The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Hardy]

I have just started reading Andrew Lees' "The Holocaust" - it's a detailed history of the philosophy behind, lead up to, and events of, the Holocaust.

I'm only 50 pages in and still on Hitler's rise, and on at least 10 occasions so far, I've been stunned by the parallels between Hitler's methodology and Trump's. It is petrifying.

BUT... and it's a big but...Hitler was clearly a true believer, an ideologue who quite clearly wanted to fashion the world to his vision. Trump quite clearly is not. I don't doubt that he is racist (his court records prove it) or anti-Semitic (his speech to that Jewish organization last year before the election was incredible) but he is also dumb and selfish. He has no philosophy and why get rid of Jews and blacks when you can make money off them? Immigrants and Muslims - just keep them out.

Hitler was a different kettle of fish. The question for us all now is, just what kind of men his aides are, because the only logical reason they are there is to wield power whilst he golfs.

I agree with that, easytiger, except that the relevant comparison is not that between Hitler and Trump but the one between Hitler and Bannon. Trump has no ideology that I can discern other than self-aggrandisement. As I've said before, he is the proverbial useful idiot - a mouthpiece for Bannon, Mercer et al, that they could't have designed better if they had set out to do it.

But it just fell into their laps as Trump careered through the primaries and I'm sure they were as surprised as anyone else when he ended up as the candidate. It didn't take them long to realise their good fortune. Suddenly Mercer is funding Trump's campaign and suddenly his close associate Bannon, out of nowhere, is the Chief Strategist - part of the funding deal, I presume.

That's the point I was trying to make Whitey, sorry if it wasn't clear in the original post. Trump (as his construction career shows) is not discerning about what he puts his name to. It is the guys in the shadows we need to watch.

??!!!???

[foxcommander]

Right, because the GOP gave Obama nonstop ovations during his speeches.

At least the Dems didn't shout "you lie!"

And once again, foxcommander singles out the black person or issue for a special bit of vitriol. John Lewis this week, Leslie Jones last. Who's next?

Typical liberal- Quick, quick, quick - shout racist!!

YOU brought up Leslie Jones - so you can't make a comment about her in response? Is that the way it works for you liberals?

Well played J70.



Well played indeed!

I brought up Leslie Jones in reference to Yiannopolous and his downfall giving her cause for satisfaction.

The only thing you felt worthy of comment was Jones and her appearance (what was it you said? her/he/it or something?). Nothing whatsoever on Milo and the reason she should feel a little smug.

One of the constants of the board is that you never fail to stick the boot in, usually in a pathetic idiotic manner, when it comes to black people. Lewis, a man whose boots I'd say just about none of us are fit to tie, being just the latest example.

I  never mentioned anything about Jones' appearance. Have you watched her comedy?

You seem fixated on race.

Lewis's actions in the last few months have said enough about him.

Hey, feel free to explain "comedian/comedienne/other" or how that should be interpreted if not a comment on her appearance.

What has Lewis done in the last few months?

See J70, your response is exactly what is wrong with liberals at the moment. Rather than read what has actually been written you've created your own version of the story and then try to pass it off as some racist comment to demonise others who don't share your world view.

To explain "comedian/comedienne/other" - I went down the PC route (as you guys prefer) as I'm not sure what she would label herself as - similar to actresses wanting to call themselves actors so as not identifying by gender or if they prefer to give themselves a different title (other) such as thesbian etc.
Even when following your rules you get all up in a heap!! Can't win eh?

How you managed to read it and turn this into a race or appearance slur shows exactly your mindset. Or shall I put it down to your reading ability?

Senator Lewis acted disgracefully when his inauguration snub prompted many more politicians to follow his lead to boycott in fear of them being called racists for attending. For a guy who championed Civil rights he smacks of an agitator now. It's a $$$$ industry with Jesse and Al and lots of power that goes with it. You should wake up and see it for what it is.

[J70]

Right, because the GOP gave Obama nonstop ovations during his speeches.

At least the Dems didn't shout "you lie!"

And once again, foxcommander singles out the black person or issue for a special bit of vitriol. John Lewis this week, Leslie Jones last. Who's next?

Typical liberal- Quick, quick, quick - shout racist!!

YOU brought up Leslie Jones - so you can't make a comment about her in response? Is that the way it works for you liberals?

Well played J70.



Well played indeed!

I brought up Leslie Jones in reference to Yiannopolous and his downfall giving her cause for satisfaction.

The only thing you felt worthy of comment was Jones and her appearance (what was it you said? her/he/it or something?). Nothing whatsoever on Milo and the reason she should feel a little smug.

One of the constants of the board is that you never fail to stick the boot in, usually in a pathetic idiotic manner, when it comes to black people. Lewis, a man whose boots I'd say just about none of us are fit to tie, being just the latest example.

I  never mentioned anything about Jones' appearance. Have you watched her comedy?

You seem fixated on race.

Lewis's actions in the last few months have said enough about him.

Hey, feel free to explain "comedian/comedienne/other" or how that should be interpreted if not a comment on her appearance.

What has Lewis done in the last few months?

See J70, your response is exactly what is wrong with liberals at the moment. Rather than read what has actually been written you've created your own version of the story and then try to pass it off as some racist comment to demonise others who don't share your world view.

To explain "comedian/comedienne/other" - I went down the PC route (as you guys prefer) as I'm not sure what she would label herself as - similar to actresses wanting to call themselves actors so as not identifying by gender or if they prefer to give themselves a different title (other) such as thesbian etc.
Even when following your rules you get all up in a heap!! Can't win eh?

Ok, I'll take you at your word. That is fair enough.

Not sure how those are MY rules though.

How you managed to read it and turn this into a race or appearance slur shows exactly your mindset. Or shall I put it down to your reading ability?

Senator Lewis acted disgracefully when his inauguration snub prompted many more politicians to follow his lead to boycott in fear of them being called racists for attending. For a guy who championed Civil rights he smacks of an agitator now. It's a $$$$ industry with Jesse and Al and lots of power that goes with it. You should wake up and see it for what it is.

Lewis responded to Trump's campaign, which was a disgrace, and the Russian interference. Not saying I would have done the same, but I don't represent his constituency nor have I lived his life. Nothing which has happened since in terms of Trump's rhetoric and conduct contradicts his decision.

And far more Dems attended the inauguration than didn't. Nor have I heard of any of them being called racists for attending. And a lot of them dropped out after Trump's ludicrous, over the top, attack on Lewis.

[seafoid]

David Remnick on Trump from 2 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK0-Rqeb7Mo

[foxcommander]

Right, because the GOP gave Obama nonstop ovations during his speeches.

At least the Dems didn't shout "you lie!"

And once again, foxcommander singles out the black person or issue for a special bit of vitriol. John Lewis this week, Leslie Jones last. Who's next?

Typical liberal- Quick, quick, quick - shout racist!!

YOU brought up Leslie Jones - so you can't make a comment about her in response? Is that the way it works for you liberals?

Well played J70.



Well played indeed!

I brought up Leslie Jones in reference to Yiannopolous and his downfall giving her cause for satisfaction.

The only thing you felt worthy of comment was Jones and her appearance (what was it you said? her/he/it or something?). Nothing whatsoever on Milo and the reason she should feel a little smug.

One of the constants of the board is that you never fail to stick the boot in, usually in a pathetic idiotic manner, when it comes to black people. Lewis, a man whose boots I'd say just about none of us are fit to tie, being just the latest example.

I  never mentioned anything about Jones' appearance. Have you watched her comedy?

You seem fixated on race.

Lewis's actions in the last few months have said enough about him.

Hey, feel free to explain "comedian/comedienne/other" or how that should be interpreted if not a comment on her appearance.

What has Lewis done in the last few months?

See J70, your response is exactly what is wrong with liberals at the moment. Rather than read what has actually been written you've created your own version of the story and then try to pass it off as some racist comment to demonise others who don't share your world view.

To explain "comedian/comedienne/other" - I went down the PC route (as you guys prefer) as I'm not sure what she would label herself as - similar to actresses wanting to call themselves actors so as not identifying by gender or if they prefer to give themselves a different title (other) such as thesbian etc.
Even when following your rules you get all up in a heap!! Can't win eh?

Ok, I'll take you at your word. That is fair enough.

Not sure how those are MY rules though.

How you managed to read it and turn this into a race or appearance slur shows exactly your mindset. Or shall I put it down to your reading ability?

Senator Lewis acted disgracefully when his inauguration snub prompted many more politicians to follow his lead to boycott in fear of them being called racists for attending. For a guy who championed Civil rights he smacks of an agitator now. It's a $$$$ industry with Jesse and Al and lots of power that goes with it. You should wake up and see it for what it is.

Lewis responded to Trump's campaign, which was a disgrace, and the Russian interference. Not saying I would have done the same, but I don't represent his constituency nor have I lived his life. Nothing which has happened since in terms of Trump's rhetoric and conduct contradicts his decision.

And far more Dems attended the inauguration than didn't. Nor have I heard of any of them being called racists for attending. And a lot of them dropped out after Trump's ludicrous, over the top, attack on Lewis.

And once again, foxcommander singles out the black person or issue for a special bit of vitriol. John Lewis this week, Leslie Jones last. Who's next?

An apology from you would have been better.

Would you say I attacked Elizabeth Warren with a special bit of vitriol seeing as she's Native American?
But you have no issue with me having a go at Nancy Pelosi?

Can you see your pattern yet? I think you might be the racist Ted

If you think that it doesn't play on Democrats minds that they need to follow the party line then you're kidding yourself. Lewis should have shown leadership in attending, even if he registered his disagreement. That's democracy. His actions have caused a wider split in society.

[seafoid]

David Frum on Twitter

14) Only brave individuals in national security roles sharing truth with news organizations.
13) So many in DC serenely promise that "checks and balances" will save us. But right now: there is no check and no balance.
12) Despite patriotic statements from individual GOPers, as of now it seems that Speaker Ryan & Leader McConnell agree: no looking.
11) And possibly even bigger. We won't know if we don't look
10) ... the biggest espionage scandal since the Rosenberg group stole the secret of the atomic bomb.
9) Meaning that Trump is rendering his party also complicit in what could well prove ...
The peculiar grim irony in this case is that somewhere near the center of Trump's story is the murky secret of Trump's Russia connection
7) ... they are not so well-built as to withstand an attack from a conscienceless president enabled by a hyper-partisan Congress
6) American institutions are built to withstand an attack from the president alone. But ...
5) Otherwise, they put at risk party hopes for a once-in-a-lifetime chance to remake US government in ways not very popular with voters
4) In turn, in order to protect their legally vulnerable leader, Republicans in Congress must join the attack on norms & institutions
3) In order to protect himself, Trump must attack American norms and institutions - otherwise he faces fathomless legal risk
2) Donald Trump is a uniquely dangerous president because he harbors so many guilty secrets (or maybe 1 big guilty secret).
1) Sessions story today is a sinister confirmation of central thesis of my autocracy article:

[J70]

An apology from you would have been better.

Would you say I attacked Elizabeth Warren with a special bit of vitriol seeing as she's Native American?
But you have no issue with me having a go at Nancy Pelosi?

Can you see your pattern yet? I think you might be the racist Ted

If you think that it doesn't play on Democrats minds that they need to follow the party line then you're kidding yourself. Lewis should have shown leadership in attending, even if he registered his disagreement. That's democracy. His actions have caused a wider split in society.

You came up with a plausible explanation for the Leslie Jones one. That doesn't really detract from your pattern though of crawling out of the woodwork whenever a BLM issue or black criminal issue comes up or trying to deny or minimize the reality of the prejudice that black people have and continue to face, saying its all a con-job perpetrated by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Or your (drunken?) rant a few weeks about liberals wanting the extinction of white males??  And even in the Lewis post, WTF is *****? Why single him out from "Pelosi, Warren and co"? Was his inauguration boycott really THAT upsetting to you? Are you seriously going to talk about Lewis and "splits in society" after the Trump campaign and now administration, steered by Bannon?

Perhaps you have a communication issue, like Trump claims he has.

[seafoid]

Glenn Greenwald's site is fabliss

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/02/crony-capitalism-at-work-trump-adviser-carl-icahn-strong-arms-ethanol-lobby-to-save-his-company-millions/

Crony Capitalism at Work? Trump Adviser Carl Icahn Strong-Arms Ethanol Lobby to Save His Company Millions

David Dayen
March 2 2017, 2:53 p.m.
Critics are charging that billionaire investor Carl Icahn has used his position as Donald Trump's deregulatory czar to strong-arm the ethanol lobby into agreeing to a change that will save one of Icahn's companies $200 million a year.
If so, this would be the most obvious example yet of crony capitalism in the Trump era.
Trump named Icahn as deregulatory czar in December, saying he would be "a leader in helping American entrepreneurs shed job-killing regulations that stifle economic growth." But because Icahn was a "special adviser" to the president with no formal White House position, the administration said he did not have to divest from any of his prodigious financial holdings. At the time, observers noted that Icahn would have a perfect opportunity to advise on deregulatory actions that would line his own pockets.
Tyson Slocum, director of the Energy Program at Public Citizen, said that is exactly what has come to pass. "There's no question that Icahn is playing a very big role here," he said. "People need to call it what it is, the administration manipulating the system."
The backdrop for this drama is the government's renewable fuel standard, which requires all gasoline sold in America to contain a minimum volume of renewable sources — generally corn-based ethanol.
One of the more arcane elements of the current rule is that oil refiners are responsible to make sure the rule is followed — not the gasoline wholesalers (or "blenders").
Icahn is the majority owner of CVR Energy, a refiner which does not have the infrastructure to blend ethanol. As a result, CVR must buy renewable fuel credits to comply with their obligation.
In its most recent SEC filing, CVR stated it spent $205.9 million last year on renewable fuel credits. Shifting the point of obligation to blenders would relieve CVR of that expense. "That's big money, even to a billionaire," Slocum told The Intercept.
Not surprisingly, Icahn has long wanted the renewable-fuels industry to agree that the obligation should belong to the wholesalers, not the refiners.
And all of a sudden this week, the top renewable-fuels trade organization reversed its previous position and announced that it had reached an agreement with Icahn, on his terms.
The excitement began Monday night, when Politico Pro reported the Trump administration would soon issue an executive order moving that obligation to the wholesalers.
On Tuesday, a Trump spokesperson denied an executive order was imminent. But the same day, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), the ethanol industry's top trade group, struck a deal with Icahn, agreeing to change the point of obligation in exchange for an increase to how much ethanol must be placed in gasoline. Under the deal, the 15 percent ethanol blend, or E15, would be mandatory year-round; currently that mandate is relaxed in the summertime.
This would also financially benefit Valero Energy, the oil giant that, like Icahn, owns refineries that cannot blend ethanol. Valero's renewable division recently joined RFA, becoming its largest member. Icahn Enterprises and Valero did not respond to a request for comment.
Icahn, Valero, and RFA presented the deal to the Trump administration, complete with draft language for an executive order. Ethanol companies immediately savaged the agreement, saying it would throw the renewable fuels market into turmoil and potentially cost consumers more — all to give Icahn and Valero a payday.
Jeff Broin, CEO of Poet, the nation's largest ethanol producer, said in a statement, "It's a bailout. This was a back-room 'deal' made by people who want out of their obligations under the Clean Air Act."
The Fuels America coalition, another industry player, went so far as to sever ties with RFA, saying they were "no longer aligned with America's biofuel industry." Emily Skor of Growth Energy, a biofuels advocate, was more blunt: "I assure you this is no deal for anyone but Carl Icahn."
The controversy deepened when Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of RFA, told Bloomberg that he made the deal because "I was told in no uncertain terms that the point of obligation was going to be moved, and I said I wanted to see one of our top agenda items moved." He added that he was "told the executive order was not negotiable." This backed RFA into a corner, forcing it to join with Icahn to get something out of the deal.
Dinneen did not say who told him about the executive order, or what role Icahn may have played.
Update: March 2, 2017, 11:33 a.m.
RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen released the following statement to The Intercept: "We received a call from an official with the Trump administration, informing us that a pending executive order would change the point of obligation from refiners to position holders at the terminal, a potentially small increase in the number of obligated parties, but one which would distribute the obligation more equitably. Despite our continued opposition to the move, we were told the executive order was not negotiable. Our top priority this year is to ensure consumers have year-round access to E15 (15% ethanol) and we would like the Trump administration to help cut through the red tape on this unnecessary regulation. Consumers are being denied access to the fuel blend due to EPA's nonsensical disparate treatment of E10 and E15 with regard to volatility regulations, preventing E15 from being sold during the summer. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure consumers have access to the lowest cost, cleanest, highest octane source of fuel in the world, and to ensure a strong RFS is maintained."
On Tuesday, Public Citizen called on the Justice Department to "launch an immediate investigation into the role Mr. Icahn played during the transition and currently plays as a formal adviser to the president."
There were already signs that Icahn had influenced Trump on this particular issue. Last September, the campaign posted an unusually technical policy platform supporting Icahn's preferred point of obligation change. After it was discovered, the campaign took it down within hours. Icahn also was reportedly involved in vetting Trump's choice of Scott Pruitt as Environmental Protection Agency administrator. Pruitt would have the ultimate authority to make the new rules Icahn seeks.
"From Icahn's point of view, you want to make it clear that the administration is going to move on this," said Slocum. "The easiest way is to create buzz about the executive order." Putting the industry's biggest trade group on the side of something Icahn wants increases the odds of success. Securing agreement with RFA also stops it from taking legal action if the point of obligation is changed.
Both Republican senators from Iowa, the nation's leading biofuel state, oppose the change Icahn wants. Sen. Joni Ernst called it something that would benefit "a select few."
"When Trump gave him a title, he conveyed a formal role to Icahn for formulating policy," said Slocum. "And Icahn is formulating policy to benefit his direct financial interests."
Top photo: Carl Icahn in New York in 2010.

[foxcommander]

An apology from you would have been better.

Would you say I attacked Elizabeth Warren with a special bit of vitriol seeing as she's Native American?
But you have no issue with me having a go at Nancy Pelosi?

Can you see your pattern yet? I think you might be the racist Ted

If you think that it doesn't play on Democrats minds that they need to follow the party line then you're kidding yourself. Lewis should have shown leadership in attending, even if he registered his disagreement. That's democracy. His actions have caused a wider split in society.

You came up with a plausible explanation for the Leslie Jones one. That doesn't really detract from your pattern though of crawling out of the woodwork whenever a BLM issue or black criminal issue comes up or trying to deny or minimize the reality of the prejudice that black people have and continue to face, saying its all a con-job perpetrated by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Or your (drunken?) rant a few weeks about liberals wanting the extinction of white males??  And even in the Lewis post, WTF is *****? Why single him out from "Pelosi, Warren and co"? Was his inauguration boycott really THAT upsetting to you? Are you seriously going to talk about Lewis and "splits in society" after the Trump campaign and now administration, steered by Bannon?

Perhaps you have a communication issue, like Trump claims he has.

People who can't read would be deemed to have communication issues. Next time try not make stuff up and look at what's actually on the screen.

You can apologise on a private message if it saves face for you

[J70]

An apology from you would have been better.

Would you say I attacked Elizabeth Warren with a special bit of vitriol seeing as she's Native American?
But you have no issue with me having a go at Nancy Pelosi?

Can you see your pattern yet? I think you might be the racist Ted

If you think that it doesn't play on Democrats minds that they need to follow the party line then you're kidding yourself. Lewis should have shown leadership in attending, even if he registered his disagreement. That's democracy. His actions have caused a wider split in society.

You came up with a plausible explanation for the Leslie Jones one. That doesn't really detract from your pattern though of crawling out of the woodwork whenever a BLM issue or black criminal issue comes up or trying to deny or minimize the reality of the prejudice that black people have and continue to face, saying its all a con-job perpetrated by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Or your (drunken?) rant a few weeks about liberals wanting the extinction of white males??  And even in the Lewis post, WTF is *****? Why single him out from "Pelosi, Warren and co"? Was his inauguration boycott really THAT upsetting to you? Are you seriously going to talk about Lewis and "splits in society" after the Trump campaign and now administration, steered by Bannon?

Perhaps you have a communication issue, like Trump claims he has.

People who can't read would be deemed to have communication issues. Next time try not make stuff up and look at what's actually on the screen.

You can apologise on a private message if it saves face for you

Hey, I've no problem apologizing, pubicly, when it is warranted.

So, taking you at your word, I apologize to you, foxcommander, for misinterpreting your Leslie Jones post.

The rest... I stand by completely.

[foxcommander]

An apology from you would have been better.

Would you say I attacked Elizabeth Warren with a special bit of vitriol seeing as she's Native American?
But you have no issue with me having a go at Nancy Pelosi?

Can you see your pattern yet? I think you might be the racist Ted

If you think that it doesn't play on Democrats minds that they need to follow the party line then you're kidding yourself. Lewis should have shown leadership in attending, even if he registered his disagreement. That's democracy. His actions have caused a wider split in society.

You came up with a plausible explanation for the Leslie Jones one. That doesn't really detract from your pattern though of crawling out of the woodwork whenever a BLM issue or black criminal issue comes up or trying to deny or minimize the reality of the prejudice that black people have and continue to face, saying its all a con-job perpetrated by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Or your (drunken?) rant a few weeks about liberals wanting the extinction of white males??  And even in the Lewis post, WTF is *****? Why single him out from "Pelosi, Warren and co"? Was his inauguration boycott really THAT upsetting to you? Are you seriously going to talk about Lewis and "splits in society" after the Trump campaign and now administration, steered by Bannon?

Perhaps you have a communication issue, like Trump claims he has.

People who can't read would be deemed to have communication issues. Next time try not make stuff up and look at what's actually on the screen.

You can apologise on a private message if it saves face for you

Hey, I've no problem apologizing, pubicly, when it is warranted.

So, taking you at your word, I apologize to you, foxcommander, for misinterpreting your Leslie Jones post.

The rest... I stand by completely.

Fair enough. Nobody said we have to agree.

Apology accepted.

[stew]

Read and absorb liberals, you just might learn something!

[J70]

Read and absorb liberals, you just might learn something!

At least I've got the balls to admit when I may have made a mistake. It's called honest debate.

Unlike yourself, who continually posts all kinds of unsupported, hysterical, conspiracy nonsense and never acknowledges when you're caught out or legitimately contradicted.

I mean, if you're going to single me out and gloat and all...

[easytiger95]

I have just started reading Andrew Lees' "The Holocaust" - it's a detailed history of the philosophy behind, lead up to, and events of, the Holocaust.

I'm only 50 pages in and still on Hitler's rise, and on at least 10 occasions so far, I've been stunned by the parallels between Hitler's methodology and Trump's. It is petrifying.

BUT... and it's a big but...Hitler was clearly a true believer, an ideologue who quite clearly wanted to fashion the world to his vision. Trump quite clearly is not. I don't doubt that he is racist (his court records prove it) or anti-Semitic (his speech to that Jewish organization last year before the election was incredible) but he is also dumb and selfish. He has no philosophy and why get rid of Jews and blacks when you can make money off them? Immigrants and Muslims - just keep them out.

Hitler was a different kettle of fish. The question for us all now is, just what kind of men his aides are, because the only logical reason they are there is to wield power whilst he golfs.

I agree with that, easytiger, except that the relevant comparison is not that between Hitler and Trump but the one between Hitler and Bannon. Trump has no ideology that I can discern other than self-aggrandisement. As I've said before, he is the proverbial useful idiot - a mouthpiece for Bannon, Mercer et al, that they could't have designed better if they had set out to do it.

But it just fell into their laps as Trump careered through the primaries and I'm sure they were as surprised as anyone else when he ended up as the candidate. It didn't take them long to realise their good fortune. Suddenly Mercer is funding Trump's campaign and suddenly his close associate Bannon, out of nowhere, is the Chief Strategist - part of the funding deal, I presume.

That's the point I was trying to make Whitey, sorry if it wasn't clear in the original post. Trump (as his construction career shows) is not discerning about what he puts his name to. It is the guys in the shadows we need to watch.

??!!!???

I was wondering why I was agreeing with whitey!!😁😁

[heganboy]

I have to say I admire the size of the balls on Mike Pence using his private email server to conduct state business.