My read on Trump is that he's against conflict that makes him look bad and for conflict that lets him make money or lets the US make money. With the first generally superseding the second.
Also really happy to amplify the killing being done in current conflicts, because it doesn't feel like a risk or like a problem to solve. Peaceful winding down of an ongoing conflict is hard, saying "make any drone strike you feel like" to the military is easy.
My read on Trump is that he's against conflict that makes him look bad and for conflict that lets him make money or lets the US make money. With the first generally superseding the second.
Also really happy to amplify the killing being done in current conflicts, because it doesn't feel like a risk or like a problem to solve. Peaceful winding down of an ongoing conflict is hard, saying "make any drone strike you feel like" to the military is easy.
Right, because ongoing conflicts don't reflect directly back on his decision making. If he's seen to be ordering a strike, he's on the line for it. But if it's all just part of a larger ongoing war, it's not portrayed as directly on him in the media. Even if he's the one telling the generals to "take the gloves off" or "use whatever we've got" or the like in the actual meetings at the White House. As long as it's not bad PR for him.
Trump is pro-war in the case where the "war" is airstrikes, special ops and drones and can be over in a few weeks. This is a cable news and twitter friendly war and can be spun to make Trump look strong. Trump is anti-war in the case where the war is an actual war that US troops are on the ground for. The Bush years proved that even with the power of Fox News behind you, there's no spinning an actual war into anything good.
I do think he will seek out staff that will let him bomb as many countries as he wants but will never insist on fighting an actual war. That's why all the generals are gone.
I find it interesting that trump can get praise for not starting new wars given that it's akin to praising someone for not shitting on the sidewalk; you don't do it unless you have absolutely no other choice.
I find it interesting that trump can get praise for not starting new wars given that it's akin to praising someone for not shitting on the sidewalk; you don't do it unless you have absolutely no other choice.
Trump is graded on a completely different scale from every other political leader ever, and it is infuriating. He gets tons of credit for even appearing to do the bare minimum.
I find it interesting that trump can get praise for not starting new wars given that it's akin to praising someone for not shitting on the sidewalk; you don't do it unless you have absolutely no other choice.
Trump is graded on a completely different scale from every other political leader ever, and it is infuriating. He gets tons of credit for even appearing to do the bare minimum.
Bush got the same curve. And now has been whitewashed out of history because he paints badly and isn't, you now, this.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
I find it interesting that trump can get praise for not starting new wars given that it's akin to praising someone for not shitting on the sidewalk; you don't do it unless you have absolutely no other choice.
You’d think. And yet, history proves that it’s actually quite hard.
+6
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I heard an interesting thing on a Slate podcast the other day about this, pointing out that Trump is reluctant to use the military abroad but eager to militarize domestically, from mobilizing ICE to holding military parades. It’s a deeply troubling authoritarian impulse.
Trump is pro-war, but he's too cowardly to do the first strike himself. He will do whatever he can to rile up the other government to get them to do it for him, except everyone else can see through this sideshow.
Trump runs an isolationist strategy. He has engaged in less conflicts than Bush, Obama, and Clinton. I'm not praising him and the fervent gnashing can be directed elsewhere. I'm simply pointing out that Trump has not been particularly enthusiastic about pulling the trigger on foreign wars.
Trump runs an isolationist strategy. He has engaged in less conflicts than Bush, Obama, and Clinton. I'm not praising him and the fervent gnashing can be directed elsewhere. I'm simply pointing out that Trump has not been particularly enthusiastic about pulling the trigger on foreign wars.
Trump pretends to be an isolationist, then does everything possible to agitate other nations into throwing the first punch. If calmer heads hadn't prevailed America would have been at war with Iran and North Korea years ago.
Trump runs an isolationist strategy. He has engaged in less conflicts than Bush, Obama, and Clinton. I'm not praising him and the fervent gnashing can be directed elsewhere. I'm simply pointing out that Trump has not been particularly enthusiastic about pulling the trigger on foreign wars.
Trump pretends to be an isolationist, then does everything possible to agitate other nations into throwing the first punch. If calmer heads hadn't prevailed America would have been at war with Iran and North Korea years ago.
Probably the most infuriating thing about the GOP gleefully aiding Trump's bullshit, is how they completely miss that they are killing our ability to have agreements with other countries. I guess this is what we get when the dip shit crowd that boasts about being ignorant fuckers, gets the reigns of power. They fail to get that a shit ton of work, hours, money, political capital and personal reputation goes into making an agreement with a foreign power. If a petulant shit like Trump can end all of that on a whim and can get elected and get full support of their party. Well a ton of foreign powers aren't going to want to go to the trouble of making those agreements with the US because why bother if the next Trump gets to tear it up over some petty shit; especially, when your side hade to make some concessions that might or has cost them one or more elections.
Also doesn't seem to help that the 5 conservatives on SCOTUS seem to be going along with this shit either. They should be treating our treaties like lows because that's how they work and telling Trump, "no fucker, follow the law!" I have to wonder if the idiot crowd will figure this shit at, after we get a cycle or two, where the republican gets zero fucking agreement and democrats keep getting deals that make it clear they are only going into place because the other party feels they'll get enough out of it before the next asshole republican gets in and shits the bed.
Some parts of our foreign policy probably don't get fixed until everyone that remembers is gone. Or we manage to put something in place that ensures the next Trump and his party can't just gleefully tear it down out of spit. Or the US rightwing crowd gets burned so badly that it's impossible for them to get back into power for a decade or two. Cause the hardest parts to rebuild are the parts that rely on trust and credibility.
Trump runs an isolationist strategy. He has engaged in less conflicts than Bush, Obama, and Clinton. I'm not praising him and the fervent gnashing can be directed elsewhere. I'm simply pointing out that Trump has not been particularly enthusiastic about pulling the trigger on foreign wars.
Trump pretends to be an isolationist, then does everything possible to agitate other nations into throwing the first punch. If calmer heads hadn't prevailed America would have been at war with Iran and North Korea years ago.
We aren't at war with North Korea or Iran.
Because they both realise that's what Trump wants and he's not going to do that himself. It has nothing to do with Trump not wanting to start a war with either of them.
Trump runs an isolationist strategy. He has engaged in less conflicts than Bush, Obama, and Clinton. I'm not praising him and the fervent gnashing can be directed elsewhere. I'm simply pointing out that Trump has not been particularly enthusiastic about pulling the trigger on foreign wars.
What? He expanded the conflict in Afghanistan (for the third time), expanded our 'kinetic activities' in Africa (remember when he attacked that gold star window?), almost certainly gave undisclosed support against Maduro, and made a hash out of Syria by expanding and then abandoning our involvement there. He's only isolationist if you only believe what comes out of one side of his mouth.
Trump has escalated every conflict we're involved in. The sudden lack of concern over drone strikes from the left is completely ridiculous, and not flattering.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
I have to wonder if the idiot crowd will figure this shit at, after we get a cycle or two, where the republican gets zero fucking agreement and democrats keep getting deals that make it clear they are only going into place because the other party feels they'll get enough out of it before the next asshole republican gets in and shits the bed.
Isn't the opposite more likely to happen? I mean, the obvious conclusion is since Democrats are doormats, then only the agreements made by Republicans are worth something since the obliteration of agreements only goes one way.
Trump runs an isolationist strategy. He has engaged in less conflicts than Bush, Obama, and Clinton. I'm not praising him and the fervent gnashing can be directed elsewhere. I'm simply pointing out that Trump has not been particularly enthusiastic about pulling the trigger on foreign wars.
Trump pretends to be an isolationist, then does everything possible to agitate other nations into throwing the first punch. If calmer heads hadn't prevailed America would have been at war with Iran and North Korea years ago.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Trump is pro-war, but he's too cowardly to do the first strike himself. He will do whatever he can to rile up the other government to get them to do it for him, except everyone else can see through this sideshow.
Cowardly implies it would be like brave for him to initiate a conflict. Trump is adverse to new military conflicts because it's extremely unpopular politically even among his base. If he thought bombing Iran would increase his chances of re-election he'd do it in a heartbeat.
According to the article, Kupperman also served on the board of directors of the Center for Security Policy, an anti-Muslim think tank founded by conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney (who believes that muslims in general and Obama in particular infiltrated the US).
It's sort of impressive how they always manage to find the bigger asshole.
They're thinning out the recruitment pool, between the firings and the resignations and the just being career poison for anyone worth a shit. Its not like they're searching out ever bigger assholes, it's that all the lesser assholes have already noped the fuck off this fail train.
If nothing else this administration has continued to prove a russian proverb true: Whenever you think you've hit rock bottom someone knocks from below.
It's sort of impressive how they always manage to find the bigger asshole.
The thing that always kind of impresses me is how many of these appointees worked for the Reagan administration. This shit really is the last gasp of the Boomers.
It's sort of impressive how they always manage to find the bigger asshole.
They're thinning out the recruitment pool, between the firings and the resignations and the just being career poison for anyone worth a shit. Its not like they're searching out ever bigger assholes, it's that all the lesser assholes have already noped the fuck off this fail train.
Impressive, considering Trump started out with the bottom of the barrel among the GOP - like Sessions.
+2
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
It's sort of impressive how they always manage to find the bigger asshole.
They're thinning out the recruitment pool, between the firings and the resignations and the just being career poison for anyone worth a shit. Its not like they're searching out ever bigger assholes, it's that all the lesser assholes have already noped the fuck off this fail train.
Impressive, considering Trump started out with the bottom of the barrel among the GOP - like Sessions.
Turns out that under the scum you see at the bottom of the barrel there is infinitely more and grosser scum
It's sort of impressive how they always manage to find the bigger asshole.
The thing that always kind of impresses me is how many of these appointees worked for the Reagan administration. This shit really is the last gasp of the Boomers.
It turns out that the Republican party has been really really shitty for a long time. A ton of these people go all the way back to Nixon.
+34
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I thought we had a cabinet corruption thread but I can’t find it, so I guess this goes here?
House Oversight Committee announces the launch of an ethics investigation into Transportation Sec. Elaine Chao (who is also McConnell’s wife).
At least three separate issues:
1.
Several reports indicate that Chao has used her official position to benefit Foremost Group, a shipping company owned by her father and sisters, and to increase its influence and status with the Chinese government, which has extended hundreds of millions of dollars in low-interest loans to the company for the purchase of foreign-flagged ships.
Chao reportedly appeared alongside her father, the founder of Foremost Group, in at least a dozen Chinese media interviews—many of which were behind the official seal of the Department of Transportation. Chao’s father touted her influence within the United States government and boasted about his access to President Trump on Air Force One.
2.
On January 5, 2017, prior to her confirmation hearing, Chao promised to address this clear conflict of interest by entering into an ethics agreement under which she would cash out her stock holdings in Vulcan by April 2018.
However, Chao did not sell her shares in Vulcan until June 3, 2019—after the Wall Street Journal published an article about Chao’s failure to divest from the company.
3.
Ten days later, on June 13, 2019, the Department sent a letter to the Office of Government Ethics admitting that Chao’s nominee Public Financial Disclosure Report, May 2018 Public Financial Disclosure Report, and ethics agreement contained what it characterized as “inadvertent misstatements of fact.”
It’s amazing to me how often these administration figures can’t resist mixing their evil with their short-sighted venality. Truly the worst people.
Full article here, with a link to the committee’s letter asking Chao for more info and documents:
Posts
Also really happy to amplify the killing being done in current conflicts, because it doesn't feel like a risk or like a problem to solve. Peaceful winding down of an ongoing conflict is hard, saying "make any drone strike you feel like" to the military is easy.
Right, because ongoing conflicts don't reflect directly back on his decision making. If he's seen to be ordering a strike, he's on the line for it. But if it's all just part of a larger ongoing war, it's not portrayed as directly on him in the media. Even if he's the one telling the generals to "take the gloves off" or "use whatever we've got" or the like in the actual meetings at the White House. As long as it's not bad PR for him.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I do think he will seek out staff that will let him bomb as many countries as he wants but will never insist on fighting an actual war. That's why all the generals are gone.
Trump is graded on a completely different scale from every other political leader ever, and it is infuriating. He gets tons of credit for even appearing to do the bare minimum.
Bush got the same curve. And now has been whitewashed out of history because he paints badly and isn't, you now, this.
You’d think. And yet, history proves that it’s actually quite hard.
Trump pretends to be an isolationist, then does everything possible to agitate other nations into throwing the first punch. If calmer heads hadn't prevailed America would have been at war with Iran and North Korea years ago.
Also doesn't seem to help that the 5 conservatives on SCOTUS seem to be going along with this shit either. They should be treating our treaties like lows because that's how they work and telling Trump, "no fucker, follow the law!" I have to wonder if the idiot crowd will figure this shit at, after we get a cycle or two, where the republican gets zero fucking agreement and democrats keep getting deals that make it clear they are only going into place because the other party feels they'll get enough out of it before the next asshole republican gets in and shits the bed.
Some parts of our foreign policy probably don't get fixed until everyone that remembers is gone. Or we manage to put something in place that ensures the next Trump and his party can't just gleefully tear it down out of spit. Or the US rightwing crowd gets burned so badly that it's impossible for them to get back into power for a decade or two. Cause the hardest parts to rebuild are the parts that rely on trust and credibility.
Because they both realise that's what Trump wants and he's not going to do that himself. It has nothing to do with Trump not wanting to start a war with either of them.
What? He expanded the conflict in Afghanistan (for the third time), expanded our 'kinetic activities' in Africa (remember when he attacked that gold star window?), almost certainly gave undisclosed support against Maduro, and made a hash out of Syria by expanding and then abandoning our involvement there. He's only isolationist if you only believe what comes out of one side of his mouth.
Isn't the opposite more likely to happen? I mean, the obvious conclusion is since Democrats are doormats, then only the agreements made by Republicans are worth something since the obliteration of agreements only goes one way.
Not for lack of trying.
https://fpif.org/trump-is-expanding-americas-wars-not-ending-them/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/29/how-donald-trump-learned-to-love-war-in-2017/
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/trump-somalia-executive-order-military-national-emergency.html
Litterally the first 4 result for "Expanded military conflicts by trump" on google.
It's hard, because Trump has repealed some of the requirements for disclosing the strikes
But the best we've got indicates at best maintenance of Obama era strikes and escalation.
Morgan Ortagus is the spokeperson for the State Department
Small reading about Kozak at least shows that he does have vast experience on Latin America, so that's good news.
Cowardly implies it would be like brave for him to initiate a conflict. Trump is adverse to new military conflicts because it's extremely unpopular politically even among his base. If he thought bombing Iran would increase his chances of re-election he'd do it in a heartbeat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kupperman
He doesn’t think nuclear war would be all that bad.
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/charles-kupperman-nuclear-war-trump-nsa-194623939.html
Fuck.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Come Overwatch with meeeee
They're thinning out the recruitment pool, between the firings and the resignations and the just being career poison for anyone worth a shit. Its not like they're searching out ever bigger assholes, it's that all the lesser assholes have already noped the fuck off this fail train.
Flynn is compromised several times over and seems delusional
And that would be different how?
The thing that always kind of impresses me is how many of these appointees worked for the Reagan administration. This shit really is the last gasp of the Boomers.
Impressive, considering Trump started out with the bottom of the barrel among the GOP - like Sessions.
Turns out that under the scum you see at the bottom of the barrel there is infinitely more and grosser scum
It turns out that the Republican party has been really really shitty for a long time. A ton of these people go all the way back to Nixon.
House Oversight Committee announces the launch of an ethics investigation into Transportation Sec. Elaine Chao (who is also McConnell’s wife).
At least three separate issues:
1.
2.
3.
It’s amazing to me how often these administration figures can’t resist mixing their evil with their short-sighted venality. Truly the worst people.
Full article here, with a link to the committee’s letter asking Chao for more info and documents:
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-launches-investigation-of-ethics-allegations-against-chao