Author Topic: US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE (Read 2771872 times)

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9060 on:** May 16, 2015, 10:21:44 PM »

I had a friend let me use his food stamps card and get basically $150 worth of groceries in exchange for $75 once, so it does happen, but who the fuck cares really.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9061 on:** May 16, 2015, 10:25:09 PM »

Also, typical of the state to clamp down on small businessmen who use state offered subsidies to build capital and marketshare in the food supply industry while leaping at the opportunity to provide it to large firms.

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #9062 on:** May 16, 2015, 10:40:55 PM »

What's fungibility brehs

benjipwns · « **Reply #9063 on:** May 16, 2015, 10:41:29 PM »

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money

Quote

Almost a decade ago, as Hillary Clinton ran for re-election to the Senate on her way to seeking the presidency for the first time, the New York Times reported on her unusually close relationship with Corning, Inc., an upstate glass titan. Clinton advanced the company's interests, racking up a big assist by getting China to ease a trade barrier. And the firm's mostly Republican executives opened up their wallets for her campaign.

During Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family's foundation. And, last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it's the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn't go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.

...

Corning's in good company in padding the Clinton family bank account after lobbying the State Department and donating to the foundation. Qualcomm and salesforce.com did that, too. Irwin Jacobs, a founder of Qualcomm, and Marc Benioff, a founder of salesforce.com, also cut $25,000 checks to the now-defunct Ready for Hillary SuperPAC. Hillary Clinton spoke to their companies on the same day, October 14, 2014. She collected more than half a million dollars from them that day, adding to the $225,500 salesforce.com had paid her to speak eight months earlier.

And Microsoft, the American Institute of Architects, AT&T, SAP America, Oracle and Telefonica all paid Bill Clinton six-figure sums to speak as Hillary Clinton laid the groundwork for her presidential campaign.

And that list, which includes Clinton Foundation donors, is hardly the end of it. There's a solid set of companies and associations that had nothing to do with the foundation but lobbied State while Clinton was there and then paid for her to speak to them. Xerox, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, in addition to Corning, all lobbied Clinton's department on trade matters and then invited her to earn an easy check.

By this point, most Clinton allies wish they had a button so they didn't have to go to the trouble of rolling their eyes at each new Clinton money story. The knee-jerk eye-roll response to the latest disclosure will be that there's nothing new to see here. But there's something very important to see that is different than the past stories. This time, it's about Hillary Clinton having her pockets lined by the very people who seek to influence her. Not in some metaphorical sense. She's literally being paid by them.

lol at Oracle's donation to the Foundation in comparison

benjipwns · « **Reply #9064 on:** May 16, 2015, 10:52:03 PM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 10:48:28 PM

So she got paid for a speech years after resigning from the SoS position?

That Vox headline is a disgrace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/nyregion/12hillary.html?pagewanted=all

Corning was 7th among companies in employees donating to her 2008 campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?hpid=z1

Quote

On a trip to Moscow early in her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton played the role of international saleswoman, pressing Russian government officials to sign a multibillion-dollar deal to buy dozens of aircraft from Boeing.

A month later, Clinton was in China, where she jubilantly announced that the aerospace giant would be writing a generous check to help resuscitate floundering U.S. efforts to host a pavilion at the upcoming World’s Fair.

Boeing, she said, “has just agreed to double its contribution to $2 million.”

Clinton did not point out that, to secure the donation, the State Department had set aside ethics guidelines that first prohibited solicitations of Boeing and then later permitted only a $1 million gift from the company. Boeing had been included on a list of firms to be avoided because of its frequent reliance on the government for help negotiating overseas business and concern that a donation could be seen as an attempt to curry favor with U.S. officials.

...

In 2010, two months after Boeing won its $3.7 billion Russia deal, the company announced a $900,000 contribution to the William J. Clinton Foundation

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #9065 on:** May 16, 2015, 10:57:15 PM »

I guess I will have to pull the lever for the guys getting their money from casino magnates and the NRA instead

benjipwns · « **Reply #9066 on:** May 16, 2015, 10:59:23 PM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 10:54:53 PM

A NYT article from 2006, how quaint.

If that article didn't turn her into Nixon nine years ago, I see no reason to care today.

Exactly.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9067 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:10:52 PM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 11:01:42 PM

Implicit in all of these stories is the assumption that paid speeches do not constitute an exchange of services for payment, but an under-the-table bribe.

Well, it wouldn't be a bribe anyway, as I don't think you can bribe someone who is openly offering their services.

The larger point here is that Hillary has staked out two positions: that she will be a champion of "the middle class" assumingly against the elite (of which she is not, recently being dead broke) and even worse hold a litmus test on siding with Supreme Court Justices who believe the possible "appearance of corruption" justifies government restrictions on freedom of the press. While at the same time engaged in seemingly endless amount of appearances of pay-for-play favors for large corporate firms that also happens to be fattening her wallet personally.

It should raise doubts of stated preferences vs. revealed preferences in people like my mothers friend who recently remarked "you know, I'm feel like I shouldn't be trusting some politicans anymore [after Prop 1]" should it not?

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #9068 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:27:41 PM »

All I know is that the next president is going to pick three SC justices, maybe four. I'm voting for whoever gets the dem nomination. IE Hillary.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9069 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:31:21 PM »

Hillary actually has a pretty low bar to clear- she has to be the "champion of the working class" RELATIVE TO THE PARTY THAT WANTS TO KICK POOR PEOPLE OFF OF HEALTHCARE AND GIVE MITT ROMNEY MORE TAX CUTS. I think she'll be fine.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9070 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:31:51 PM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 11:25:38 PM

Sure, and if the choice were between Hillary and some fucking awesome middle-class warrior candidate who talked and walked the progressive-libertarian anti-corporatist talk and walk, those revelations would sure as fuck make me question a vote for Hillary.

When the choice is between Hillary and one of Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, or Carly Fiorina*, those revelations get a yawn.

The choice isn't though.

Vote for Sanders in the primary and (likely since nobody seems to be interested in challenging her) Stein in the general. Your vote won't change the outcome of the election anyway but you can have a clearer conscience instead of losing your right to complain for eight years.

Plus in the Stein case it helps the Green Party in ballot retention.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9071 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:34:27 PM »

Quote from: benjipwns on May 16, 2015, 11:31:51 PM

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 11:25:38 PM
Sure, and if the choice were between Hillary and some fucking awesome middle-class warrior candidate who talked and walked the progressive-libertarian anti-corporatist talk and walk, those revelations would sure as fuck make me question a vote for Hillary.

When the choice is between Hillary and one of Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, or Carly Fiorina*, those revelations get a yawn.
The choice isn't though.

Vote for Sanders in the primary and (likely since nobody seems to be interested in challenging her) Stein in the general. Your vote won't change the outcome of the election anyway but you can have a clearer conscience instead of losing your right to complain for eight years.

Plus in the Stein case it helps the Green Party in ballot retention.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9072 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:38:07 PM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 11:36:03 PM

Anyone I know in Ohio who does that is getting kicked in the dick when I see them.

Why? Their vote isn't changing the outcome of the two-party competition.

Quote from: Human Snorenado on May 16, 2015, 11:34:27 PM

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)(Image removed from quote.)

It was just a suggestion, if anyone wants to throw their vote away by voting for Hillary Clinton that's their prerogative.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #9073 on:** May 17, 2015, 12:32:29 AM »

I'm kinda digging the "image removed from quote" L.

Quote

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)(Image removed from quote.)

HyperZoneWasAwesome · « **Reply #9074 on:** May 17, 2015, 12:44:04 AM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 11:25:38 PM

Sure, and if the choice were between Hillary and some fucking awesome middle-class warrior candidate who talked and walked the progressive-libertarian anti-corporatist talk and walk, those revelations would sure as fuck make me question a vote for Hillary.

When the choice is between Hillary and one of Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, or Carly Fiorina*, those revelations get a yawn.

those were at least a good chunk of the reasons she couldn't beat Obama in 2008. That and she didn't campaign as well, etc. But his liberal bona-fides were much stronger even as his stated policies weren't really all that different.

A strong democratic contender really could make waves against Hilary, or a actual centrist GOP-er, neither such things exist now, so President Hilary here we come.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9075 on:** May 17, 2015, 12:53:08 AM »

http://www.pewresearch.org/2015/05/13/from-telephone-to-the-web-the-challenge-of-mode-of-interview-effects-in-public-opinion-polls/

benjipwns · « **Reply #9076 on:** May 17, 2015, 01:35:39 AM »

The funny thing to me is that Sarah Palin's "low end" numbers are almost the same as W. Bush's "high end" numbers. She was Governor of Alaska for a couple years.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9077 on:** May 17, 2015, 01:52:06 AM »

I don't understand that.

She didn't even start that except for coining the specific phrase, it had been around for months in conservative/Republican circles. And she was just some former Governor of Alaska posting on Facebook.

Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee (at minimum) said the same thing and they've both since run/are running for President. While Sarah Palin had a promotional show or two about Alaska and shows up on Fox News as one of their many many many many conservative "Fox News contributors."

Meanwhile, George W. Bush headed the executive branch for eight years and actually signed off on a few things here and there that didn't work out as intended. Or did and were just "evil" or so.

Mandark · « **Reply #9078 on:** May 17, 2015, 02:37:32 AM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 04:26:14 PM

How is a 2L of Pepsi any different than a bottle of vodka?

You must make a hell of a martini.

How you gonna tell poor kids they can't have orange juice or raisin bran? C'mon.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9079 on:** May 17, 2015, 03:29:11 AM »

Pepsi will rot their teeth (poors are known to have poor dental hygiene) and contribute to their getting fat, especially when they buy 120 cans of Mountain Dew during their lobster and steak binges, which will raise medical costs which will raise our debt which will harm our bond status which will lead to another default which will lead to economic chaos which will lead to Mad Max: Fury Road becoming real life.

Wait, I screwed that up and made things AWESOME at the end of the slope.

Mandark · « **Reply #9080 on:** May 17, 2015, 04:17:26 AM »

Quote from: benjipwns on May 16, 2015, 11:31:51 PM

Vote for Sanders in the primary and (likely since nobody seems to be interested in challenging her) Stein in the general. Your vote won't change the outcome of the election anyway but you can have a clearer conscience instead of losing your right to complain for eight years.

Self-absolution. Meh.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9081 on:** May 17, 2015, 05:07:37 AM »

I'm completely flabbergasted at these statements:

Quote

Former Sen. Rick Santorum's answer for handling Iran, one of four countries on the U.S. list of nations accused of repeatedly supporting global terrorism, was to "load up our bombers and bomb them back to the seventh century."

Earlier in the day, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush praised U.S. commandos who had reportedly killed the IS leader, described as the head of oil operations for IS. Bush gave no credit to Obama, whom Bush accused of allowing the rise of IS by pulling back U.S. forces from Iraq.

"It's a great day, but it's not a strategy," Bush told reporters in eastern Iowa.

Although Bush joked lightly about the confused statements he made in recent days about whether he would have ordered the attack in Iraq in 2003, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul told the GOP gathering Saturday night that it was a "valid question" to ask presidential candidates whether they would have invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein.

"We have to question: Is Iraq more stable or less stable since Hussein is gone?" asked Paul,

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to reject any assertion that the existing problems in Iraq were the result of the Republican president who ordered the invasion, Bush's brother George W. Bush.

"The person I blame is Barack Obama, not George W. Bush," said Graham, who criticized Obama for keeping a campaign promise to withdraw combat troops from Iraq. Of George W. Bush, Graham said, "He made the best decision he could."

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, as did others, accused Obama of not taking the threat of Islamic State militants seriously. Perry pointed to claims by the militant group, disputed by terrorism experts, that it was behind the assault on a Texas cartoon contest that featured images of the Prophet Muhammad.

"You see ISIS showing up in Garland, Texas," Perry said. "You realize this is a challenging world we live in."

...

Former business executive Carly Fiorina said that if Clinton is going to run for president, "she is going to have to answer some questions." Paul joked about whether Clinton "ever takes any questions." Earlier in the day Bush said he had taken between 800 and 900 questions, compared to a handful by Clinton.

In one of the more specific broadsides against Clinton, Fiorina said the former first lady must not be president because "she is not trustworthy, she lacks a track record of leadership and her policies will crush the potential of this nation."

...

Having recently visited Israel and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Walker called the Obama administration's foreign policy to "draw a red line in the sand and allow people to cross it." Instead, [Walker] suggested that the United States "take the fight to them."

benjipwns · « **Reply #9082 on:** May 17, 2015, 06:27:46 AM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 04:26:14 PM

How is a 2L of Pepsi any different than a bottle of vodka? We already restrict the latter. The former is empty calories. The program is called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Whatever people buy with it should contain nutrients.

Quote from: The Walrus on May 17, 2015, 05:33:22 AM

Also, did you know that soap, laundry detergent, deodorant, etc are not permissible purchases under SNAP? Swap those for soda and we're good.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #9083 on:** May 17, 2015, 11:37:44 AM »

You don't get to define nutrition, Benji. Check your privilege.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #9084 on:** May 17, 2015, 05:07:43 PM »

Quote from: benjipwns on May 17, 2015, 06:27:46 AM

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 04:26:14 PM
How is a 2L of Pepsi any different than a bottle of vodka? We already restrict the latter. The former is empty calories. The program is called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Whatever people buy with it should contain nutrients.
Quote from: The Walrus on May 17, 2015, 05:33:22 AM
Also, did you know that soap, laundry detergent, deodorant, etc are not permissible purchases under SNAP? Swap those for soda and we're good.

Let them eat laundry detergent.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9085 on:** May 17, 2015, 06:21:53 PM »

The first GOP candidate* that basically says "Yes, obviously we wouldn't invade Iraq given what we know now, I'd rather stick my face and balls into blenders and hit puree" gets a gold star.

*non Rand Paul division, cause he doesn't count and won't be the nominee

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/florida-man

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #9086 on:** May 17, 2015, 06:36:14 PM »

I think we're watching a director's cut version of the Iraq War Redux where Hans Blix, Richard Clarke, and a host of other roles have been removed.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9087 on:** May 17, 2015, 07:04:18 PM »

The ghost of George W Bush will claim many victims before 2016.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9088 on:** May 17, 2015, 07:18:08 PM »

Quote from: Great Rumbler on May 17, 2015, 07:04:18 PM

The ghost of George W Bush will claim many victims before 2016.

"Did I do that?"

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9089 on:** May 17, 2015, 11:17:34 PM »

The clown show that's gonna result from a woman being the Dem nominee, brehs

Mandark · « **Reply #9090 on:** May 17, 2015, 11:40:46 PM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 16, 2015, 03:16:49 PM

No sodas, coco puffs or whatever.

Quote from: The Walrus on May 17, 2015, 05:33:22 AM

Mandark, I never said anything about orange juice or raisin brans. Both of those things are staples.

At this point I encourage the reader to look up the nutritional tables for each of these items, then imagine what "common sense" rules would label two of them as "staples" and two of them as treyf.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #9091 on:** May 17, 2015, 11:41:13 PM »

I can't believe that she didn't believe that those trufacts were true. The wacky record scratch sound fx was totally convincing.

Mandark · « **Reply #9092 on:** May 17, 2015, 11:58:17 PM »

Quote from: Esch on May 17, 2015, 11:45:20 PM

OJ is pretty much sugar water though.

Yup, and raisin bran is secretly a candy cereal, but like OJ it has a better reputation than more colorfully marketed foods and drinks. Saying you'll keep poor parents from buying their kids some OJ sounds a lot worse than saying you won't let them buy soda, when it's basically the same.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #9093 on:** May 18, 2015, 12:12:09 AM »

Orange juice is very similar to soda in terms of acidity.

But this Fox thing brehs...I don't even know what to say. Obviously that segment must work perfectly for Fox's demographics: old people and religious people. But like Stacy Dash, that shit would melt if ever taken out of the bubble and exposed to the sunlight of the real world. And we'll be getting a lot more of it soon!

I missed my shot at being a black conservative paid Fox contributor during the Obama era. Now that Hillary is up next there's going to be quite a premium for women willing to say incredibly ignorant shit about women that a man wouldn't be able to get away with. Himu, now is your time. Don't dither like me, take the shot.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9094 on:** May 18, 2015, 03:17:19 AM »

Gavin McInnes is a longtime troll though. Or was.

I think he's become more serious over his post-VICE years since he now writes for Taki's and VDARE though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/gavin-mcinnes-women-workplace_n_4138741.html

Like he looked into the troll singularity and couldn't get escape velocity to get back out.

EDIT: I was surprised when he started popping up on Hannity and "serious" stuff considering Red Eye had all sorts of restrictions put on how many times he could appear in a month because of how much censoring they had to do and what things he'd say. (A special Red Eye guest provision he shared with Sherrod Small and the late Andrew Breitbart.)

benjipwns · « **Reply #9095 on:** May 18, 2015, 03:19:55 AM »

The comments about the Hannity demographics got me interested, lol at the age chart for his show.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9096 on:** May 18, 2015, 03:36:46 AM »

What's interesting is that MSNBC number vs. Maddow/Hardball's. Who are all the women watching on MSNBC? Morning Joe? Al Sharpton? The Cycle?

The Fox/MSNBC vs. actual show numbers probably mean people just stick their earlier morning/afternoon/evening programming on to get the news, and then when primetime hits they switch over to watch actual shows. So like say Special Report/Fox Report/Greta holds onto the more diverse age/gender cohort which then goes insane because a significant number of the non-old white males bail out when O'Reilly comes on to watch NCIS and CSI: Cyber.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9097 on:** May 18, 2015, 07:48:59 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/obama-to-limit-military-style-equipment-for-police-forces.html?_r=0

Quote

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday will ban the federal provision of some types of military-style equipment to local police departments and sharply restrict the availability of others, administration officials said.

HyperZoneWasAwesome · « **Reply #9098 on:** May 18, 2015, 08:22:02 AM »

Quote from: The Walrus on May 18, 2015, 03:24:28 AM

The WSJ readership is fucking vile. Basically freepers who had more successful careers.

What the WSJ has become over the last 6-7 years really saddens me.

really, I haven't noticed as much. They're still pretty much the same exact paper they were pre-Murdoch buyout, the layout is just a little more colorful, the opinion page is still (and has always been) extremely conservative, and the nuts and bolts journalism they report on is still financially focused and rock solid informational.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9099 on:** May 18, 2015, 08:41:55 AM »

WSJ has always been quite strict, at least publicly, about that editorial/news divide out of their business/financial focus. Their political news coverage has slid slightly to the GOP since the late 1990s in terms of who they quote in stories and such, but there was a long period where it was slightly "liberal" so it might just be in the state of a correction towards an attempt at a political mean. Murdoch has always had a bit of that slant as well, news coverage should be good and hard, let editorial be as insane as it wants. Not counting his tabloids. You can even see it on FOX when they drop out of commentary mode to cover some breaking story (like the Boston manhunt and global events like the Japanese earthquake) and bring in THE POWER OF ~~XBOX~~ all of Murdoch's global assets to do actual reporting. MSNBC and CNN have gotten worse on that front really, I think FOX is better at utilizing their international assets, CNN's really let theirs go to shit. al Jazeera's now either second or first depending on where in the world it's happening. Then FOX slowly drifts back to baseless commentary and speculation mode as the long wait for more information begins.

But he's right about the readership of the WSJ and any other newspaper. Or news channel. Or website.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

And I love it so.

[close]

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9100 on:** May 18, 2015, 09:01:59 AM »

Quote from: benjipwns on May 18, 2015, 03:19:55 AM

The comments about the Hannity demographics got me interested, lol at the age chart for his show.
(Image removed from quote.)(Image removed from quote.)

Hannity

benjipwns · « **Reply #9101 on:** May 18, 2015, 11:52:19 AM »

Also: https://www.bencarson.com/

jakefromstatefarm · « **Reply #9102 on:** May 18, 2015, 01:03:07 PM »

Quote from: benjipwns on May 18, 2015, 03:17:19 AM

I think he's become more serious over his post-VICE years since he now writes for Taki's and VDARE though.

A-tier shitheel. associated with sites that publish white-nationalist, anti-immigration, slavery apologia material then handwaves it by appealing to shits and giggles

benjipwns · « **Reply #9103 on:** May 18, 2015, 01:52:27 PM »

He didn't used to be this way, I don't know if he changed or if he was always just hiding it.

About a year into his Red Eye appearances he went from clear trolling and semi-libertarianish opinions to taking more Pat Buchanan type stances on things including like drug use and stuff and being serious about it. And then off onto the anti-immigrant* bandwagon like he was Lou Dobbs.

Seems he's really slotted the MRA stuff in there. Wonder if he has any #GamerGate views.

*And he's born in England, raised in Canada.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9104 on:** May 18, 2015, 01:53:44 PM »

Quote

McInnes said in 2013 that, after being an atheist most of his life, fatherhood made him believe in God and become pro-life.

Okay, that's right about when he stopped trolling on Red Eye and started showing up on the other Fox shows as a serious guest. And started writing for Taki's and VDARE.

Samson Manhug · « **Reply #9105 on:** May 19, 2015, 01:47:49 PM »

I guess McInness basically went native. Maybe it's like when law enforcement is undercover too long or Stockholm syndrome. I guess if you spend enough time with Fox News talking heads you eventually become one, regardless of your initial intentions.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #9106 on:** May 19, 2015, 03:39:51 PM »

Quote from: benjipwns on May 18, 2015, 01:53:44 PM

Quote
McInnes said in 2013 that, after being an atheist most of his life, fatherhood made him believe in God and become pro-life.
Okay, that's right about when he stopped trolling on Red Eye and started showing up on the other Fox shows as a serious guest. And started writing for Taki's and VDARE.

And now he's just trying to share the joy of parenthood with others, but the liberal feminazi Hannity Show won't let him. :'(

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #9107 on:** May 19, 2015, 08:53:54 PM »

I'll go with option c) He got a taste of that Wingnut Welfare and realized they'll accept his mediocrity (it's actually in the job description), but you must fall in line.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9108 on:** May 20, 2015, 10:32:49 AM »

Quote

Grayson’s previously unreported effort to have Lolita Grayson arrested on credit-card fraud charges was revealed in one of her court filings that complained about the wealthy Democrat’s tactics to withhold money from her.

“The Husband has denied the Wife access to marital assets or funds that could be used to pay for attorney’s fees and costs, even going to the extent of filing a criminal complaint against the Wife for her alleged use of a marital credit card account,” her attorney said in a successful March 13 motion to compel Grayson to pay up.

In previous court filings and interviews, Lolita Grayson, who’s now on her sixth lawyer, has depicted Grayson as abusive and so tight-fisted that she and their four minor children had to go on food stamps. She said she couldn’t afford to repair a leaky septic tank and broken windows that allowed mold to fester in the family’s Orlando home. Her situation and the corresponding images of the home’s disrepair aired on local TV in October 2014, just before Grayson — a trial lawyer worth about $31 million — won reelection to a third term in the House.

Grayson has told others that he doesn’t believe his headline-grabbing divorce case — replete with allegations of bigamy, mistresses, cruelty and a delay caused by a leaky breast implant — will be too much of a distraction if he ultimately decides to run for statewide office. But critics in his own party disagree, saying it exposes unpleasant aspects of the firebrand congressman’s temperament that could turn off women in a year when Democrats hope their candidates are buoyed by Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.

Grayson has made clear in his court filings that he believes Lolita Grayson isn’t entitled to half of his assets under Florida law because she committed bigamy by being married to another person when they tied the knot a quarter-century ago. The two parties recently appeared to reach an agreement to annul the marriage, but, on Monday, Lolita Grayson withdrew.

“I’ll sum it up for you: Gold diggers gotta dig. That’s all I’m gonna say,” the congressman told a reporter for WFTV, an Orlando TV station, after the Monday hearing. “We had an agreement. She’s trying to renege.”

Lolita Grayson wouldn’t comment. About the time she was on food stamps and showing reporters the mold in her family home, she had begun using her husband’s Bank of America credit card, which he left behind after he moved out of the family home in December 2013. The $8,695.29 worth of charges Lolita Grayson racked up on the credit card between Sept. 29 and Oct. 20 last year appeared to be for typical living expenses. The largest charge: nearly $5,900 at Universal Service Center, an Orlando auto-repair store. She spent about $2,300 on groceries and related items at Publix, Whole Foods and Wal-Mart. She dropped $270 at gas stations and about $288 at restaurants — from a $104 charge at Bravo Dellagio in Orlando to $17.17 at a Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins and $15.40 at Planet Smoothie.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9109 on:** May 20, 2015, 10:35:10 AM »

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/19/cruz-visits-beaumont-defends-gay-marriage-oppositi/

Quote

"Is there something about the left — and I am going to put the media in this category — that is obsessed with sex?” Cruz asked after fielding multiple questions on gay rights. “ISIS is executing homosexuals — you want to talk about gay rights? This week was a very bad week for gay rights because the expansion of ISIS, the expansion of radical, theocratic, Islamic zealots that crucify Christians, that behead children and that murder homosexuals — that ought to be concerning you far more than asking six questions all on the same topic.”

Cruz also said he did not think his opposition to gay marriage will hurt his chances with moderate voters.

“With respect, I would suggest not drawing your questions from MSNBC. They have very few viewers and they are a radical and extreme partisan outlet,” Cruz told a reporter. He cited the expansion of “mandatory same-sex marriage” as an assault on religious liberty in the United States.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #9110 on:** May 20, 2015, 11:16:49 AM »

Cruz is jealous of ISIS power. ISIS kills gays and the fact that we can't in America is an assault on religious freedom.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9111 on:** May 20, 2015, 11:20:23 AM »

1:45 brehs

also 0:55

Brehvolution · « **Reply #9112 on:** May 20, 2015, 11:39:03 AM »

If Iraq doesn't sack up and defend itself with the tens of billions of dollars in equipment given to them by us, then let them be dissolved and absorbed into neighboring countries.

I don't think we need to be involved in muslim on muslim warfare.

Should we have gone into Ireland and helped the Catholics?

benjipwns · « **Reply #9113 on:** May 20, 2015, 11:48:37 AM »

How are airstrikes not "directly intervening militarily"? It's arguably our largest military usage and advantage considering we can't drive the Navy directly into the area. (Though back in 2003 I proposed a Navy-led invasion of Iraq by towing battleships and such into the desert just to be real shock and awe.)

U.S./NATO/Western airstrikes have been "decisive" factors in many recent conflicts. To make another arguable statement, it's the primary way we "won" in Iraq and Afghanistan along with special forces in the first place. The rest was mostly really just deploying occupational forces.

Quote from: Brehvolution on May 20, 2015, 11:39:03 AM

Should we have gone into Ireland and helped the Catholics?

Are we role playing as Peter King in this scenario?

VomKriege · « **Reply #9114 on:** May 20, 2015, 12:55:45 PM »

I do think that leaving "jihadist" groups

Quote from: The Walrus on May 20, 2015, 11:33:25 AM

Question for the people with more foreign policy chops:

If we just sit back and don't directly intervene militarily, aside from airstrikes, and the Islamic State consolidates its territory, is it more likely that major terrorist attacks would occur on U.S. soil?

Also, by not committing ground forces to drive back ISIS right now, are we increasing the chances of a full-blown war (an actual war involving the big players in the region like Israel, SA, Egypt and Iran) that we'd have to intervene in?

I think letting a bona fide "Jihadist state" taking root will increase the probability of the answer of both your questions being "yes". The whole "Califate" idea is by definition a challenge to the current nations and institutions in the region and we already see how the ISIS situation has spilled into Syria (and the whole Shia / Sunni thing). It will also make a strong and solid rear base for armed groups. Sure, they were never devoid of financial backing and training camps, but I think them having "their country" with all the trappings (tax base, export revenue, access to heavier military hardware) makes for an important difference. It's reasonable to think that it will bolster attacks on US and European interests in all current hotspots (Horn of Africa and Sahara, for instance) and it could, although I'm less sure of that (the whole lone wolf or cell strategy offer results with a somewhat small infrastructure and commitment), facilitate what you call major attacks on US soil.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Or you could be an optimist and think that somewhere down the line, it will turn into an Iran situation, they will value more being an actual functional "normal" country than a perpetual ideological vanguard at war. As far as I can tell, the dynamic is different though.

[close]

With all that being said, I'm not an advocate of putting boots on the ground (or at least doing it like the US did in Iraq). Air campaigns are probably as effective at achieving what we want (severely disrupting hostile military efforts) for a fraction of the cost (financial and political) or risk. Sure it won't actually solve anything, but neither will a ground war (as the recent example has shown). Let's be honest for a second, no matter how much we would like to believe it, those expeditionary war efforts will not and just cannot fix any of the deep long term issues of the people actually living there. They may however mitigate a threat to our interests and kick the can down the road for a couples decades more (hopefully at a more auspicious time for the issues to be adressed by the populations themselves), something which is actually a legitimate political goal.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #9115 on:** May 20, 2015, 12:58:32 PM »

Quote

They may however mitigate a problem and kick the can down the road for a couples decades more, something which is actually a legitimate political goal.

Above all else, keep the military industrial complex happy.

jakefromstatefarm · « **Reply #9116 on:** May 20, 2015, 02:59:12 PM »

The more IS assumes responsibilities that make it look like an actual state the more it'll have to play by Westphalian rules. at the moment, it looks like it's completely content larping as the brown gestapo while providing a modicum of infrastructure in the territory it holds. domestic terrorist attacks in western countries have invariably been at the hands of international terrorist cells who intentionally shirk state formation and thrive in non state spaces. The whole point of IS is to draw in malleable recruits from abroad to use as foot soldiers with ideally no local connections in Syria/Iraq. IS is much more concerned with fighting their immediate neighbors (and pretty much everyone else too) at home than with conducting violence abroad.

benjipwns · « **Reply #9117 on:** May 20, 2015, 03:53:32 PM »

I think it's a bit premature as well to assume that the Islamic State can consolidate its territory and become a state despite its title. Infighting that collapses any central rule is much more likely than anyone setting up some kind of unified global terrorist superstate.

It's kinda like The Taliban, even before 9/11 they only controlled a small if relatively important part of Afghanistan, a constantly shifting group of alliances among warlords dominated most of the territory. Some of those were Taliban allies who disagreed over what to have for lunch so seized their own cities and set up their own oppressive regimes. Even Iran doesn't have absolute control within its borders as we'd consider in the West, for example, segments of the Baluch population have been in a low level conflict that comes and goes since the 1980s and sometimes kills a bunch of people and other times just smacks shoes on cars or whatever. And like the Kurds have often operated with only a modicum of acknowledgement of a higher level of government above their local one. (Since they're spread across three-four states at least, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.)

We're good buddies with potentially one of their more hardline teams: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah_(Iran) who may been started by Saddam, our old buddy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baluchi_Autonomist_Movement

You can say similar things about other disruptions in countries with less established central states, the "victors" tend not to have much power outside their held territory even if they are the recognized government. See: all of Africa since the end of colonialism basically. Many Latin American countries due to US meddling during the Cold War. Et al.

Samson Manhug · « **Reply #9118 on:** May 20, 2015, 07:22:43 PM »

To me it seems like your examples kind of prove the opposite of what you're saying. Prior to October 2001, The Taliban controlled a small and important part of Afghanistan—but so does the government in Afghanistan that we recognize now. In both cases it was/is still considered a legitimate state. If the U.S. military were to pull out completely, Ghani would control Kabul and that's it. Yet we and most of the international community would still recognize Afghanistan as a state.

Likewise, Syria and Iraq are considered states, but they obviously don't control the territory they claim. But for the most part, IS does:

To be considered a state, the general requirements in IR 101 are a people, territory, and a monopoly on violence/ability to defend that territory. To me, IS hits those check boxes—certainly more so than a lot of things that we consider states (such as your examples.) The last requirement is recognition from the international community. I think that is just a matter of time. I do not see the Sykes-Picot borders carrying on through the 21st century.

I'd like to take a shot at The Walrus's questions because I don't agree with some of the answers here, but I'll have to come back to that later.

jakefromstatefarm · « **Reply #9119 on:** May 20, 2015, 08:44:29 PM »

Quote from: Samson Manhug on May 20, 2015, 07:22:43 PM

The last requirement is recognition from the international community. I think that is just a matter of time.

This is what it hinges on. IS hasn't endeared itself to the international community, their party line effectively ensures they never will. They don't even view themselves to be a state in any Westphalian sense of the term; the idea of IS is closer to the establishment, by any means, of a pan-Islamic (read: Sunni (read: Salafi)) police state with intentionally nebulous borders than one who acknowledges cuius regio, eius religio.

Quote from: http://en.idi.org.il/analysis/articles/isis-is-the-islamic-state-really-a-state/

Accordingly, at this stage [Sept. 14, 2014], the caliphate does not have international legitimacy and is not recognized by the States of the world. Even if the caliphate were to meet the aforementioned condition, it will find it very difficult to function as a State in the international community.

Any Islamic State that fits within the international order will look decidedly different than the one that currently exists.

News:

Author Topic: US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE (Read 2771872 times)