Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
Home Help Search Login Register Broadcast Message to Admin(s)


Pages: 1 ... 177 178 179 180 
Send Topic Print
Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside (Read 420,503 times)
Edith Grove
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline


Disco STILL sucks!

Posts: 11,966
New Orleans
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4450 - Jun 7th, 2019 at 5:03pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Some Guy wrote on Jun 7th, 2019 at 3:59pm:
Where do you stand on this?



Somewhere around Buckhead.
Back to top
 

“What rap did that was impressive was to show there are so many tone-deaf people out there,” he says. “All they need is a drum beat and somebody yelling over it and they’re happy. There’s an enormous market for people who can’t tell one note from another.” - Keef
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4451 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 10:19am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<  -------------   GIMMEKEEF   ?!  ....  !!!!!!!!!!!   :







https://www.omaha.com/opinion/sarah-halzack-barnes-noble-can-t-blame-amazon-for-...







" Sarah Halzack: Barnes & Noble can't blame Amazon for everything .  "












" Barnes & Noble had been buyout bait for so long it should not have been a surprise when the company announced Friday that Elliott Management Corp. had agreed to buy the big-box book giant for $683 million, including debt. The bookseller had said in October that it was exploring strategic alternatives. Even before that, smart observers had noted it would be a tempting takeout target.

Still, when the moment came, it seemed to be, if not exactly a shock, then certainly an important turning point. Without a doubt it was a humbling moment for a company that has been humbled again and again by retail's massive transformation.

Of course, Barnes & Noble was among the earliest companies to feel the punishing competitive pressure of Amazon, with Jeff Bezos' ruthless convenience machine putting books on shoppers' doorsteps quickly and reliably. Bezos dealt Barnes & Noble another blow when his Kindle device ushered in the e-books era, threatening to exile the bookseller to oblivion the same way Apple's iTunes doomed Tower Records and Sam Goody.

Given that history, perhaps it is inevitable that Barnes & Noble is a smaller, less influential retailing force now than it was at the height of its powers. But it was not preordained that Barnes & Noble has become as irrelevant as it has.

As one piece of evidence, look at the extraordinary resurrection of Best Buy Co., the electronics chain that also experienced early encroachment from Amazon. Less than a decade ago, many industry watchers were convinced it was destined to crumble like rival Circuit City did. But CEO Hubert Joly gave people a reason to choose Best Buy -- he made prices more competitive, drastically improved customer service and shored up its e-commerce offering. He didn't let the company wallow in the past, ditching its 250 small-format Best Buy Mobile stores, which no longer made sense as the smartphone market matured.

Barnes & Noble couldn't have followed Best Buy's playbook exactly; selling books is simply a different business from selling big-ticket items like 4K TVs. But Best Buy's example shows it is possible for specialist retailers to remain differentiated and exciting in 2019.

Barnes & Noble even had a solid foundation to build on: It was an experiential retailer long before that term became an overused industry buzzword. Its cavernous spaces with plenty of seating let customers thumb through lots of books before settling on a purchase; its Starbucks cafes gave them permission to linger even longer.

Apple, often lauded as a retail visionary, started referring to its stores as "town squares" in 2017, a nod to the idea that it would be advantageous for them to be community gathering places. Barnes & Noble had understood the power of retail-store-as-hangout-spot at least two decades ago. And then it squandered it by not continuing to evolve how the concept was executed and by failing to marry it with a more compelling online shopping experience and e-reader.

Barnes & Noble's new CEO, James Daunt, has some obvious opportunities to steady the chain, starting with slimming down. The company still has more than 600 physical stores. That number could soon prove unsustainable even for, say, Macy's Inc., and the clothing and home goods businesses have not even shifted online as much as the book business has.

Daunt should also further reshape how Barnes & Noble's allocates space in its stores. I was shocked on a recent visit to a Barnes & Noble store by how much square footage was still devoted to physical copies of movies and music. The company has experimented with remodels to condense those areas and use the space for toys and games. That seems like something worth rolling out chainwide, especially given the disappearance of Toys "R" Us.

Maybe some fresh marketing, too, could drive traffic to Barnes & Noble. Millennial parents are often worried about overdoing screen time for their kids. Why not court them with ads that will make them feel like Parent of the Year for taking their children to pick out an old-fashioned book?

Remember, even Amazon, Barnes & Noble's mortal enemy, clearly believes in the enduring potential of the physical bookstore. It has opened several of them in recent years, a somewhat ironic bit of validation for Barnes & Noble's legacy business.

Going private has been anything but a guarantee of salvation in retail. In fact, in several cases, it has been a prelude to grave trouble. Toys "R" Us, most notably, was forced to liquidate after it was crushed by its debt load. Private-equity owned Payless Shoe Source is now shuttering its U.S. stores after filing for bankruptcy; private-equity-backed Wet Seal and the Limited have vanished from the mall.

Barnes & Noble will probably never be the cultural and commercial force it once was, even if it doesn't end up quite those dire straits. It has missed too many opportunities by now. But it still has a chance to write a next chapter that doesn't include its demise.  "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 8:47am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4452 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 8:51pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  ---------- Some Guy   ?!   ..... !!!!!!!!!!    :








https://www.omaha.com/opinion/jonah-goldberg-does-reality-change-ideas-or-vice-v...







" Jonah Goldberg: Does reality change ideas, or vice versa? "









" The intellectual right is in the middle of a huge brouhaha, as some prominent right-wing commentators celebrate what they believe is the end of the "conservative consensus" around classical liberalism -- free markets, limited government, the sovereignty of the individual and even in some cases free expression.

Fox News' Tucker Carlson recently lauded progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren's economic program, to the cheers of a host of conservatives who now consider themselves advocates for something called "economic nationalism."

While I'm friends with many of these people, including Carlson, and respect many of the others (though certainly not all), I think this is barmy codswallop.

But as I've written a great deal about the singular necessity of free markets, limited government and classical liberalism -- recently at book length -- I feel like coming at this from a different direction. This argument really isn't new, and there's no reason to think it's going away anytime soon, particularly so long as Donald Trump is in office and conservative intellectuals feel the need to bend their ideas to his actions or exploit his popularity (on the right) for the ideas they've long held.

Instead, it's worth thinking about how to think about such things.

It's axiomatic that intellectuals like to deal with ideas. Ideas are to the intellectual what paint is to the painter and stone is to the mason. And ideas are supremely important. As the late Irving Kristol said, "What rules the world is ideas, because ideas define the way reality is perceived."

I believe that. But reality -- i.e., the physical realm we live in -- is often what brings new ideas to the fore. We certainly understand this in the world of science. Newton, Einstein and Edison had ideas, and those ideas changed reality in ways that changed our ideas.

Ever since the word "conservative" has had any meaning, conservatives have complained about moral licentiousness. Where they once complained about rising hemlines, they now complain about widespread pornography or celebrity sex tapes. As a conservative myself, I share some of those complaints. But what's often left out of the conversation is the role technology plays in changing how we think about such things.

In the 1920s, conservatives complained about foreign ideas corrupting the youth, as if licentiousness was some virus that escaped a lab in Paris and was brought home by returning soldiers. Left out of the conversation, for the most part, was the fact that one of the great drivers of the rise in out-of-wedlock births (and shotgun weddings) in the 1920s was the widespread introduction of the automobile. Suddenly, teenagers had a much easier time escaping the prying eyes of parents and neighbors.

I have no objection to the claim that ideas played an important role in changing attitudes about sex. The problem is when you think the idea is the sum of the problem. Intellectuals tend to think this way because it's fun to argue with Voltaire or Simone de Beauvoir. It's more difficult to argue with a Buick. These intellectuals become like the drunk who looks for his lost car keys only under the street lamp because the light is better there.

The birth control pill has surely done more to create a culture of recreational sex than all the writings of Alfred Kinsey and feminist intellectuals combined. Good luck trying to get rid of the pill.

Of course, this isn't just a dynamic on the right. One of the vexing problems for supporters of unalloyed abortion rights is that technology -- from in-utero MRI to miraculous innovations in neonatal care -- is making the claim that late-stage fetuses are merely "uterine contents" or some other dehumanizing euphemism less plausible to millions of Americans.

Many of the promoters of "economic nationalism" on the left and right, including Trump, cling to outdated ideas about how industry works. Manufacturing in the United States isn't in decline; manufacturing jobs are, because technology replaces human labor with machine labor.

Even if tariffs brought our factories home from Mexico and China (a dubious proposition), most of the jobs "brought back" would go to machines. Raising the minimum wage certainly would help some workers, but it also encourages employers to replace other workers with automation and other technologies.

Among the myriad dangers in all this is that intellectuals think they can somehow plan and direct the consequences of technological innovation to achieve a society that fits their theories about how everyone should live. That's not easy in an authoritarian society. It's not possible in a free one. "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 9:13am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4453 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 9:10pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  ----------- Nanky  ?!   ............ !!!!!!!!!!!!   :







https://www.omaha.com/opinion/lee-h-hamilton-compromise-is-the-essence-of-our-de...







" Lee H. Hamilton: Compromise is the essence of our democracy

By Lee H. Hamilton "








" The writer is a distinguished scholar at the Indiana University School of Global and International Studies and a former Indiana congressman.

You may not be ready for next year’s elections, but in political time, they’re coming up fast. Even politicians who aren’t running for president are crafting their stump speeches. Which means that at some point you’re almost certain to hear someone announce, sternly, “I. Will. Not. Compromise.” And if you’re there in the crowd and agree with his or her position, you may even join the applause.

Which is understandable, but let me tell you why, far from applauding that line, I shy from politicians who use it. In a democracy, being able to compromise — and knowing how — is a core skill for governing. Shouting “No Compromise!” may fire up the crowd, but it’s a recipe for failure when it comes to getting things done in office.

In fact, it was a core skill even before we had our current system. Pretty much every sentence in our Constitution was the product of compromise, crafted by people who felt passionately about the issues they confronted, yet found a way to agree on language that would enable the country to function.

It is true that any legislative body needs members who set out the vision — the pure ideological positions — as part of the public dialogue. But if they’re allowed to control or dominate the process, nothing gets done. When pushed, most politicians understand that cooperation and working together to build consensus have to prevail in the end.

So why doesn’t it happen more? Because compromise is not easy, especially on issues of consequence, and especially today, when the country is so deeply divided and polarized. Even the word itself causes disagreement. To someone like me, it’s a way forward. To others, including a lot of voters, it’s a betrayal of principle.

Once you do compromise, you’ve always got the problem of selling the result to others. Sometimes, in fact, you have the problem of selling it to yourself. When I was in office, I often found myself second-guessing my own decisions. Did I give up too much on principle? Was there another path to the same goal without compromising? Maybe I didn’t give enough? Is the compromise that emerged actually workable?

This last is an important question. Any politician seeking to forge common ground with others has to weigh whether people — voters and colleagues outside the meeting room — will be willing to accept or at least tolerate a compromise. I’ve certainly encountered politicians who have walked out of efforts to reach agreement because they felt they couldn’t sell it. Or, even more common, who support compromise as long as it’s the other side that does all the compromising.

The thing is, politicians never control the political environment in which they’re working. They have to seek the best solution given the cards they’ve been dealt. They can’t dictate who’s on the other side of the negotiating table, or the political climate in their community.

This makes the kind of people you’re dealing with supremely important. As a lawmaker or officeholder seeking to move forward and faced with colleagues who may hold very different views, you need counterparts who know they need to make the system work and are willing to be flexible. In a way, you’re hoping for politicians who take into consideration the broad concerns of the entire population, not just those who support them or voted for them.

In Central Park one day during World War II, Judge Learned Hand told an assembled crowd, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.” That is also the spirit of our representative democracy, and we need politicians who embrace it.

So when Americans complain about Congress not getting anything done, I have limited sympathy. Congress struggles because it has members who don’t know how to compromise, are afraid to or don’t want to. And those members are there because we sent them there. In other words, we share the blame. "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:26am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4454 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 9:28pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<   ------------- Some Guy  ?!  ......................... !!!!!!!!!   We must hope and pray The Biden People do not pull a  " Chinese Chennault 2020  "  against The Great Man   ---  President Donald J. Trump  "  PRECIOUS   "  Leader !   ..............  ' Politics Ain't Bean Bag ! ' 1968 --   Why fight and die for a lost cause and the politicians are playing games ?   :








https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0410-witcover-chenault-20180...







" Anna Chennault: the woman who helped Nixon sell out peace to win the presidency .  "



By Jules Witcover







" On March 30, 94-year-old Anna Chennault died. What history will remember her for is the pivotal role she played in Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential victory — a role that, if it had been widely known at the time, might have deprived Nixon of the White House and assured the election of Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey instead.

Days before that election, Chennault — the China-born widow of World War II hero Gen. Claire Chennault of the famed Flying Tigers and a major Nixon fund-raiser — passed word to South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu that if he boycotted planned peace talks in Paris, he could count on the support of a President Nixon.

The Nixon campaign feared that Thieu's presence would result in a deal that would end the war and swing the election to Humphrey. President Lyndon Johnson had ordered a halt in the bombing of Hanoi, also raising those hopes. But when Thieu indeed stayed away, the talks collapsed and Nixon was elected by 0.7 percent of the vote.

At the time, Humphrey had received from LBJ surveillance by the FBI of Chennault visits to the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington to urge Thieu not to go to the Paris meeting. The FBI reported she had gone to the embassy, then to the Nixon campaign headquarters and back to the embassy. But Humphrey declined to make the information public, knowing it was classified, and he — incredibly — doubted Nixon would be capable of engaging in such a nefarious undertaking.

In Humphrey's later memoir, he wrote: "I wonder if I should have blown the whistle on Anna Chennault and Nixon. He must have known about her call to Thieu. I wish I could have been sure. Damn Thieu. Dragging his feet this past weekend hurt us. I wonder if that call did it. If Nixon knew. Maybe I should have blasted them anyway."

LBJ aide Joe Califano later said Humphrey's failure to use the intelligence on Chennault "became the occasion for a lasting rift" between Johnson and his vice president. "That refusal really tore it," Mr. Califano told me. "Johnson thought Hubert had no balls, no spine, no toughness." LBJ himself told Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen he considered Nixon's actions an act of "treason," as a possible violation of the little-known Logan Act forbidding individual citizens to inject themselves into the conduct of foreign policy.


At least two reporters were onto the Chennault story — Tom Ottenad of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Saville Davis of the Christian Science Monitor — and both were shunted off it by Johnson officials, though both made general references to it in their newspapers.

Some 26 years later, for a book about 1968, I contacted Anna at her Georgetown office, and she basically acknowledged her role, saying, "Anyone who knows about these things knows that I was getting orders to do these things," and I so quoted her in the book.

In 2014, Ken Hughes, a diligent researcher at the Miller Center of the University of Virginia, confirmed the story in exhaustive detail in his book on the Chennault affair, as did Nixon biographer John A. Farrell in his book last year.

By this time, however, Nixon had already been undone politically by Watergate, and the earlier affair that could have changed history sooner was reduced to an obscure footnote, demonstrating the lengths through which the man was willing to go to gain power.

Nixon, in getting away with the Chennault caper, may have convinced himself he could do so again in Watergate. "If only we had known," Mr. Hughes wrote. "Nixon wasn't a rogue with a redemptive streak of patriotism. He played politics with peace to win the 1968 election. He did the same to win re-election in 1972 at the cost of thousands of American lives."

The tragedies that marked 1968 were horrible enough, without evidence that the winner of its presidential election did so by engaging in an illegal and despicable scheme to sabotage a sitting president's efforts to end the Vietnam War. Nixon's agent in the matter was known in political circles as "The Dragon Lady," and she long afterward chafed that she had not been properly rewarded for it. What a pity. "






...



...


...


https://www.cricketworldcup.com/video/1240190?fbclid=IwAR0hu3G4q3eCnDyh6pryhs7a9...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 4:41pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4455 - Jun 10th, 2019 at 9:40pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Some Guy wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 1:14pm:
Grocery prices are going up, up, up, up. Publix is killing me. Maybe more tariffs will help?


Joey?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kirsten-gillibrand-announces-plan-for-national-ma...






...




https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/8-songs-that-show-walter-beckers-brilliance/



Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2019 at 11:01am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline



Posts: 14,176
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4456 - Jun 13th, 2019 at 7:34am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Joey, your love of Trump is really bringing the board down.

...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4457 - Jun 13th, 2019 at 2:03pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
gimmekeef wrote on May 14th, 2019 at 8:49am:
So...Trump wants $15 billion to give to his farm base that are being hurt by Chinese tariffs. Sounds a lot like Socialism to me. I'm surprised the GOP has time for this after working overtime to screw women on abortion and new "free rape' laws here in the dark South.






<   --------------   Gimmekeef     -----   "   Trump's WSJ Angels   "  have now accepted their Pulitzer Prize for sending Michael Cohen  ( THAT FRIGGIN' RAT  ) away to Prison for Three Years   :




...


https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staff-wall-street-journal







...


Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 14th, 2019 at 10:09am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline



Posts: 14,176
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4458 - Jun 14th, 2019 at 6:53am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Joey, you do know other people can see this?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline



Posts: 14,176
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4459 - Jun 20th, 2019 at 4:12pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 21st, 2019 at 7:40am by Some Guy »  
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4460 - Jul 1st, 2019 at 9:09pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





< ---------- Some Guy  ?!  ..... !!!!! :













https://www.arcamax.com/politics/mod/davidignatius/s-2225192







" Trump successfully played a hunch with Kim. Now what? "


David Ignatius on Jul 2, 2019







" WASHINGTON -- In dealing with North Korea's Chairman Kim Jong Un, President Trump should remember that he is a snake handler, not a snake charmer. (The same advice applies to Kim, but we'll leave that to pundits in Pyongyang.)

The baseline: Kim is a modernizing autocrat who believes his survival will be enhanced by the economic development he wants, in addition to the nuclear weapons he has. If he has decided to resume negotiations, it's to remove sanctions, put his economy in overdrive and, maybe, keep some of his nuclear arsenal. It's not because he has a "great relationship" with Trump, as the president's comments have suggested, but because he's a rational, if cocky, dictator.

This caution doesn't diminish the importance of what Trump achieved Sunday in stage-managing his reality-diplomacy show at the Korean Demilitarized Zone. This was a high-risk photo opportunity, but when Trump became the first U.S. president to step into North Korea, he reopened a path to denuclearization and normalization of relations.

Trump's many bad qualities shouldn't blind us to this good achievement. He successfully played a hunch that Kim wanted to resume talks. The fact that this achievement comes wrapped in Trump's gaudy, dictator-friendly bunting doesn't diminish its value. The question is whether this is a real turn toward peace and stability in Asia, as opposed to a survival gambit for Kim and a reelection campaign stunt for Trump.

"The idea of a Trump meeting with Kim in the DMZ has been kicking around for some time," noted Robert Carlin, a longtime CIA analyst on North Korea, in an email message Sunday. Carlin had feared that it was "a diving catch, a Hail Mary pass, betting the farm," but Trump made the gamble work.

What were the precursors of this reopening? First, Kim apparently concluded he had erred at the Hanoi summit in February in expecting that he could get sanctions relief without making any real concessions on denuclearization. He began walking back this mistake in May, "signaling the window was again open for engaging the U.S.," said Carlin, a careful reader of the North Korean press.

A clear public sign that Kim wanted to play ball again came in a June 4 Foreign Ministry statement reaffirming North Korea's "will to cherish and implement in good faith" the denuclearization pledge Kim made at the Singapore summit in June 2018. The statement urged that "both sides give up their unilateral demands and find a constructive solution."

A shadow play commenced: Kim sent Trump what the president called a "beautiful letter" last month, and Trump responded in kind. Stephen Biegun, the State Department's special representative for North Korea, said June 19 at the Atlantic Council that the "door is wide open" for renewed negotiations and that the only big obstacle was the lack of an "agreed definition of what denuclearization is."

The State Department quietly announced on June 24 that Biegun was traveling to Seoul. And then, on Saturday, came Trump's seemingly off-the-wall tweet: "If Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!" A day later, they were shaking hands and Trump was walking across the border.

Here's what to watch carefully in the weeks ahead. Since this diplomatic dance began, the question has been what specific, verifiable steps North Korea will take toward the declared goal of denuclearization. Kim tried to sidestep that in Hanoi by offering to dismantle one big nuclear facility at Yongbyon, which Trump rightly rejected because the U.S. knows there are other facilities outside the boundary of this compound. Are those other facilities now on the table? Is the U.S. willing to consider a transition "freeze" of Pyongyang's activities? We'll see.

Trump, wisely, seems to have accepted that denuclearization won't be an immediate disarmament but a gradual, monitored process. He said Sunday that "speed is not the object. ... We want to see if we can do a really comprehensive, good deal." That's the right goal.

The personal factor in diplomacy is ephemeral but real. China may have been ready for an opening to America in 1972, but it took President Richard Nixon to go to Beijing. Egypt may have been primed for peace with Israel in 1978, but it took President Jimmy Carter to negotiate the Camp David Accords with Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin.

Kim and Trump make an unattractive pair, in many respects. But if for their own reasons they're ready to begin a serious denuclearization discussion, so much the better. "







... 















Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 2nd, 2019 at 10:19am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4461 - Jul 1st, 2019 at 9:42pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<   ------------  Gimmekeef   ?!   :







https://www.omaha.com/opinion/cal-thomas-questions-i-would-have-asked-the-democr...




" Cal Thomas: Questions I would have asked the Democrats . "







" The likelihood I would ever be invited to serve on a network panel questioning the Democratic presidential candidates is equivalent to an invitation to take the next trip to the moon.

Still, as I tortured myself watching the two "debates," which were not really debates, but mostly a show of memorized sound bites, I thought of unasked questions that ought to have been put to them all.

Question 1: Some of you have, or had, the power to change many of the things you now say are wrong with America. Why didn't you?

Question 2 (for Joe Biden): You and Barack Obama, for a time, had a Democratic majority in Congress. Why didn't you reform immigration laws and address homelessness? Your administration deported a lot of people who were in the country illegally, so why criticize President Donald Trump for wanting to follow your example? Do our laws mean nothing?

Question 3: During the second debate, all 10 of you raised your hands when asked if you would provide free health care to immigrants who are here illegally. Aren't you inviting even more to come to America with such a policy, and wouldn't that add to our already staggering debt? Follow-up: Trump said we should take care of Americans first. Why would you use American tax dollars to pay for people who break our laws?

Question 4: Is there anything Trump has done that you could praise? Many of you talk as if unemployment hasn't declined -- especially for minorities -- and wages haven't risen. Unemployment is at, or near, record lows and wages are up.

Question 5: Some of you think raising taxes again is a good idea, but with a $22 trillion debt and with record amounts of revenue already coming into Washington, isn't the real problem uncontrolled spending? Follow-up: Are there any government programs you would cut or eliminate?

Question 6: Many of you have a lot of complaints about the U.S. Is there anything positive you could say?

Question 7: Many of you have criticized Trump for confronting Iran and withdrawing from the nuclear deal. Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism in the world and its leaders say they have a religious mandate to wipe out Israel and impose Islamic law on everyone. How would you negotiate with its leaders, and what is your plan for fighting terrorism?

Question 8: Some of you say Russia is the greatest existential threat and others name China. Russia has been supporting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and the crumbling dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. Russia has also sent a warship to Cuba. How would you oppose Russia's adventurism and China's expansionism? How would you deal with China spying on us?

Question 9 (for Sen. Kamala Harris): You attacked Joe Biden for working with segregationist senators during his time in the Senate. He (and Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through significant civil rights legislation in the 1960s) said it was necessary in order to accomplish anything. If you were in the Senate at that time, would you have refused to work with those senators, possibly scuttling significant legislation that has led to improvements in the lives of many Americans, including African Americans?


Question 10: There have been 60 million abortions in America since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than five times as likely as white women to have an abortion. Does this trouble you? Follow-up: Some states allow babies to die if they survive an abortion and some call that infanticide. Are you opposed to that practice?

These questions and others might have provided more useful information to the public than the ones tossed at the candidates. As I say, though, it is unlikely I will ever have a chance to ask them and the network stars won't either. "






...




...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 2nd, 2019 at 3:29pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline



Posts: 14,176
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4462 - Jul 4th, 2019 at 11:27am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Trump is having a 4th of July party and your all invited... just kidding, you are probably not invited

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-plans-july-fourth-celebration_n_5d1cf9b4e4b...


Please see the official 4th of July album below-



HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called “A Salute To America” and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!



Joey Chestnut?

...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2019 at 12:09pm by Some Guy »  
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4463 - Jul 8th, 2019 at 9:47pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<   ------- Edith   ?!   ....  !!!!!!!!!!   :








https://www.omaha.com/opinion/washington-post-countries-are-killing-internet-acc...








" Washington Post: Countries are killing Internet access in times of crisis .  "






" In the halcyon days of the Internet, a vision took hold that in a vast global network, no single point could control. Rather, the Internet would flow like water around obstacles. Tim Berners-Lee, a web pioneer, said it was originally intended to be a “universal space,” not controlled by a single government or company. President Bill Clinton declared in 2000 that China controlling the Internet in its country would be “like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.”

Today, it is clear that those views were naive — as the people of Sudan, Myanmar and Ethiopia recently discovered. The Internet in all three countries went dark after their governments decided to kill it when faced with internal crises. The disruptions showed that the Internet is not truly global; it can be switched off by national rulers. And maybe not just in relatively isolated corners of the world. Russia is also pondering whether it can build a kill switch, though the task would be more difficult in a large country with many connections to the world.

In Myanmar, also known as Burma, the authorities instructed mobile telecommunications operators on June 20 to halt Internet traffic in nine townships in Rakhine and neighboring Chin states, scene of the forced expulsion of more than 720,000 Rohingya Muslims by the military in 2017 and of continuing violence. A Myanmar official said it was “for the sake of security and the public interest,” claiming “the Internet is one of the contributors” to the strife.

More likely, the Internet has been a vital lifeline for the persecuted Rohingya to communicate with one another and the outside world. Myanmar has largely barred journalists and international observers from scrutinizing its crackdown; shutting down the Internet is yet another way to conceal its actions.

In Sudan, the Internet connection was switched off June 3 as security forces pummeled protesters demanding civilian rule after 30 years of authoritarianism. About 120 people were killed in the crackdown. The country’s two mobile telephone operators were ordered to shut down Internet services through which most people in Sudan access the web. A month later, the closure remains as a military junta clings to power.

Even with digital access sealed off, thousands of people returned to the streets June 30 in Khartoum and elsewhere to demand civilian rule. In Ethiopia, the government shut down Internet service for about 100 hours in late June as a failed coup was unfolding.

Of course, shutdown is not the only method for controlling the web. Despots have learned to infiltrate digital flows with bots and disinformation. China has created what Christopher Walker of the National Endowment for Democracy recently called a “technology-animated police state” in suppressing the Uighur population in the Xinjiang region. Far from the original vision of Internet freedom to a degree hardly imagined two decades ago, China has harnessed the Internet and technology to serve the party-state. It has nailed the Jell-O to the wall.  "















Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 9th, 2019 at 9:03pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4464 - Jul 8th, 2019 at 9:53pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 







<  ---------- Some Guy   ?!  ..... !!!!!!!!!!   :











https://www.omaha.com/opinion/robert-j-samuelson-is-putin-right-that-liberalism-...






" Robert J. Samuelson: Is Putin right that liberalism is obsolete? "







" WASHINGTON -- It looks as if Vladimir Putin wants to be recalled as something besides being an aggressive autocrat. He yearns, it seems, to be seen as a leading political thinker, respected for his analysis as well as feared for his actions. This is a reasonable reading of Putin's recent interview with the Financial Times, which included his remarkable declaration that the "the liberal idea has become obsolete."

What to make of this?

For starters, let's give Putin his due. You may dislike or detest him -- for many good reasons, I would add, including Russia's tampering with the 2016 U.S. election, the invasion of Crimea and the aggression against Ukraine -- but you have to acknowledge that he's a keen observer of the times. The post-World War II liberalism that he disparages is clearly under siege.

Economically, it's strapped for cash. There are at least three reasons for this.

First, economic growth in the West has slowed. The promise of the postwar liberalism was that strong and steady growth would buy social peace. It would enable governments to ensure full employment, protect vulnerable groups (the poor, elderly and the sick) and engage in worthy causes (for example, combating climate change).

The slowdown of economic growth limits governments' ability to meet these pledges. From 1950 to 2018, U.S. growth has averaged 3.2%, but in the next decade, it's widely projected to be around 2%. The slowdown reflects baby boomers' retirement -- which squeezes the size of the labor force -- and weak productivity growth. Other countries have experienced similar slumps.

Second, most advanced societies are aging, which means they're committed to paying more in benefits for the elderly. Though the aging occurs slowly, it's dramatic. In 2015, 14.9% of the U.S. population was 65 or over; by 2050, that's projected by the Census Bureau to be 22.1%. For Germany, the comparable figures are 21.5% for 2015 and 30.1% for 2050; for China, the aging is especially rapid -- from 10.1% in 2015 to 26.8% in 2050.

Finally, there are those pesky budget deficits. It's true that, until now, the United States and many other advanced countries have been able to borrow huge quantities of money at low interest rates. Perhaps that will continue indefinitely. Or perhaps it won't. Even on today's trajectory -- based on admittedly optimistic economic assumptions -- U.S. federal debt would exceed 90% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2029.

As a practical matter, countries need a crude consensus as to who's in charge and what they're empowered to do. Dictatorial societies do this by fear and force. By contrast, most modern democracies -- including the United States -- have resorted to some form of "liberalism," broadly defined.

We've long governed by hope: a better life. In its loftiest state, postwar liberalism was expected to have a cleansing effect on countries' social climate, liberating people from prejudice and small-mindedness. The liberal appeal spanned the ideological spectrum. In the United States and Europe, centrist governments of the left and right ruled.

It is this promise of a morally elevated electorate that Putin panned. The trouble, professor Putin lectured to the Financial Times, is that many people have lost faith in the liberal idea. They have moved on. Now, Putin and his fellow travelers, including President Donald Trump and others, propose that we govern by fear: a dread of outsiders.

No one should suppose that Putin's nationalistic substitute for lapsed liberalism will make the world a kinder, gentler or more stable place. The liberal ideal presumed, perhaps naively, that people could be brought together by common interests and common values. The nationalistic alternative takes as its starting point the view that there will be winners and losers.

People feel threatened. Liberal high-mindedness has created a backlash by justifying policies and practices that are unpopular with large swaths of the population -- open borders, unwanted immigration, globalization and multiculturalism. Liberal policies "come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population," Putin said.

People value their national identities. They generally fear policies and practices that would erode these identities. One question in a 2016 Pew study asked whether increases in the number of ethnic groups, races and nationalities made their countries "a worse place to live." Large shares of Greeks (63%), Italians (53%) and Germans (31%) said "yes."

We are straddled between two systems. The daunting task is to salvage the best of postwar liberalism while, at the same time, acknowledging the importance of national identities and sovereignty. It may be a mission impossible. "

















Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 9th, 2019 at 9:29pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline



Posts: 14,176
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4465 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 9:27am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
“They’re from America,” Clinton wrote on Twitter, referencing Trump’s inaccurate statements about progressive women in Congress. “And you’re right about one thing: Currently their government is a complete and total catastrophe.”




...


...

throw my rope, loop-de-loop, nice white teeth, betty boop.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 15th, 2019 at 10:38am by Some Guy »  
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4466 - Jul 16th, 2019 at 9:22pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  ----------  Some Guy   ?!   .....  !!!!!!!!!!   :








https://www.omaha.com/opinion/cal-thomas-apollo-at/article_5495f378-dfdd-518e-93...








" Cal Thomas: Apollo 11 at 50 . "









" You had to be there 50 years ago, and I was. As a young reporter for a local TV station in Houston, I frequently visited NASA ("the space base," we dubbed it), met many of the astronauts and reported on their exploits.

Along with people from around the world, I watched the lunar landing on television on July 20, 1969, fulfilling President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of that decade.

A new, three-part PBS documentary, "Chasing the Moon," recalls the American space program, which followed the Russian launch of the first satellite in 1957. It is a brilliant film, created and directed by Robert Stone, and a useful reminder for the two generations born since then of what a united America can achieve.

CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite makes that point when he says, "It shows what the richest nation in history can do when it puts its mind to it." If you missed the broadcast, you can find the series at pbs.org.

About Apollo 11, a reporter says, "It is like seeing Columbus sail out of port."

Jack Lousma, one of the astronauts who followed the original seven, later became a close friend. Lousma was the CAPCOM recipient of the "Houston, we've had a problem here" message from Apollo 13 and the pilot for Skylab 3 in 1973. He also commanded the third space shuttle mission in 1982.

I asked for his remembrances of that time and about the legacy of America's most famous spaceflight.

Lousma said: "Apollo was a bright light, a ray of hope, a force for 'good' during the Vietnam War controversy with its riots, civil unrest, demonstrations, violence, turmoil, burning draft cards.…

"Unpredictably, Apollo unified the world for a short time. I recall photographs of people in many nations watching TV during the landing … a worldwide sense of 'oneness'. They were not just 'watching'; they seemed part of our team, as if this were a victory for all earthlings, not just for the U.S. We were vicariously representing each one of them. There was a similar response to the drama of Apollo 13.

"It made us proud to be Americans; it set a standard for excellence; it established a baseline for advanced exploration and discovery."

It wasn't all "The Right Stuff," as Tom Wolfe wrote. NASA covered up the extramarital affairs and excessive drinking by many of the earlier astronauts for fear of hurting public confidence in the program.

In her review of Lily Koppel's book, "The Astronaut Wives Club," Susannah Cahalan writes in the New York Post: "Out of the 30 astro-marriages -- spanning from the first American launched into space in 1961 to the moon landing in 1969 -- only seven couples would stay married. … To the outside world, they were perfectly coiffed, apple pie baking housewives. But with their sisters -- the AWC -- they allowed their armor to fall, the tears to drop and the truth to come out."

The debate then, as it has been with other flawed humans who achieved great things, is whether the goal -- beating the Russians to the moon -- eclipsed those personal flaws. Probably not to the wives, but to the nation, ignorant of their frailties, it did.

One story adds to the many illustrations of the power of fame the astronauts had. On a commercial flight, I sat across the aisle from Annie and John Glenn, he the first American to orbit the Earth and at the time a Democratic senator from Ohio. "Apollo 13" was shown. At the end of the film, passengers approached Glenn for his autograph. I said, "John, you know they don't want your signature because you're a senator, right?" He laughed and said, "Don't I know it?"

In today's divided nation, it should be more than an exercise in nostalgia to revisit those exciting years when space really was "the final frontier" and America came to lead the way in exploring it. "






...




https://www.beachamjournal.com/.a/6a01053653b3c7970b01a511e2aa61970c-800wi





...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 17th, 2019 at 9:14am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4467 - Jul 22nd, 2019 at 8:51pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 23rd, 2019 at 8:19am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4468 - Jul 22nd, 2019 at 9:01pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  -------------  GIMMEKEEF   ?!   .......   !!!!!!!!!!!   ;








https://www.arcamax.com/politics/mod/davidignatius/s-2252797







" Uncertainty clouds the path forward for Afghanistan .  "



David Ignatius on Jul 23, 2019










" KABUL -- At the military headquarters here where commanders oversee America's longest war, an official explains in one sentence the U.S.-led coalition's bottom-line objective: "Peace is a situation where we can leave, and we don't have to come back."

But how will the United States move toward this endgame, as U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad nears conclusion of his secret peace negotiations with the Taliban jihadists that America has been fighting for 18 years? Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is said to have complained late last week that a draft of Khalilzad's agreement contains "mere promises" from the Taliban and major concessions by the United States, according to a knowledgeable Afghan source.

Ghani is particularly concerned, according to this Afghan source, about a U.S. pledge to release 13,000 Taliban prisoners, a reference to the Taliban as an "emirate," a deal for "safe passage" of American troops but not Afghan forces, and other measures that in Ghani's view would diminish the sovereignty and authority of the current Afghan government. He also fears that presidential elections scheduled for September will be shelved.

A visit here shows there aren't clear answers yet to the questions about transition that vex Ghani and others who want a stable Afghanistan. When officials try to describe the future, many begin with the word "uncertainty." Nearly everyone supports peace, but none of the half-dozen U.S., Afghan and European officials I spoke with is sure just how it would work.

Army Gen. Austin "Scott" Miller, who commands U.S. forces here, says he's focused on preventing Afghanistan from again becoming a sanctuary for terrorists who could strike the United States and its allies. "The outcome in Afghanistan should be about safeguarding the national interests of the U.S. and our allies" by protecting their homelands, he explained in an interview.

The hidden danger is that if the Taliban does accept a peace pact with the United States, die-hard jihadists will move to the black flag of the Islamic State's Afghan affiliate, which has built a base in the territory it calls "Khorasan." A U.S. intelligence analyst who focuses on "ISIS-K," as it's known, says the group is recruiting operatives who can cross borders, reach "seam cities" such as Tehran, Baku and Istanbul, and then operate in the West.

The strange dynamics of the ISIS-K fight became clear over the past two years in Jowzjan province, along the northern border, and Ghor province, in the northwest, the intelligence analyst says. Recruiters appealed to disaffected Taliban fighters, and ISIS-K was gaining ground, with about 350 supporters in Jowzjan and 200 in Ghor. But then it faced an unlikely double whammy: U.S. counterterrorism forces struck the top leadership, and mainstream Taliban fighters cleaned up the rest.

The growth of ISIS-K, and its dual threat to the United States and the Taliban, raises an intriguing possibility. Could the United States and the Taliban quietly cooperate against a common enemy, after a peace deal? Khalilzad's draft agreement is said to contain language about the "elimination" of ISIS-K. This shared interest could provide a rationale for the United States to maintain a residual counterterrorism presence in Afghanistan, even after withdrawing its main force.

It would be a neat double-cushion shot, but analysts are cautious. "Can the Taliban existentially make the leap to letting us stay?" asks one official. "Their self-definition is that they exist to get out the Americans and their hirelings." If the mainline Taliban did agree to this counterterrorism presence, would that cause more hard-liners to defect to ISIS-K?

The best hope for Afghanistan might be the simple fact that the nation is exhausted by war, and the younger generation is sick of the warlords and thieves who wrecked the country and profited from its misery. "Even if these talks fall apart, they have engraved 'peace' as the only way forward. Even the warlords are recalculating," says one Western official who advises the U.S.-led coalition.

A glimpse of what the future might look like came in an interview with Nasrat Rahimi, the 31-year-old spokesman for the Interior Ministry. He deplored a new attack that killed eight people outside Kabul University. The ministry blamed the Taliban for the attack, though the group denied responsibility. "People hate this," he said. "The only hope that my generation has is to see the end of the 40 years of war."


Afghanistan's modern history is a caution against optimism. "You can always default to the negative in Afghanistan," says the Western official. But Khalilzad has pressed ahead, and he seems near a breakthrough agreement, whatever its defects.

The United States has spent so much blood and treasure here that the one unforgivable mistake would be to leave without a clear counterterrorism strategy to prevent our ever having to return. "



Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 23rd, 2019 at 10:33am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4469 - Jul 22nd, 2019 at 9:09pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 

...





President Donald J. Trump  (  " SUPREME LEADER ! "  ) Wins AGAIN !!!!!!    ........ WE HAVE GOT OURSELVES A WINNER !!!!!!!!!!!    ......... We Never Get Tired of Winning !!!!!! ...... Drinks Are On Young Joey Tonight    --- AGAIN :




...




...

...


They are even taking a bow and the mic whilst saluting The Great Man  -- President Trump and his Angels over at The WSJ Offices  [ Trump's WSJ Angels  :  Angel Nicole Hong  ,  Angel Rebecca Davis O'Brien and Angel Rebecca Ballhaus  (  Pronounced  ' Ball House  '  ) ]   :



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4OdhqwW4AE6rgr.jpg


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4OWqy1W4AAnIez.jpg

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 23rd, 2019 at 4:11pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4470 - Jul 22nd, 2019 at 9:13pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  ----------- Some Guy   ?!    ........  !!!!!!!!!!   :








https://www.arcamax.com/politics/mod/davidignatius/s-2249523?fs









" Like it or not, Democrats, Trump is on a roll . "





David Ignatius on Jul 12, 2019








" WASHINGTON -- The agonizing fact for Democrats this summer is that President Trump appears to be gaining ground on domestic and foreign policy, while his potential challengers are quarreling and mostly spinning their wheels.

Trump is defying Congress, taunting allies and ignoring court rulings he doesn't like -- and seemingly getting away with it. Thursday's anticipated executive order adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, defying a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, is the latest example.

Trump isn't just rewriting the political rulebook, he's tossing it aside. And the painful fact is that the Democrats haven't figured out a way to stop his forward momentum, even when they believe it's taking the country over a cliff.

Trump remains a divisive and unpopular leader who is vulnerable in 2020. But a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last weekend was the clearest warning yet for Democrats that Trump is gaining strength beyond his core base of support.

Trump's approval rating has risen 5 points since April, to 44%, according to the Post-ABC News survey. His disapproval rating is 53%, but his support is still the highest he's had as president. The RealClearPolitics average of major polls shows a similar trend.

Trump would probably be doing even better if so many people weren't turned off by his crass behavior. Commentator Steve Rattner recently noted the gap between the 56% predicted support for an incumbent with this record, as modeled by Yale economist Ray Fair, and Trump's much lower actual support in polls.

Trump's best issue is the economy. Last week's employment report showed sharp job growth, led by manufacturing. There are caveats: The distribution of rewards is grossly unequal, and growth has been pumped by deficit spending. There are signs of weakness ahead, too, but even The New York Times Editorial Board agrees with Trump that the Federal Reserve should cut interest rates, perhaps extending the recovery longer.

Trump anti-immigrant policies are appalling, but they don't seem to be costing him politically. The Democrats, in their indignant response, have moved so far toward what critics argue is a policy of open borders that they may unintentionally make this issue a net winner for Trump.

Trump's foreign policy has been a disruptive megaphone, with little real success to show, but here again, he gets away with it. His approach has become predictable: He threatens fire and fury, imposes economic sanctions, and then starts bargaining a deal that produces only modest gains. That's been the case so far with North Korea, China and Mexico -- and it's probably where Trump wants to head with Iran.

If you were to do a cost-benefit analysis of Trump's foreign policy, the damage he's done to allies would far outweigh any gains against potential adversaries. But Trump doesn't pay the cost because, for all his belligerent "America First" talk, he's avoiding new wars and says he wants to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan.

Polls suggest a continuing public distaste for Trump's erratic, egoistic personal style, with 65% finding his behavior "unpresidential" in the Post-ABC News poll. The daily Trump show leaves the country exhausted and frazzled, and you can hypothesize a Democratic challenger who would be calming, trustworthy and unifying.

But looking at the Democratic field, it's not clear yet who could actually deflate Trump's balloon. The Democrats appear increasingly divided; they're skewing further left as candidates compete for the party's base; young progressives seem eager to pick fights with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders. The public sadly seems almost as weary of Democrats' investigations as of Trump's scandals.

A Democrat who could, in theory, put a stopper in Trump's bottle is former Vice President Joe Biden. He has experience, talented advisers, support from labor and some other traditional Democratic constituencies, and money. What he doesn't have is pizzazz.

Biden gave a solid foreign-policy speech Thursday that was a reminder of what "normal" sounds like. His call for American leadership in the world was a reminder of how much damage Trump has done in abdicating that role.

Democrats should wake up: Like it or not, Trump is on something of a roll. Twenty candidates bickering onstage looks worryingly like a recipe for four more years.


Hillary Clinton thought Trump would beat himself, but she was wrong. The Democrat who can win in 2020 will be the one who presents a reassuring contrast to this loud but chronically insecure president. The polls say Trump is beatable, but it will take a strong, sensible campaign that can pull voters in the middle, where this race will be won or lost.  "









...


...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 23rd, 2019 at 9:37am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4471 - Jul 22nd, 2019 at 9:35pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  ---------------   Nanky   ?!  ..... !!!!!!!!!!!   ;






https://www.arcamax.com/politics/mod/davidignatius/s-2250954





" America's immediate challenge in the Persian Gulf is maritime security . "






David Ignatius on Jul 16, 2019







" MUSCAT, Oman -- Here's the most intriguing fact about Iran's apparent seizure on Saturday of a small oil tanker about 240 miles northwest of here: Thus far, it has brought only a muted response from the United Arab Emirates, in whose waters the vessel had been operating, and from the United States, which is quietly organizing a multinational effort to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf.

If this were a boxing match, you'd say that the United States is trying to let Iran punch itself out. The U.S. hasn't retaliated for several tanker incidents near the Strait of Hormuz over the past two months, or the shoot-down of its surveillance drone, or other provocations. The U.S. military lets Iran keep throwing jabs -- while readying a knockout blow if it's ever needed.

"It's an international problem, it's not a United States problem," said Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of U.S. Central Command, in an interview early Tuesday as he traveled here. He said that any escorting of tankers through the Strait should be done by countries that depend on oil from the Gulf, with the U.S. providing reconnaissance and other special tools to enhance what he called "maritime domain awareness."

McKenzie's low-key comments, which came after the first news reports had surfaced about Saturday's disappearance of the tiny tanker Riah into the waters off Iran's heavily fortified Qeshm Island, seemed to illustrate the broader U.S. strategy of avoiding a direct faceoff with Iran, if possible. The U.S. has been bolstering its already vast arsenal in the Gulf but, thus far, hasn't used it visibly.

"Our ability to bring forces into the theater has acted to deter" the Iranians from broader actions, McKenzie argued. "We're in a period right now where they're sort of recalculating and trying to gauge our intent and our commitment." The U.S. goal, it seems, is well-armed patience -- not responding to provocations, but waiting to see what the Iranians do.

This measured U.S. response may be the most notable, if least discussed, aspect of the confrontation with Iran. American planners reckon that time is on their side; Iran gets weaker with every additional month of economic sanctions. Tehran wants to break out of this straitjacket, but lacking diplomatic channels with the U.S., it's choosing to send messages through kinetic force. Yet Iranian leaders know they need to be careful.

Caution is also increasingly evident among Gulf Arab nations, such as the UAE, that had been prodding the Trump administration toward confrontation with Iran. Emirati leaders know that a U.S.-led coalition would prevail eventually in a military conflict -- but that the gleaming buildings that crowd the 21st century wonderland of Abu Dhabi and Dubai would be early targets. These jewels of the Gulf could become splintered glass.

The UAE's wary response after the apparent seizure of the tanker was telling. Emirati leaders want de-escalation and a political process with Iran. Another sign of the UAE's effort to step back from the brink was its decision last week to withdraw most of its forces from Yemen -- a ruinous war that has produced no strategic gain against the Houthi forces that are Iran's proxies there, but which has brought a humanitarian catastrophe for civilians.

The Emirati withdrawal is a win for good sense, and also, it must be said, for the Houthis and Iran. It also suggests cracks in the UAE's alliance with Saudi Arabia, which will keep forces along the Yemen border even as its key ally departs. For Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the architect of this campaign, Yemen has become an increasingly lonely quagmire.

As America calibrates its moves in the confrontation with Iran, its greatest potential vulnerability is Iraq, where more than 5,000 American troops could be menaced by Iran-sponsored Shiite militias. The Iraqi government pledges to restrain Tehran's operatives, but if this crisis escalates, this will be an impossible promise for Baghdad to keep.

The immediate challenge in the Gulf is maritime security -- and curbing Iranian attacks on shipping. That's one reason McKenzie made Oman the first stop on a 10-day tour of the region (accompanied by a small press contingent of me and CBS-TV's David Martin). Oman hosts a Maritime Security Center here that's the equivalent of an air-traffic control center for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

In the American game plan, Oman would be an important partner in a broad, multinational coalition to protect shipping from Iranian hit-and-run operations. The U.S. strategy would be to work with these partners to de-escalate tensions.

Iran has all but begged for a direct confrontation with America. So far, the U.S. response correctly has been: No! "










Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 23rd, 2019 at 9:20pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Edith Grove
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline


Disco STILL sucks!

Posts: 11,966
New Orleans
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4472 - Jul 25th, 2019 at 6:04am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Thanks Bob !
Back to top
 

“What rap did that was impressive was to show there are so many tone-deaf people out there,” he says. “All they need is a drum beat and somebody yelling over it and they’re happy. There’s an enormous market for people who can’t tell one note from another.” - Keef
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4473 - Jul 29th, 2019 at 8:58pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Edith Grove wrote on Jul 25th, 2019 at 6:04am:
Thanks Bob !





<   ----------------- Edith    ,    ........  Bob Mueller just called    .................................. He wanted to know if Gerald Ford was still President of the United States ?    Smiley 



...





The DEMS  ( " DIMS ! " ) should know by now that trying to take down President Donald J. Trump is like trying to teach your cat algebra    ------ it is an uphill slog to say the least   .....................  We NEVER Get Tired of Winning !!!!!












...





...



...










J. " Holman " Jenkins . ™
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 30th, 2019 at 4:52pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Online



Posts: 18,676
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4474 - Jul 29th, 2019 at 9:03pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 






...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 30th, 2019 at 8:44am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 177 178 179 180 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Gazza, Voodoo Chile in Wonderland)