convince the cultists that by wearing masks they'd be protecting their freedoms and preserving their capitalism/economy... But 'merica! So now they'll get a lockdown and be up in arms over that when if they'd have worn masks the R factor would've been low enough to nip it. Now they reap what they sow.

But they will never believe it was their fault. They just straight up believe the mask do nothing. You will never convince them otherwise. It is all a big liberal plot until they die of it.

[Ksyrup]

In Kentucky, cases are exploding but honestly, I'm not seeing a ton of difference in mask wearing. Most people wear them, you've got a decent percentage who wear them below the nose, but very few people at big stores go without. Now, your convenience stores, different story. But it's not like that has changed recently. I kinda equate that with what their clientele most likely believes.

I think it's just that everyone is doing more, masked or not.

[Izulde]

Rural Wisconsin almost no one wears masks except for the chains, and even then it's not fully enforced. And yet, we're going back to hybrid in two weeks.

[Brian Swartz]

I'm with KSyrup on this one more or less. The data on the spread of the virus in states that have been tougher on it and weaker on it is mixed to the point of being inconclusive. We definitely did poorly over the summer, but we're back to the point where the death rate in France, the UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium at least is worse than it is in the US, even though we didn't mitigate as effectively. Masks definitely help but they aren't enough on their own. They were never going to be enough to stop the second wave prior to a vaccine.

Early February or thereabouts is going to be far worse than anything we've seen so far IMO. Next year we'll at least be well on our way to herd immunity, but until then buckle up.

[Ksyrup]

The only thing is, "doing more" includes people hanging out with each other, and NO ONE is wearing masks at those types of get-togethers. In spring/early summer, everyone largely stayed home, so it was mask wearing at the store and then you stayed home. Now people are hanging out watching football, or kids are doing all sorts of extra-curricular activities, etc. And the combination of mask-wearing not being 100% effective + informal gatherings + anti-maskers have all contributed to a sharp increase.

[thesloppy]

Mask wearing is pretty well supported all over Portland, but that's not much of a surprise. Oregon is instituting a two-week 'pause' closing down dine-in restaurants and bars and limiting gatherings to 6 people, starting Wednesday.

[whomario]

Mask wearing in stores doesn't much matter as such, but it is indicative of a general commitment to adjust.

It's never about one thing anyway.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm with KSyrup on this one more or less. The data on the spread of the virus in states that have been tougher on it and weaker on it is mixed to the point of being inconclusive. We definitely did poorly over the summer, but we're back to the point where the death rate in France, the UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium at least is worse than it is in the US, even though we didn't mitigate as effectively. Masks definitely help but they aren't enough on their own. They were never going to be enough to stop the second wave prior to a vaccine.

Early February or thereabouts is going to be far worse than anything we've seen so far IMO. Next year we'll at least be well on our way to herd immunity, but until then buckle up.

It'll be 2k+ deaths on average already in early - mid december i'd guess.

Sad as it sounds, it would still be much morse everywhere without plenty of mitigation. This thing could pretty comfortably rip through regions a lot harder/faster. Most countries/regions had it at like R 1,5ish recently in the big ascent, which is still considerably lower as it's been shown to happen without some decent amount of mitigation.

The USs saving grace is the big distances between population centers and in some regions the still warm weather, meaning people still meeting outside. Same reasons reasons, among others, why the flu doesn't do the sort of damage on average it does in western europe (IIRC about 25-40 % less cases estimated and deaths attributed to it per capita compared to most in western/Central europe).

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

No doubt. You can't compare Trump to Obama. I wasn't a fan of Obama but I can see how folks would find seeing/meeting him as a life time moment. He has positive US historical significance.

We have to compare Trump to Obama here, whether we like it or not. We cannot ignore there are 70 million people in the USA who voted for Trump. It's not unthinkable that 0.01 percent of those actually adore him and in their perception, Trump meant more to them than Obama did.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

His hair is completely grey.

And doesn’t it look significantly less ridiculous?

Of course his image dysmorphia will not be able to see that not dying his hair and not painting himself orange make him look more relatable...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I was going to say this in the Covid political thread, but since we aren't allowed to have one for some reason and this is now the covid political thread for some reason, I will say it here so it will get lost in the discussion of Trump:


As the cases gets higher, we are in some real trouble. I see no way we are putting the genie back in the bottle and getting people to stay home again. I am rarely seeing masked used anywhere outside of major chains that enforce employees to wear them. Gas stations, small shops and restaurants, etc. No one is wearing them anymore. As for customers, I see mostly non-whites wearing mask, but hardly any white people. It is like nothing is going on.

Honestly, I think this just means the COVID thread is just going to get more political because stuff like this is more COVID and less Trump

SI

[AlexB]

COVID never needed two threads to start with, that’s where confusion started

[Edward64]

Well, the 2 big foreign policy news today was (1) Trump exploring a strike on Iran and (2) withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan & Iraq. Not sure all the details on withdrawal but on the strike

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/polit...ite/index.html

President Donald Trump last week asked senior aides what possibilities he had for an offensive strike on Iran's primary nuclear site, The New York Times reported Monday.

Citing four current and former US officials, the paper reported that the meeting occurred in the Oval Office on Thursday.
:
:
Trump asked his highest-ranking national security advisers what possible responses were available to him and how best to respond to Iran, officials told the Times.

Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley were among the senior advisers who convinced the President not to pursue a military strike, according to the paper. They cautioned that such an attack could easily balloon into a full-fledged confrontation in his final days as president, the Times reported.

Administration officials with knowledge of the meeting told the paper that after Pompeo and Milley hammered home the threat of the attack mushrooming into a larger conflict, officials departed the meeting thinking that the possibility of a missile attack on Iranian soil was no longer in question.

But officials told the paper that Trump could be continuing to eye plans to attack Iranian allies and assets, such as militias in Iraq.

I do think the Iran will eventually get nukes unless we do something. Unfortunately, not sure we can get back to the previous nuke deal. Iran with nukes is more a threat than crazy kid in the hermit kingdom having nukes.

Trump would be better off spending his last months finding out what SA wants in exchange for normalization with Israel ... that will get him in the history books in a good way.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Well, the 2 big foreign policy news today was (1) Trump exploring a strike on Iran and (2) withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan & Iraq. Not sure all the details on withdrawal but on the strike

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/polit...ite/index.html


I do think the Iran will eventually get nukes unless we do something. Unfortunately, not sure we can get back to the previous nuke deal. Iran with nukes is more a threat than crazy kid in the hermit kingdom having nukes.

Trump would be better off spending his last months finding out what SA wants in exchange for normalization with Israel ... that will get him in the history books in a good way.

One of the things I gave him credit for was showing restraint after the Iranian missile strike that followed the US taking out General Soleimani. So, he manages to make sensible play then, now he is ready to launch a strike after something much less. Stable genius indeed, it's almost like he wants the US to be in the worst possible state when Biden becomes President so he can talk shit on Twitter for 4 years. And his hard core supporters still think he is the best thing to happen to America ever, SMH.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

One of the things I gave him credit for was showing restraint after the Iranian missile strike that followed the US taking out General Soleimani. So, he manages to make sensible play then, now he is ready to launch a strike after something much less. Stable genius indeed, it's almost like he wants the US to be in the worst possible state when Biden becomes President so he can talk shit on Twitter for 4 years. And his hard core supporters still think he is the best thing to happen to America ever, SMH.

No President has done a good job of handling the Iranian situation. Yes, the Obama nuke deal did a good job in delaying nuke status but it didn't do much on the other threats to the US and allies (or frenemies in the region).

Ultimately Iran will get nukes and the question is how and when to deal with it. This takes planning and working with allies vs a willy-nilly, "I'm a sore loser and want to distract myself" strike. Good thing the others talked him out of it.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

No President has done a good job of handling the Iranian situation. Yes, the Obama nuke deal did a good job in delaying nuke status but it didn't do much on the other threats to the US and allies (or frenemies in the region).

Ultimately Iran will get nukes and the question is how and when to deal with it. This takes planning and working with allies vs a willy-nilly, "I'm a sore loser and want to distract myself" strike. Good thing the others talked him out of it.

Oh he did a shitty job overall with Iran, I meant only the fact that he did not retaliate after that missile strike, which would have blown up like a powder keg. Though I am sure someone talked him out of it.

[Lathum]

So, um, Lindsay Graham.

[Brian Swartz]

I think Iran gets nukes eventually whether we do anything or whether we don't. It's not preventable unless you want to go to war over it, and nobody does.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So, um, Lindsay Graham.

Just got easily reelected to a 6 year term and is in no danger because the GOP never faces consequences

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So, um, Lindsay Graham.

The elections official in GA, the Republican, I'm sure is just another disgruntled RINO along with anyone else who tries to remain ethical.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think Iran gets nukes eventually whether we do anything or whether we don't. It's not preventable unless you want to go to war over it, and nobody does.

I agree. It's how long it can be delayed.

Possibly Israel is willing to do something about it though.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree. It's how long it can be delayed.

Possibly Israel is willing to do something about it though.

Stuxnet was a brilliant way to extend that timeline more than expected in a non-conventional way.

SI

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The elections official in GA, the Republican, I'm sure is just another disgruntled RINO along with anyone else who tries to remain ethical.

His record indicates otherwise. Why the fuck is Graham even calling him?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Well, the 2 big foreign policy news today was (1) Trump exploring a strike on Iran and (2) withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan & Iraq. Not sure all the details on withdrawal but on the strike

The second one is kind of funny, watching the criticism from the hawkish far left against Trump the dove. Strange days indeed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think Iran gets nukes eventually whether we do anything or whether we don't. It's not preventable unless you want to go to war over it, and nobody does.

I do think the nuclear deal was the best option though. Allow for observers to have free access in exchange for opening up the country. I know during the Cold War, we loved having more access to Communist economies so we could have positive cultural effects.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The second one is kind of funny, watching the criticism from the hawkish far left against Trump the dove. Strange days indeed.

Not sure who the hawkish far left is, but the lefties I see aren't saying much of anything about it.

[miami_fan]

Just a couple of questions

Have the conditions been met that the Pentagon set for removing the troops?

Are we going to bring home all the equipment it took 20 years to bring over or are we just going to leave it there for whoever comes in next?

[Edward64]

Looks like SA wants to get into the club if Iran develops nukes. Biden and Susan Rice (?) will have their hands full with this mess.

Saudi Arabia reserves the right to arm itself with nuclear weapons if regional rival Iran cannot be stopped from making one, the kingdom’s minister of state for foreign affairs has said.

“It’s definitely an option,” Adel al-Jubeir told the DPA news agency in a recent interview. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, he said, more countries would follow suit.
:
But US President Donald Trump in 2018 unilaterally withdrew his country from the deal and brought it to the brink of failure.

Trump’s administration wants a more far-reaching programme and an end to Iran’s regional interference – a position supported by Saudi Arabia.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Have the conditions been met that the Pentagon set for removing the troops?

Supposedly this was why Esper was "fired". He didn't feel the conditions had been met while Christopher Miller was on board with the troop withdrawal.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So, um, Lindsay Graham.

So this just happened.

Sen. Lindsey Graham tells reporters he's also spoken to Secretary of State of Arizona (and Nevada). To normalize the idea of these communications?

Secretary of State of Arizona immediately responds that Graham's statement is false.👇 https://t.co/widIyZYJFP

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) November 17, 2020

[Ksyrup]

This is so Trumpesque. "I'm just asking questions, I don't know anything!"

It turns out there was a *witness* to the @LindseyGrahamSC / @GaSecofState call: GA official Gabe Sterling.

He says he can see how the 2 interpreted the call differently, but confirms it did go down path of whether whole counties w/high sig rejection rates could be thrown out

— Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews) November 17, 2020

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not sure who the hawkish far left is, but the lefties I see aren't saying much of anything about it.

I think the hawkish far left, in this case, are the folks who feel some responsibility for the "you break it, you own it" concept.

[sterlingice]

I don't get what's going on with Graham. He seemed like one of those old school Senators who would occasionally be part of a "Gang of X" Senator compromise groups or would be a token dissent voice and, most importantly, he knew the score. He knew he was selling a bit of a scam, just as most politicians do (except the scary true believers), but he would do it the way you're supposed to do it. This seems beneath him, especially since he already won re-election. This seems like the type of thing you farm out to some junior senator who, if he gets embroiled in a scandal, oh well - no great loss; just create another one.

SI

[BYU 14]

Trump almost has to have something of note on Graham, the way he jumps through hoops for his puppet master. I know that is a bad lifetime movie theory, but how else do you explain this outside of Trump has promised to play Kingmaker for him in 2024, which becomes a moot point if Trump runs again.

[Ksyrup]

I think it's as simple as some of these guys have made the calculation that going all-in on Trumpism is going to ride them to the end of their careers. Graham is 65 and just re-elected. He wins once more and he'll be 77 at the end of that term. Maybe he goes for 1 more? The calculus is that polarization is going to become the norm, even after Trump is gone, so better go along with it.

Did you see his Senate debate? He whined about being out-spent and won re-election by 11 points. McConnell laughed his way through his debate without a single substantive response and won by 20 points. They figure they can get through 1 or 2 more elections, easy, just feeding the same BS to the cultists.

[Ksyrup]

GA Secretary of State going all in:

In new intv with me, @GaSecofState says 24,000 GOPs who voted absentee in primary did not vote in General - says Donald Trump cost himself the election by sowing distrust in absentee: "he would have won by 10 thousand votes he actually suppressed, depressed his own voting base"

— Justin Gray (@JustinGrayWSB) November 17, 2020

[Edward64]

2,000 troops from Afghanistan and 500 troops from Iraq. I don't think there is a right answer on # of troops, arguments can be made either way.

In the big picture, I'm glad we are reducing troops from those 2 countries.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/17/pent...ghanistan.html

Acting Pentagon chief Christopher Miller said Tuesday that the United States will reduce its military presence in Afghanistan to 2,500 troops and 2,500 troops in Iraq by Jan. 15.

The United States has approximately 4,500 troops currently in Afghanistan and more than 3,000 in Iraq.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

GA Secretary of State going all in:

In new intv with me, @GaSecofState says 24,000 GOPs who voted absentee in primary did not vote in General - says Donald Trump cost himself the election by sowing distrust in absentee: "he would have won by 10 thousand votes he actually suppressed, depressed his own voting base"

— Justin Gray (@JustinGrayWSB) November 17, 2020

Holy shit! I mean Raffensberger loves to suppress the vote, but don't imply he's incompetent or he's going to go off on you.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

2,000 troops from Afghanistan and 500 troops from Iraq. I don't think there is a right answer on # of troops, arguments can be made either way.

In the big picture, I'm glad we are reducing troops from those 2 countries.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/17/pent...ghanistan.html

That's pretty much how I feel. I certainly don't have any faith in Trump's intent or grasp of military strategy/history (or mine, for that matter), but in this case I'm on board with 'fuck the experts'.

[GrantDawg]

Rockets fired at the US embassy in Iraq.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[cuervo72]

Well isn't thatconvenient.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This is so Trumpesque. "I'm just asking questions, I don't know anything!"

Pretty sure that's a crime.

[GrantDawg]

Trump fired the head of cyber security at DHS because he dared say there was no evidence of election fraud.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[stevew]

Seems fairly straightforward why Lil Wayne backed Trump. Much like all of the other greaseballs associated with this administration, he needs a federal pardon.

https://www.eonline.com/ca/news/1209...and-ammunition

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't get what's going on with Graham. He seemed like one of those old school Senators who would occasionally be part of a "Gang of X" Senator compromise groups or would be a token dissent voice and, most importantly, he knew the score. He knew he was selling a bit of a scam, just as most politicians do (except the scary true believers), but he would do it the way you're supposed to do it. This seems beneath him, especially since he already won re-election. This seems like the type of thing you farm out to some junior senator who, if he gets embroiled in a scandal, oh well - no great loss; just create another one.

SI

It's a fascinating subplot, right?

He did an interview with the NY Time podcast The Daily (or maybe it was with a reporter who then went on the podcast) a year or so ago, and his basic explanation was that he liked being "relevant." As despicable as it sounded, to me, I confess that it did sound coherent -- he's a political actor, and wants to be someone who "makes a difference." When he was running around with McCain, the two of them had influence among the center-right political lane, which matters...and he liked being relevant in that way. His instinct was to follow along with McCain and condemn Trump as the right/wise thing to do.

But then Trump wins, McCain dies, Trump's influence among GOP voters skyrockets...and rank and file Republicans needed to make a choice. Meanwhile, Trump invites Graham out to go golfing... starts asking him for advice on nominations and other stuff (that Trump couldn't care any less about)... and the trap is fully set. Graham sees his path to continued and growing "relevance" lies with becoming an amplifier of Trumpism, and he is all in.

And at this point...how's it working out for him? He is credited as saving the Kavanaugh nomination with his "Y'all want power so bad, I hope you never get it" speech... he gets caught up in an outright lie about the next SCOTUS nom and takes zero flak for it...he gets challenged by a hundred million dollars of liberal money and wins by open lengths... and along the way the party proved that impeachment is not an actual thing that could possibly happen to anyone ever. The GOP is not about "consequences" unless you're a Democrat, in which case they don't even care if there's a pretense for them.

Lindsey Graham can continue to live the life he wants now... he will remain a noteworthy "player" in national politics, he will get whispers as a possible presidential candidate, he will get to enjoy the DC nightlife and the things that might not be as forthcoming were he to become an ex-Senator, and he can take upon unseemly political tasks that the less teflon-laden of his peers just cannot do.

Winner.

[Vegas Vic]

This isn't NFL news, so I wasn't sure which thread to put this in. Since Trump is still president for another two months I decided to put it in here.

We have various doctrines pertaining to foreign policy (Monroe, Truman, etc.). Here's the Belichick Doctrine.

Bill Belichick Calls For U.S. To Take Action Against Turkey, Azerbaijan For ‘Unprovoked And Deadly Attacks On Armenians’

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's a fascinating subplot, right?

He did an interview with the NY Time podcast The Daily (or maybe it was with a reporter who then went on the podcast) a year or so ago, and his basic explanation was that he liked being "relevant." As despicable as it sounded, to me, I confess that it did sound coherent -- he's a political actor, and wants to be someone who "makes a difference." When he was running around with McCain, the two of them had influence among the center-right political lane, which matters...and he liked being relevant in that way. His instinct was to follow along with McCain and condemn Trump as the right/wise thing to do.

But then Trump wins, McCain dies, Trump's influence among GOP voters skyrockets...and rank and file Republicans needed to make a choice. Meanwhile, Trump invites Graham out to go golfing... starts asking him for advice on nominations and other stuff (that Trump couldn't care any less about)... and the trap is fully set. Graham sees his path to continued and growing "relevance" lies with becoming an amplifier of Trumpism, and he is all in.

And at this point...how's it working out for him? He is credited as saving the Kavanaugh nomination with his "Y'all want power so bad, I hope you never get it" speech... he gets caught up in an outright lie about the next SCOTUS nom and takes zero flak for it...he gets challenged by a hundred million dollars of liberal money and wins by open lengths... and along the way the party proved that impeachment is not an actual thing that could possibly happen to anyone ever. The GOP is not about "consequences" unless you're a Democrat, in which case they don't even care if there's a pretense for them.

Lindsey Graham can continue to live the life he wants now... he will remain a noteworthy "player" in national politics, he will get whispers as a possible presidential candidate, he will get to enjoy the DC nightlife and the things that might not be as forthcoming were he to become an ex-Senator, and he can take upon unseemly political tasks that the less teflon-laden of his peers just cannot do.

Winner.

This all makes sense in a sad, cynical sort of way.

It also reminds me that the line between actors/athletes and politicians is much thinner than typically portrayed. Most are influence-hungry prima donnas who are rich but not wealthy and take marching orders from those who are.

SI

[RainMaker]

I will do my best to explain. It is a mistake to think there is inconsistency between the McCain era And Trump Era. Graham is Essentially a pilot fish. They eat parasites and live off the detritus of larger fish. McCain was a noble shark who sustained his pilot fish. https://t.co/sn3qF1CwJM

— Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) November 22, 2019