Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

Every once in awhile we get bipartisanship in Washington. Even if it is for the wrong reasons. Ron Paul put the whole Syria thing in perspective. This is a good read, he is pretty spot on here  - https://www.fitsnews.com/2019/10/14/ron-paul-washington-is-wrong-about-the-kurds/

Ron Paul: Washington Is Wrong About The Kurds

“Another bipartisan ploy to keep the ‘forever war’ gravy train rolling …”


by RON PAUL || When President Trump Tweeted last week that “it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous endless wars,” adding that the US would be withdrawing from Syria, Washington went into a panic. Suddenly Republicans, Democrats, the media, the think tanks, and the war industry all discovered and quickly became experts on “the Kurds,” who we were told were an “ally” being sent to their slaughter by an ignorant President Trump.

But it was all just another bipartisan ploy to keep the “forever war” gravy train rolling through the Beltway.

Interventionists will do anything to prevent US troops from ever coming home, and their favorite tactic is promoting “mission creep.” As President Trump tweeted, we were told in 2014 by President Obama that the US military would go into Syria for just 30 days to save the Yazidi minority that they claimed were threatened. Then that mission crept into “we must fight ISIS” and so the US military continued to illegally occupy and bomb Syria for five more years.

Even though it was the Syrian army with its Russian and Iranian allies that did the bulk of the fighting against al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, President Trump took credit and called for the troops to come home. But when the military comes home, the military-industrial-Congressional-media complex loses its cash cow, so a new rationale had to be invented.

The latest “mission creep” was that we had to stay in Syria to save our “allies” the Kurds. All of a sudden our military presence in Syria was not about fighting terrorism but rather about putting US troops between our NATO ally Turkey and our proxy fighting force, the Kurds. Do they really want us to believe that it is “pro-American” for our troops to fight and die refereeing a long-standing dispute between the Turks and Kurds?

It was a colossally dumb idea to train and arm the Kurds in Syria in the first place, but after spending billions backing what turned out to be al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria to overthrow the Assad government, Washington found that the Kurds were the only willing boots remaining on the ground. While their interest in fighting ISIS was limited, they were happy to use Washington’s muscle in pursuit of their long-term goal of carving out a part of Syria (and eventually Turkey) for themselves.

We can never leave because there will be a slaughter, Washington claimed (and the media faithfully repeated). But once again, the politicians, the mainstream media, and the Beltway “experts” have been proven wrong. They never understand that sending US troops into another country without the proper authority is not a stabilizing factor, but a de-stabilizing factor. I have argued that were the US to leave Syria (and the rest of the Middle East) the countries of the region would find a way to solve their own problems.

Now that the US is pulling back from northern Syria, that is just what is happening.

On Sunday the Kurds and the Syrian government signed an agreement, brokered by the Russians, to put aside their differences and join together to defend against Turkey’s incursion into Syrian territory.

Now “our Kurdish allies” are fighting alongside the army of Syrian President Assad – who we are still told by US officials “must go.” Washington doesn’t understand that our intervention only makes matters worse. The best way to help the Kurds and everyone else in the region is to just come home.

Rand Paul is a nincompoop.  I feel like the above article should get the Billy Madison speech.  The above displays a complete misunderstanding of regional, global, and US foreign policy.  And it treats humanity (and humane considerations) far too glibly.  In essence, it's bunk.

The situation would be great, except we know the Kurds are going to be treated badly by the Assad and the Russians.  Just not as bad as by the Turks.  They will lose the religious freedom they were looking for, the autonomy of their culture, and it will make them bigger targets for ISIS recruitment.

It will turn Syria into an ISIS training ground, again.

And we've now given Russia it's foothold in Syria.

Isolationism doesn't work.  It's never worked.  It has FUCKED us every time we've adopted it, and cost more money, time, and resources (for the US and the world) every time we've tried to practice it.

I'm not for endless wars.  I'm not for being the worlds policeman.  But I'm also not for saying "we are going home and letting the rest of the world deal with it".  Because it always always always always bites us in the ass.

An oz of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And it seems like just about everyone EXCEPT Rand Paul understands that.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Why is it even closed door? You cant impeach a President with closed door testimony !

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You absolutely CAN impeach a President with closed door testimony during the investigation.

And when they're discussion national security issues, and specific state department dealings with other countries, that's exactly how you should conduct them.  In addition, when you have a president how will (and has) used intimidation, bullying, and outright obstruction to stop testimony....you sort of have to do things this way, too.

You will get your open testimony....IN THE SENATE.  If/When articles are drafted and approved by the house.

Again, I get it.  You are DESPERATELY searching for some part of the process to object to, because you can't defend (or wrap your head around) the president's actual actions.

I asked the question once before:  Is it OK for an elected official (or one seeking to be elected) to reach out to a foreign leader and ask for dirt on one of your political opponents.

If you say no....then all your objections are really just noise to try to shield the president from paying a price for his actions.

If you say yes....fair enough.  Then the president is fine, and Biden and Warren have some phone calls to make.  And you'll be totally OK with them doing it!

The closed door testimony is about politics, which is what this has been about the whole time.  They can leak stuff out to the media to make it look like President Trump is being pummeled, which we have no idea if that is really what happened because it was all done in secret. Not very transparent. You can still have a public hearing for most of it as to not divulge classified info and let the pubic actually see what you are doing. But better to let the media spin the leaks and rumors for maximum effect.

 This may never actually get to the senate but the damage is being done in the court of public opinion which is the whole plan in the first place. Why do you think Pelosi is holding off on any kind of vote? In the past a vote was held to start the process.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Here is another good article Pilferk will vehemently disagree with   

https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/how-obamas-team-set-up-trumps-syrian-dilemma/?fbclid=IwAR2FMxpjPYJxn7F-5SR5zMWLSu7Wo8KBXHYj4zymBpW_aaJ5_EixVDCvZCU

How Obama’s team set up Trump’s Syrian dilemma

‘It’s bats- -t crazy,” Susan Rice said Monday on CBS’ “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” The former national security adviser, who served under President Barack Obama, was referring to President Trump’s decision to pull US troops from northern Syria. She was particularly dismayed by what she depicted as a dangerous betrayal of The People’s Protection Units, also known as the YPG, the Kurdish force that helped the US-led coalition ­defeat Islamic State.

“These are the people who for the last four years have been fighting on our behalf, with our equipment, to defeat ISIS,” she said. “And they have done it with enormous efficacy, and they have sacrificed immensely, and we basically just said to them, ‘See ya,’ and let the Turks, who are like the hungry wolf trying to kill the lamb, go for it.”

Over the last few days, a host of former Obama officials have been repeating this story, which is highly misleading, to say the least. Rice and her colleagues would have us believe that Team Obama created a highly effective plan for stabilizing the Middle East by working through groups like the YPG, and Trump, mercurial and impulsive, is throwing it all away by seeking a rapprochement with Ankara. That’s nonsense.

In fact, the close relationship with the YPG was a quick fix that bequeathed to Trump profound strategic dilemmas. Trump inherited from Obama a dysfunctional strategy for countering ISIS, one that ensured ever-greater turmoil in the region and placed American forces in an impossible position.

To be sure, the YPG are good fighters, and the American soldiers who have fought alongside them hold them in very high esteem. But the decision to make them the primary ally for defeating ISIS came at a hidden cost: the alienation of one of America’s closest allies. The YPG is the Syrian wing of the PKK, the Kurdish separatist group in Turkey.

Designated as a terrorist group by the State Department, the PKK has prosecuted a long war against the Turkish Republic, resulting in the death of some 40,000 people.

The Turks beseeched the Obama administration not to align with their sworn enemy, but the Obamaians told them, in effect, to sit down and shut up. Why? The American relationship with the YPG was a direct outgrowth of the greatest blunder of the Obama administration: the effort to reach a strategic accommodation with Iran.

It all began in 2014 with the siege of Kobani, a Kurdish town in Northeast Syria that was surrounded by ISIS fighters. Because the plight of the town was well-reported in the American media, Obama came under political pressure to intervene militarily to break the siege.

Until then, however, he had strenuously avoided involvement in the Syrian civil war. To be sure, he sought to avoid a quagmire, but he also was eager to avoid alienating the Iranians and the Russians.

By now, the negotiations that would lead to the Iran nuclear deal were underway. But Damascus was the close ally of both Russia and Iran, so any American intervention in Syria risked upsetting the new relationship that Obama was attempting to forge with Moscow and Tehran.

This factor is the hidden key to understanding why Team Obama gravitated to the YPG to solve its problems. The group had a long history of cordial ­relations with the Russians and the Iranians, and, best of all, it had no intention to topple the Assad regime. Every other group that Obama might have used to defeat ISIS had an anti-Assad agenda.

So, no, Trump is not betraying the YPG. He is seeking to restore balance to American foreign policy.

The YPG knew from the ­beginning that its relationship with Washington was temporary and transactional. It didn’t fight as a favor to the United States. America armed, trained, equipped and funded the YPG. We gave it strong military support, including aerial bombardment, which allowed it to vanquish all foes in its neighborhood. Thanks to this assistance, the power, influence and territorial reach of the group expanded beyond its wildest dreams. In the meantime, America also held Turkey at bay.

The YPG benefitted enormously from the effort, and the Turkish-American relationship suffered in equal measure. To paraphrase Susan Rice, this was a bats- -t crazy way to solve the ISIS challenge. If she and her Team Obama colleagues want to blame anyone for this mess, they might consider looking in the mirror.

[tim_m]

Why is it even closed door? You cant impeach a President with closed door testimony !

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You absolutely CAN impeach a President with closed door testimony during the investigation.

And when they're discussion national security issues, and specific state department dealings with other countries, that's exactly how you should conduct them.  In addition, when you have a president how will (and has) used intimidation, bullying, and outright obstruction to stop testimony....you sort of have to do things this way, too.

You will get your open testimony....IN THE SENATE.  If/When articles are drafted and approved by the house.

Again, I get it.  You are DESPERATELY searching for some part of the process to object to, because you can't defend (or wrap your head around) the president's actual actions.

I asked the question once before:  Is it OK for an elected official (or one seeking to be elected) to reach out to a foreign leader and ask for dirt on one of your political opponents.

If you say no....then all your objections are really just noise to try to shield the president from paying a price for his actions.

If you say yes....fair enough.  Then the president is fine, and Biden and Warren have some phone calls to make.  And you'll be totally OK with them doing it!

The closed door testimony is about politics, which is what this has been about the whole time.  They can leak stuff out to the media to make it look like President Trump is being pummeled, which we have no idea if that is really what happened because it was all done in secret. Not very transparent. You can still have a public hearing for most of it as to not divulge classified info and let the pubic actually see what you are doing. But better to let the media spin the leaks and rumors for maximum effect.

 This may never actually get to the senate but the damage is being done in the court of public opinion which is the whole plan in the first place. Why do you think Pelosi is holding off on any kind of vote? In the past a vote was held to start the process.

This is not unprecedented procedure. Much of the house investigation of Watergate was behind closed doors. The inquiry began months before the formal vote by the house judiciary.

[pilferk]

The closed door testimony is about politics, which is what this has been about the whole time.  They can leak stuff out to the media to make it look like President Trump is being pummeled, which we have no idea if that is really what happened because it was all done in secret. Not very transparent. You can still have a public hearing for most of it as to not divulge classified info and let the pubic actually see what you are doing. But better to let the media spin the leaks and rumors for maximum effect.

If they held open door hearings, spilling national security secrets and methods, you would still find something to complain about.

Your COMPLAINTS are political.  Plain and simple.

And hypocritical, given Repubs past actions.

You will get the open hearing IN THE SENATE.  That's the way this process works.  It's the way it worked with Nixon before the House voted so they could get the tapes.

I know it's hard for you.  I mean, its so hard you're back to parroting nonsensical conservative talking points that break from reality again, so.....

This may never actually get to the senate but the damage is being done in the court of public opinion which is the whole plan in the first place.

Baloney.  And you know it.  It's just the only temper tantrum you can summon up, given you can't (and still haven't) defend Trumps ACTUAL behavior.

Why do you think Pelosi is holding off on any kind of vote? In the past a vote was held to start the process.

I explained why. If they vote, Trump (and his supporters....like you) will bitch that it was all Dems who voted, and is thus partisan.

If they don't vote, Trump (and his supporters....like you) will bitch that it breaks precedent (something you ACTUALLY care nothing about) and it's all partisan.

So...what functional benefit do they have of holding a vote?

The Nixon investigation into Watergate was well down the road before they voted to launch the inquiry. They had already gathered preliminary evidence (mostly off the backs of the Post and the Times, but still)  Sorry, Charlie: History shows this to be a lie directly from the mouths of those you're parroting.

The SENATE voted in '73 (AFTER the Watergate perpetrators were on trial and significant evidence had been collected, already) to launch an investigation into Watergate.

The House did not vote until MUCH later (after their report showing potential Nixon wrongdoing came out of Judiciary) in October of '73...well after preliminary investigative work was complete, and well into the Senate hearings process.

Just because Trump and Fox tell you something doesn't make it true.

They don't need to vote until, or unless, they want more gravitas to enforce subpoenas in the courts.  So far, they haven't wanted to go that route, choosing just to chalk up each refusal as another count of obstruction.

And really, the constitution says they don't need to vote until they draft up the articles. THATS what the constitution says.

By all means continue to tilt at windmills and have your tantrums over process while ignoring the actual behavior in question.  We all know you can't actually defend it.

[pilferk]

This is not unprecedented procedure. Much of the house investigation of Watergate was behind closed doors. The inquiry began months before the formal vote by the house judiciary.

Exactly this.

But it doesn't fit the conservative narrative, and it doesn't allow them to question the process while ignoring the actual behavior.

I've pointed it out.

You've pointed it out.

He's still having his tantrum.

[pilferk]

Here is another good article Pilferk will vehemently disagree with   

https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/how-obamas-team-set-up-trumps-syrian-dilemma/?fbclid=IwAR2FMxpjPYJxn7F-5SR5zMWLSu7Wo8KBXHYj4zymBpW_aaJ5_EixVDCvZCU

How Obama’s team set up Trump’s Syrian dilemma

‘It’s bats- -t crazy,” Susan Rice said Monday on CBS’ “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” The former national security adviser, who served under President Barack Obama, was referring to President Trump’s decision to pull US troops from northern Syria. She was particularly dismayed by what she depicted as a dangerous betrayal of The People’s Protection Units, also known as the YPG, the Kurdish force that helped the US-led coalition ­defeat Islamic State.

“These are the people who for the last four years have been fighting on our behalf, with our equipment, to defeat ISIS,” she said. “And they have done it with enormous efficacy, and they have sacrificed immensely, and we basically just said to them, ‘See ya,’ and let the Turks, who are like the hungry wolf trying to kill the lamb, go for it.”

Over the last few days, a host of former Obama officials have been repeating this story, which is highly misleading, to say the least. Rice and her colleagues would have us believe that Team Obama created a highly effective plan for stabilizing the Middle East by working through groups like the YPG, and Trump, mercurial and impulsive, is throwing it all away by seeking a rapprochement with Ankara. That’s nonsense.

In fact, the close relationship with the YPG was a quick fix that bequeathed to Trump profound strategic dilemmas. Trump inherited from Obama a dysfunctional strategy for countering ISIS, one that ensured ever-greater turmoil in the region and placed American forces in an impossible position.

To be sure, the YPG are good fighters, and the American soldiers who have fought alongside them hold them in very high esteem. But the decision to make them the primary ally for defeating ISIS came at a hidden cost: the alienation of one of America’s closest allies. The YPG is the Syrian wing of the PKK, the Kurdish separatist group in Turkey.

Designated as a terrorist group by the State Department, the PKK has prosecuted a long war against the Turkish Republic, resulting in the death of some 40,000 people.

The Turks beseeched the Obama administration not to align with their sworn enemy, but the Obamaians told them, in effect, to sit down and shut up. Why? The American relationship with the YPG was a direct outgrowth of the greatest blunder of the Obama administration: the effort to reach a strategic accommodation with Iran.

It all began in 2014 with the siege of Kobani, a Kurdish town in Northeast Syria that was surrounded by ISIS fighters. Because the plight of the town was well-reported in the American media, Obama came under political pressure to intervene militarily to break the siege.

Until then, however, he had strenuously avoided involvement in the Syrian civil war. To be sure, he sought to avoid a quagmire, but he also was eager to avoid alienating the Iranians and the Russians.

By now, the negotiations that would lead to the Iran nuclear deal were underway. But Damascus was the close ally of both Russia and Iran, so any American intervention in Syria risked upsetting the new relationship that Obama was attempting to forge with Moscow and Tehran.

This factor is the hidden key to understanding why Team Obama gravitated to the YPG to solve its problems. The group had a long history of cordial ­relations with the Russians and the Iranians, and, best of all, it had no intention to topple the Assad regime. Every other group that Obama might have used to defeat ISIS had an anti-Assad agenda.

So, no, Trump is not betraying the YPG. He is seeking to restore balance to American foreign policy.

The YPG knew from the ­beginning that its relationship with Washington was temporary and transactional. It didn’t fight as a favor to the United States. America armed, trained, equipped and funded the YPG. We gave it strong military support, including aerial bombardment, which allowed it to vanquish all foes in its neighborhood. Thanks to this assistance, the power, influence and territorial reach of the group expanded beyond its wildest dreams. In the meantime, America also held Turkey at bay.

The YPG benefitted enormously from the effort, and the Turkish-American relationship suffered in equal measure. To paraphrase Susan Rice, this was a bats- -t crazy way to solve the ISIS challenge. If she and her Team Obama colleagues want to blame anyone for this mess, they might consider looking in the mirror.

Disagree with an editorial opinion piece in one of the most conservative tabloids published today? Written by a Bush Appointee who writes mostly for the Federalist, writes mostly articles that swing from Trumps nuts, and who has, in the past, praised bigots and bigotry? You think? 

I mean, I'm more surprised you think agreeing with this guy somehow validates your opinion, given his history...but...hey...you do you.

In short, like with most of what Doran says/thinks: It's bunk. And even most Republicans think so. Hell, LIndsey Graham has even found a backbone on this issue.

And even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter. 

We are where we are because Trump decided to pull out without a single plan, or thought for the Kurds, or care for his decisions effect on our reputation.

Whether Obama is to blame, or Santa Claus, it. just. doesn't. matter. Its the conservatives favorite game, since they can't actually solve a problem: whataboutism.

We left people to be slaughtered.  Do you understand that?  These aren't just numbers....they are people. People being BURNED ALIVE.  People being rounded up and massacred, en masse.

People who have helped us defeat ISIS, who fought along side our military.  Who we promised we would continue to support until...one day...Trump woke up and decided to pull up stakes.

No warning. No attempt to negotiate a way out.  Just...gone.

And you're OK with that? 

No.  You're so in love with your boi Trump that you can't actually look at the situation and assess it honestly.  Because, again, if Obama had done the same exact thing....putting, potentially, Israel at risk....fanning the flames for ISIS...and plunging the entire area into war via power vacuum, you would have lost your shit.

Know how I know that?  The reaction when Obama floated pulling more troops out of Afghanistan, with a committed time table.  Conservatives WENT NUTS.  And rightly so.  Because pulling out, willy nilly, with no plan how to ensure stability in the region is terrible foreign policy and is BAT SHIT CRAZY.

Just like "ya boi".

[tim_m]

This is not unprecedented procedure. Much of the house investigation of Watergate was behind closed doors. The inquiry began months before the formal vote by the house judiciary.

Exactly this.

But it doesn't fit the conservative narrative, and it doesn't allow them to question the process while ignoring the actual behavior.

I've pointed it out.

You've pointed it out.

He's still having his tantrum.

FWIW from the sources I've found the initial inquiry began in October 73 and the judiciary committee held the vote on the inquiry so they could use the courts in February 74.

[tim_m]

Here is another good article Pilferk will vehemently disagree with   

https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/how-obamas-team-set-up-trumps-syrian-dilemma/?fbclid=IwAR2FMxpjPYJxn7F-5SR5zMWLSu7Wo8KBXHYj4zymBpW_aaJ5_EixVDCvZCU

How Obama’s team set up Trump’s Syrian dilemma

‘It’s bats- -t crazy,” Susan Rice said Monday on CBS’ “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” The former national security adviser, who served under President Barack Obama, was referring to President Trump’s decision to pull US troops from northern Syria. She was particularly dismayed by what she depicted as a dangerous betrayal of The People’s Protection Units, also known as the YPG, the Kurdish force that helped the US-led coalition ­defeat Islamic State.

“These are the people who for the last four years have been fighting on our behalf, with our equipment, to defeat ISIS,” she said. “And they have done it with enormous efficacy, and they have sacrificed immensely, and we basically just said to them, ‘See ya,’ and let the Turks, who are like the hungry wolf trying to kill the lamb, go for it.”

Over the last few days, a host of former Obama officials have been repeating this story, which is highly misleading, to say the least. Rice and her colleagues would have us believe that Team Obama created a highly effective plan for stabilizing the Middle East by working through groups like the YPG, and Trump, mercurial and impulsive, is throwing it all away by seeking a rapprochement with Ankara. That’s nonsense.

In fact, the close relationship with the YPG was a quick fix that bequeathed to Trump profound strategic dilemmas. Trump inherited from Obama a dysfunctional strategy for countering ISIS, one that ensured ever-greater turmoil in the region and placed American forces in an impossible position.

To be sure, the YPG are good fighters, and the American soldiers who have fought alongside them hold them in very high esteem. But the decision to make them the primary ally for defeating ISIS came at a hidden cost: the alienation of one of America’s closest allies. The YPG is the Syrian wing of the PKK, the Kurdish separatist group in Turkey.

Designated as a terrorist group by the State Department, the PKK has prosecuted a long war against the Turkish Republic, resulting in the death of some 40,000 people.

The Turks beseeched the Obama administration not to align with their sworn enemy, but the Obamaians told them, in effect, to sit down and shut up. Why? The American relationship with the YPG was a direct outgrowth of the greatest blunder of the Obama administration: the effort to reach a strategic accommodation with Iran.

It all began in 2014 with the siege of Kobani, a Kurdish town in Northeast Syria that was surrounded by ISIS fighters. Because the plight of the town was well-reported in the American media, Obama came under political pressure to intervene militarily to break the siege.

Until then, however, he had strenuously avoided involvement in the Syrian civil war. To be sure, he sought to avoid a quagmire, but he also was eager to avoid alienating the Iranians and the Russians.

By now, the negotiations that would lead to the Iran nuclear deal were underway. But Damascus was the close ally of both Russia and Iran, so any American intervention in Syria risked upsetting the new relationship that Obama was attempting to forge with Moscow and Tehran.

This factor is the hidden key to understanding why Team Obama gravitated to the YPG to solve its problems. The group had a long history of cordial ­relations with the Russians and the Iranians, and, best of all, it had no intention to topple the Assad regime. Every other group that Obama might have used to defeat ISIS had an anti-Assad agenda.

So, no, Trump is not betraying the YPG. He is seeking to restore balance to American foreign policy.

The YPG knew from the ­beginning that its relationship with Washington was temporary and transactional. It didn’t fight as a favor to the United States. America armed, trained, equipped and funded the YPG. We gave it strong military support, including aerial bombardment, which allowed it to vanquish all foes in its neighborhood. Thanks to this assistance, the power, influence and territorial reach of the group expanded beyond its wildest dreams. In the meantime, America also held Turkey at bay.

The YPG benefitted enormously from the effort, and the Turkish-American relationship suffered in equal measure. To paraphrase Susan Rice, this was a bats- -t crazy way to solve the ISIS challenge. If she and her Team Obama colleagues want to blame anyone for this mess, they might consider looking in the mirror.

Disagree with an editorial opinion piece in one of the most conservative tabloids published today? Written by a Bush Appointee who writes mostly for the Federalist, writes mostly articles that swing from Trumps nuts, and who has, in the past, praised bigots and bigotry? You think? 

I mean, I'm more surprised you think agreeing with this guy somehow validates your opinion, given his history...but...hey...you do you.

In short, like with most of what Doran says/thinks: It's bunk. And even most Republicans think so. Hell, LIndsey Graham has even found a backbone on this issue.

And even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter. 

We are where we are because Trump decided to pull out without a single plan, or thought for the Kurds, or care for his decisions effect on our reputation.

Whether Obama is to blame, or Santa Claus, it. just. doesn't. matter. Its the conservatives favorite game, since they can't actually solve a problem: whataboutism.

We left people to be slaughtered.  Do you understand that?  These aren't just numbers....they are people. People being BURNED ALIVE.  People being rounded up and massacred, en masse.

People who have helped us defeat ISIS, who fought along side our military.  Who we promised we would continue to support until...one day...Trump woke up and decided to pull up stakes.

No warning. No attempt to negotiate a way out.  Just...gone.

And you're OK with that? 

No.  You're so in love with your boi Trump that you can't actually look at the situation and assess it honestly.  Because, again, if Obama had done the same exact thing....putting, potentially, Israel at risk....fanning the flames for ISIS...and plunging the entire area into war via power vacuum, you would have lost your shit.

Know how I know that?  The reaction when Obama floated pulling more troops out of Afghanistan, with a committed time table.  Conservatives WENT NUTS.  And rightly so.  Because pulling out, willy nilly, with no plan how to ensure stability in the region is terrible foreign policy and is BAT SHIT CRAZY.

Just like "ya boi".

He hasn't even pulled then has he yet? Just told them to strange down.

[tim_m]

The USA and Turkey have just reached a cease fire agreement. Shouldn't have been necessary but at least now they'll stop slaughtering the Kurds.

[tim_m]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-will-host-2020-g-7-summit-trump-resort-n1068236?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

And now we have a clear emoluments violation.

[tim_m]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.axios.com/mick-mulvaney-ukraine-dnc-server-military-aid-3b8a0a07-70e1-42ff-9d2e-fddc9cdc55f8.html

[Dr. Blutarsky]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-will-host-2020-g-7-summit-trump-resort-n1068236?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

And now we have a clear emoluments violation.

It could be if he makes money on it.

EDIT - Ill expand on this. Why do this and open yourself up to more shit? If he doesn't make a profit on it there wouldn't be a conflict of interest, but he'd better show some financials to prove it or he will have to manage another crisis.

[pilferk]

He hasn't even pulled then has he yet? Just told them to strange down.

Physically, they are still "there", just not in any forward positions.  They aren't just "standing down" though.  They are actively prepping for, and engaging in,  withdrawal. 

Basically, they're waiting for their transport orders.

Functionally, they're "out".  They are conducting no military operations, they aren't engaging with the locals.  They're sitting in barracks waiting to be told which flight out to catch.

They won't actually share the particulars until everyone is basically out.  So there may be some that have left...we don't know.

[pilferk]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-will-host-2020-g-7-summit-trump-resort-n1068236?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

And now we have a clear emoluments violation.

It could be if he makes money on it.

Directly or indirectly, he's going to make money.  Even if he opened the place up for free, for every guest on the premises, and fed them for free, and offered the resort amenities for free....he'd still make money on the publicity.  It's basically free advertising for his property.

And I highly doubt that he donates every oz of food, alcohol, and every square foot of space for the dignitaries and their entourages.  He might say he's going to "charge costs" back to the government, but I'd argue that is still a violation given the wording of the clause.  And even if you disagree, there would need to be a HUGE in depth audit.  Because if he makes one thin dime, he's broken the law.

And Republicans will bitch when Dems (assuming they have control anywhere) try to do the audit.

It also has, as with all things Trump, the implication of impropriety. 

And it breaks all global precedent. Which MUST piss you off, right?

EDIT - Ill expand on this. Why do this and open yourself up to more shit? If he doesn't make a profit on it there wouldn't be a conflict of interest, but he'd better show some financials to prove it or he will have to manage another crisis.

The actual wording of the clause:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State

An Emolument isn't just profit. It's the taking of ANYTHING of value.  There's no exceptions.  Not even in exchange for a good or service provided. NOTHING.

This is the way it's always been interpreted.

And, given Trump has not divested himself from his businesses, taking money from ANY of these foreign dignitaries by Trump, Inc equates to taking an Emolument.  He's getting money. It doesn't matter whether it just covers costs or not. 

The founding fathers did this specifically to remove ANY doubt.  They made it as restrictive as possible for that very reason.  They didn't even want a HINT of impropriety.  Their writings talked, at length, about this.

Nothing of value from any foreign government. 

It's why every gift ever given to a president is the property of the US government, and not the president.  Most of the interesting stuff ends up in the Smithsonian.

Now, what Trump could do is deed El Dorado, for free, to the US government for two weeks, and let the US government keep all the money.  So Trump, Inc never sees a dime of it pass through their accounting or accounts.

The US government would staff the place, provide all the food, services, booze, etc.  Collect and keep all the revenue...and give Trump (and Trump Inc) exactly 0 dollars at the end.

Short of that, it's a violation in both the letter and the spirit according to the founding fathers.

The SC MIGHT disagree (as constituted...because it hasn't in the past).....if it's not considered another impeachable offense.

[tim_m]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-will-host-2020-g-7-summit-trump-resort-n1068236?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

And now we have a clear emoluments violation.

It could be if he makes money on it.

EDIT - Ill expand on this. Why do this and open yourself up to more shit? If he doesn't make a profit on it there wouldn't be a conflict of interest, but he'd better show some financials to prove it or he will have to manage another crisis.

They say it'll be at cost but i don't trust anyone in this administration to be truthful, even if at cost means taxpayer money he's still benefiting.

*Edit* even it is at cost of the United States is still awarding a government contact to a Trump owned business. Which could be a violation if the domestic emoluments clause, which pertains solely to the president. It states the president cannot receive anymore or any less salary then the 400k. So he's better be able to prove without a doubt he won't make one cent off this. Even then why do this? Why sweet yourself up to questions about this. He's already being investigated for the Ukraine call. He's facing harsh criticism from both sides for Syria. Even some Republicans are starting to go against him for the Ukraine call and now for this as well as Syria. So why even give Congress more ammo. If enough Republicans turn on him if an impeachment trial happens he could get convicted and removed. This is just another example of poor judgement.

[tim_m]

He hasn't even pulled then has he yet? Just told them to strange down.

Physically, they are still "there", just not in any forward positions.  They aren't just "standing down" though.  They are actively prepping for, and engaging in,  withdrawal. 

Basically, they're waiting for their transport orders.

Functionally, they're "out".  They are conducting no military operations, they aren't engaging with the locals.  They're sitting in barracks waiting to be told which flight out to catch.

They won't actually share the particulars until everyone is basically out.  So there may be some that have left...we don't know.

I see, i knew they were still there at least.

[pilferk]

Oh look. The state department finished their multiyear investigation into Hillarys emails. And found.....exactly what the FBI did. No criminal wrongdoing. Some staffer missclassification/use of code word system....all basically innocent mistakes.

Talk about a witch hunt.....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/state-department-probe-of-clinton-emails-finds-no-deliberate-mishandling-of-classified-information/2019/10/18/83339446-f1dc-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

[tim_m]

Oh look. The state department finished their multiyear investigation into Hillarys emails. And found.....exactly what the FBI did. No criminal wrongdoing. Some staffer missclassification/use of code word system....all basically innocent mistakes.

Talk about a witch hunt.....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/state-department-probe-of-clinton-emails-finds-no-deliberate-mishandling-of-classified-information/2019/10/18/83339446-f1dc-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

This will drive the Trumpers mad because it is Trump's state department that found this.

[tim_m]

Well I'll be damned, Trump actually did the right thing and pulled G7 from Doral. After backlash from well just about everyone. Of course he blames it on the media and Democrats. How awful, we weren't ok with him violating the Constitution!