Jump to content

Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

BStowers023

By BStowers023
in Dumpster

 Share

Recommended Posts

Geeto67 Apprentice

Geeto67

Posted
Posted
True. I guess the media just didn't talk or focus as much on the drone strikes by the Obama administration.

 

Sure they did, or did you want them to report every single one? Like many Americans you probably weren't paying attention because reporting on drone strikes is boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

greg1647545532 Newbie

greg1647545532

Posted
Posted
True. I guess the media just didn't talk or focus as much on the drone strikes by the Obama administration.

 

The drone strikes were on ISIS targets within Syria, which Obama justified with the 2001 AUMF (a bullshit justification, IMHO, but a pretty well-worn one at this point). Trump continued the tradition when he took office, so this isn't even his first action in Syria.

 

This attack on a Syrian airfield is the first direct attack against the Syrian government. It's different. That's why it's news.

 

eta: Yes, we've armed anti-Assad Syrian rebels, so in that sense we've already been involved in a proxy war against Syria, and by extension Russia, but we're now directly attacking a sovereign government apparently. Without congressional approval, without any imminent threat to the US, even one as flimsy as Bush's bullshit WMD argument. We attacked a sovereign nation over an apparent humanitarian issue while refusing refugees from that same country. WTF is going on? Where does this end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aussiek2000 Newbie

aussiek2000

Posted
Posted
If Trump is on Twitter geeto bitches about him not running the country.

 

He makes a decision and geeto bitches that he made a decision.

 

Boy oh boy

 

No different than all the other Liberals

 

If Trump lets Asaad kill his people, then trump must be in bed with Putin. If Trump attacks, he is trying to start a conflict with Putin.

 

People just want to bitch about trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greg1647545532 Newbie

greg1647545532

Posted
Posted
I hate seeing this argument. The President doesn't need it to conduct an attack. It's an invalid argument until 60 days after the first action.

 

The war powers act to which you're referring spells out when the CIC and use military force.

 

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities ... are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

 

Which of those 3 conditions applied in this case?

 

This is why Bush, and then Obama, and now Trump, continue to cite the [bullshit] 2001 AUMF against al-Queda for any and all attacks on terrorist targets, because it satisfies condition 2 of the war powers act. Bush went to congress for authorization to invade Iraq, thus satisfying condition 2. Obama played a bullshit card in 2013 when he said he would go to congress for authorization to engage with Assad but that he "didn't need to." I'm not sure what his legal justification for claiming not to need congressional approval was, but when it became apparent that the Republican majority was not going to give him the authorization, he dropped the issue (to much derision over his "red line" comment.)

 

Presidents regularly ignore the war powers act to varying degrees, but usually there's at least an attempt made to justify it -- US soldiers killed in an attack somewhere, NATO or UN authorization, etc. In this case, there's basically nothing. Just a president deciding on his own to bomb another country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Geeto67 Apprentice

Geeto67

Posted
Posted

 

Please point to the part you found "lazy" or grasping at straws? do you not think this is news worthy?

 

They have a "leaked" document (that they cite with link) that purports to show budget cuts to 0 of the Office of Global Women's rights. They are pretty clear it is a plan and not in action, and they are pretty clear it's a leaked document, so what's your problem? If you read the source material the "leaked document" purports to combine the agency with USAID without increasing USAID's budget which is pretty much how you kill a government agency.

 

It sounds like instead looking at this critically and reviewing facts you are just assuming "the media" is always "out to get someone" instead of reporting on a newsworthy event. If you are always assuming slant, you aren't going to see the facts from the trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greg1647545532 Newbie

greg1647545532

Posted
Posted

You know what? Those writers are fucking lazy.

 

Here's the full press release that they probably spent 5 minutes turning into an article.

 

Instead of building on these investments and ongoing real reforms, this Administration is proposing devastating cuts that will have dire consequences for millions of people, as well as our global standing, national security interests, and the values central to America’s identity. Now is not the time to cut back on development, but to build on progress to make it even more effective.

 

Bolding mine, to show where they got that quote from. They're clearing talking about the budget as a whole, not just the 8.25m from the global women's fund thing.

 

 

So lazy, yes. Regurgitating press releases is the laziest form of journalism. Regurgitating press releases while not making it apparent that all they're doing is a regurgitating a press release is borderline dishonest. Making obvious mistakes while doing so is shameful.

 

That said, I don't see how this is "grasping at straws." Also from the press release:

 

Reorganizing foreign aid should be based on specific goals, clear principles, and sound strategy – not an arbitrary, misguided, short-sighted effort to cut spending.

 

I don't know if these programs are the best way to spend taxpayer dollars; I'm not the type to micro-manage foreign aid spending. But I'm highly suspect that anyone in the Trump administration is proposing these changes based on factual evidence or careful analysis, because Trump has made it clear that facts don't matter. Foreign aid programs like this are generally a bargain in terms of the return on US investment -- global poverty and local political strife is bad for global trade, and creates breeding grounds for future military investment that is always, always going to be much more expensive than just paying for children to go to school.

 

I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong, that this funding won't actually make any difference whatsoever, and I'd be happy to examine any evidence to that effect. I just have little faith that the government would be able to produce such evidence. So, far from grasping at straws, this seems like a legitimate complaint; for the good folks at Oxfam, an immediate threat to the social good they wish to do, and for the American taxpayer, to the haphazard way that our money continues to be mismanaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
BStowers023 Newbie

BStowers023

Posted
  • Author
Posted
So why is the liberal media all of the sudden on Comey's side? Were they not calling for his resignation not to long ago? But because Trump fired him it's an issue but if Hillary had become President and fired him, they'd be praising her. The hypocrisy with the liberal media is spiraling out of control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
greg1647545532 Newbie

greg1647545532

Posted
Posted
So why is the liberal media all of the sudden on Comey's side? Were they not calling for his resignation not to long ago? But because Trump fired him it's an issue but if Hillary had become President and fired him, they'd be praising her. The hypocrisy with the liberal media is spiraling out of control.

 

James Comey is probably a decent guy, a dedicated civil servant who's devoted his life to law enforcement and, I genuinely believe, wants to do the right thing. That said, he got too political, made 2 massive mistakes during the election, and Obama should have fired him for it back in July. Since Obama didn't have the grapes to do it (because it would look like a political firing instead of a general competence firing), Trump should have fired him during the transition period.

 

But he didn't, and now, 10 months after the supposed grievous infraction that he had to be fired for, Trump suddenly axes him with a bizarre statement about "Even though you told me on 3 separate occasions that I'm not being investigated..."

 

The whole thing smells rotten. It smells like Trump wanted some assurance that the Russia investigation wouldn't come back to him, and Comey, being the dedicated law enforcement civil servant, refused to cave, and got axed for it.

 

It's possible to think that he should have been fired and still not approve of the manner in which it was done. And, I think B3NN3TT's right, you already knew that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geeto67 Apprentice

Geeto67

Posted
Posted
So why is the liberal media all of the sudden on Comey's side? Were they not calling for his resignation not to long ago? But because Trump fired him it's an issue but if Hillary had become President and fired him, they'd be praising her. The hypocrisy with the liberal media is spiraling out of control.

 

I can't even....:dumb:

 

 

 

he got too political, made 2 massive mistakes during the election, and Obama should have fired him for it back in July. Since Obama didn't have the grapes to do it (because it would look like a political firing instead of a general competence firing), Trump should have fired him during the transition period....

 

...The whole thing smells rotten. It smells like Trump wanted some assurance that the Russia investigation wouldn't come back to him, and Comey, being the dedicated law enforcement civil servant, refused to cave, and got axed for it.

 

This. all of this.

 

 

 

Brandon,

 

Forget politics for a second, If there was evidence that another foreign power meddled with our election so as to enhance it's position in the world, wouldn't you want to know the full scope and extent of that meddling? And if the head of the country fired the head of the group conducting that investigation when it looks like the head of the country was possibly involved wouldn't you think it is suspicious? And wouldn't you be worried about the investigation loosing momentum?

 

I am going to assume yes since you are not an idiot. So why does it being republican president and the media suddenly make a difference? There are lots of people concerned about this on both sides, so really knock it off with the "liberal media" nonsense - even the WSJ is reporting on this in the same manner and it can hardly be called "liberal". Somethings are just newsworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LJ Newbie

LJ

Posted
Posted
James Comey is probably a decent guy, a dedicated civil servant who's devoted his life to law enforcement and, I genuinely believe, wants to do the right thing. That said, he got too political, made 2 massive mistakes during the election, and Obama should have fired him for it back in July. Since Obama didn't have the grapes to do it (because it would look like a political firing instead of a general competence firing), Trump should have fired him during the transition period.

 

But he didn't, and now, 10 months after the supposed grievous infraction that he had to be fired for, Trump suddenly axes him with a bizarre statement about "Even though you told me on 3 separate occasions that I'm not being investigated..."

 

The whole thing smells rotten. It smells like Trump wanted some assurance that the Russia investigation wouldn't come back to him, and Comey, being the dedicated law enforcement civil servant, refused to cave, and got axed for it.

 

It's possible to think that he should have been fired and still not approve of the manner in which it was done. And, I think B3NN3TT's right, you already knew that.

 

Let's not forget to mention that Trump's camp PRAISED Comey in the fall, for what they just fired him for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BStowers023 Newbie

BStowers023

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Colberts moron audience can't even get it right :dumb:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/10/video-colberts-audience-roars-cheers-upon-hearing-comey-fired/

 

 

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b509/bstowers18/Poli3_zpsfgsss10w.jpg

 

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b509/bstowers18/Poli2_zpstn7od1xv.jpg

 

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b509/bstowers18/Poli1_zpsfhrgnz2v.jpg

 

 

 

 

You guys are right. They definitely aren't hypocrites. Sorry for my mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TTQ B4U Rookie

TTQ B4U

Posted
Posted
So why is the liberal media all of the sudden on Comey's side?

 

because they are the media and simply exploiting any and all opportunities to jump on the other team. is anyone really shocked? IMO the reaction is typical LOL follies of politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geeto67 Apprentice

Geeto67

Posted
Posted

You guys are right. They definitely aren't hypocrites. Sorry for my mistake.

 

If by "They" you mean everyone in politics...well part of being a politician is being position flexible so you could technically call them hypocrites. I prefer to think of them as advocates of the public interest and it's the public they are appealing to that has a fickle opinion.

 

this all boils down to the "reason" for the termination. He wasn't fired for his influence in the election even though a lot of people think he should have. It looks like he was fired because he was investigating the current administration and doing so would cease that investigation. You can be worried about the investigation of foreign power influence on our government and still think Comey should have been fired.

 

Let's be clear - nobody is calling for Comey's reinstatement. He was fired and everyone is kind of ok with him not being the head of the FBI. What they are not ok with is the reason. They are unhappy with the president because it looks like he is trying to circumvent a government investigation. That's why there is so much call for a special prosecutor - because nobody wants comey back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRed05 Apprentice

CRed05

Posted
Posted

I don't think the left is on Comey's side.

 

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b509/bstowers18/Poli3_zpsfgsss10w.jpg

 

As that image says, it's because Trump is acting like a tyrant by firing the guy that's investigating him. If you don't find that troubling, then you think politics is a team sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BStowers023 Newbie

BStowers023

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I took the time to write up an explanation, which you apparently ignored. You regurgitated some screenshots that you didn't make which basically just restate your hypothesis. Bravo.

 

Because your "explanation" pretty much says, Obama should have fired him when he was investigating Hillary, but now that he's investigating Trump... did I get that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...