The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
And this is a photo of someone who is stunned and confused. It was supposed to be a slam dunk!
mtierney said:
And this is a photo of someone who is stunned and confused. It was supposed to be a slam dunk!
More like "I can't believe the hubris and brazenness of this filth."
After all of this there are still those who support Trump.
Such appalling depravity!
I might have believed it of a lone child molester or a serial killer but millions of Americans? It defies imagination.
basil said:
So now we are sending troops to defend a country that essentially gave us 9/11. Makes total sense.
I agree with responsibility for 911-falling-on-SA posting of yours. However, I think there is a complicated relationship between the US and SA. We, the US, are inter-meshed with SA as a result of SA support for the US dollar through SA purchase of US Treasuries. See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret
PS According to the above linked article, SA is about the 15th biggest sovereign holder of US Treasuries. However, the article also alleges that SA actually actually owns twice as many US Treasuries (but about half of the US Treasuries are held through what appear to be unrelated off-shore entities). IMHO, this financial link would better explain why effectively no/little action was taken against SA regarding 911. Further, families of 911 victims are/have-been-having difficulty in holding SA to account for its role in 911. See: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/fight-911-families-renew-bid-sue-saudi-180119063953735.html
PPS Another component of the SA-US relationship may be SA's support for the US dollar as the world's reserve currency (through SA's premier status in OPEC). If US dollar were to lose its status as the world reserve currency then the US would likely have new, grave financial problems. Thereby providing leverage for the Saudis.
RealityForAll said:
basil said:
So now we are sending troops to defend a country that essentially gave us 9/11. Makes total sense.
I agree with responsibility for 911-falling-on-SA posting of yours. However, I think there is a complicated relationship between the US and SA. We, the US, are inter-meshed with SA as a result of SA support for the US dollar through SA purchase of US Treasuries. See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret
PS According to the above linked article, SA is about the 15th biggest sovereign holder of US Treasuries. However, the article also alleges that SA actually actually owns twice as many US Treasuries (but about half of the US Treasuries are held through what appear to be unrelated off-shore entities). IMHO, this financial link would better explain why effectively no/little action was taken against SA regarding 911. Further, families of 911 victims are/have-been-having difficulty in holding SA to account for its role in 911. See: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/fight-911-families-renew-bid-sue-saudi-180119063953735.html
PPS Another component of the SA-US relationship may be SA's support for the US dollar as the world's reserve currency (through SA's premier status in OPEC). If US dollar were to lose its status as the world reserve currency then the US would likely have new, grave financial problems. Thereby providing leverage for the Saudis.
Can you explain how exactly SA, as the 15th largest securities holder, holds any kind of leverage over the U.S. (15th or 1st, probably doesn't matter anyway)
What exactly could they do?
What do you think the purpose of treasury securities is? Do you really think that the official monetary policy of the U.S. is such that it would give some other country power over us?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/world/middleeast/iran-cyberattack-us.html
Small point: Is the expression true and true — or through and through?
WASHINGTON — After spending billions of dollars to assemble the world’s most potent arsenal of cyberweapons and plant them in networks around the world, United States Cyber Command — and the new era of warfighting it has come to represent — may face a critical test in the coming weeks.
President Trump is considering a range of options to punish Iran for this month’s attack on Saudi oil facilities, and has toughened sanctions on Iran and ordered the deployment of additional troopsto the region. But a second cyberstrike — after one launched against Iran just three months ago — has emerged as the most appealing course of action for Mr. Trump, who is reluctant to widen the conflict in a region he has said the United States should leave, according to senior American officials.
But even as the Pentagon considers specific targets — an attempt to shut down Iran’s oil fields and refineries has been one of the “proportionate responses” under review — a broader debate is taking place inside and outside the administration over whether a cyberattack alone will be enough to alter Iran’s calculations, and what kind of retaliation a particularly damaging cyberstrike might provoke.
“The president talked about our use of those previously, but I’m certainly not going to forecast what we’ll do as we move forward,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” when asked whether a cyberattack might be an artful, non-escalatory response to this month’s drone or missile strikes on two of Saudi Arabia’s most important facilities. “This was Iran true and true, and the United States will respond in a way that reflects that act of war by this Iranian revolutionary regime.”
Mr. Pompeo noted that the American military was already sending additional troops to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, largely to bolster air defenses. But those moves alone are viewed as unlikely to be enough to prevent further Iranian actions.
The question circulating now through the White House, the Pentagon and Cyber Command’s operations room is whether it is possible to send a strong message of deterrence with a cyberattack without doing so much damage that it would prompt an even largerIranian counterstrike.
At least three times over the past decade, the United States has staged major cyberattacks against Iran, intended to halt its nuclear or missile programs, punish the country or send a clear message to its leadership that it should end its support for proxy militant groups.
In each case, the damage to Iranian systems could be repaired over time. And in each case, the effort to deter Iran was at best only partly successful. If the American charge that Iran was behind the attack in Saudi Arabia proves accurate, it would constitute the latest example of Tehran shaking off a cyberattack and continuing to engage in the kind of behavior the United States had hoped to deter.
The most famous and complex effort was a sophisticated sabotage campaign a decade ago to blow up Iran’s nuclear enrichment center using code, not bombs. The Obama administration later began a program, accelerated by Mr. Trump, to try to use cyberattacks to slow Iran’s missile development. And this past June, Mr. Trump approved a clandestine operation to destroy a key database used by the Iranian military to target oil-carrying ships — and canceled a traditional missile strike he had ordered to respond to the downing of an American surveillance drone.
TBC
mtierney said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/world/middleeast/iran-cyberattack-us.html
Small point: Is the expression true and true — or through and through?
...
“The president talked about our use of those previously, but I’m certainly not going to forecast what we’ll do as we move forward,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” when asked whether a cyberattack might be an artful, non-escalatory response to this month’s drone or missile strikes on two of Saudi Arabia’s most important facilities. “This was Iran true and true, and the United States will respond in a way that reflects that act of war by this Iranian revolutionary regime.”
...
It used to be "through and through". Now, since a Trump Administration official has changed it, it's now "true and true".
Not only that, it has always been "true and true". Any claim to the contrary is "fake news".
Lots more of interest, but the article is too painstaking for me to copy for those who don’t have Times access.
Another excerpt..
“General Nakasone has argued that his cyberwarriors must be roaming cyberspace “persistently engaging” enemies — a euphemism for skirmishing with adversaries inside their networks.
“We must ‘defend forward’ in cyberspace, as we do in the physical domains,” he wrote in a Defense Department publication in January. “Our naval forces do not defend by staying in port, and our air power does not remain at airfields. They patrol the seas and skies to ensure they are positioned to defend our country before our borders are crossed. The same logic applies in cyberspace.”
But there is a growing consensus within Cyber Command that if cyberweapons are going to shape the actions of adversaries, they must be used in combination with other elements of power, including economic sanctions, diplomacy or traditional military strikes.
Mr. King, the Maine senator, sees the decisions over the next few weeks on Iran as a test case. “The president’s instinct is not to get in a shooting war, and I think he is right about that," he said. “So the question is how do we respond?”
He argued that there was no urgency. “This was not a strike on New York City,” Mr. King said. “This was not even a strike on Riyadh. There needs to be a response. But there is time to pause and take a deep breath and consider all of the options — one of which is cyber — but also to think about how we de-escalate the situation.”
Well, I've read the interview transcripts, and he said it. But I don't understand it, and further, I don't really understand the interview.
It's been a long day, I need to sleep so I won't watch the video - does Mr Pompeo stammer? Or get really nervous in interviews? Because this is really choppy and very difficult to follow...nearly as difficult as Mr Trump.
joanne said:
Well, I've read the interview transcripts, and he said it. But I don't understand it, and further, I don't really understand the interview.
It's been a long day, I need to sleep so I won't watch the video - does Mr Pompeo stammer? Or get really nervous in interviews? Because this is really choppy and very difficult to follow...nearly as difficult as Mr Trump.
This transcript is quite hilarious
Republicans Only Pretend to Be Patriots
And Democrats need to expose them for what they are.
basil said:
joanne said:
Well, I've read the interview transcripts, and he said it. But I don't understand it, and further, I don't really understand the interview.
It's been a long day, I need to sleep so I won't watch the video - does Mr Pompeo stammer? Or get really nervous in interviews? Because this is really choppy and very difficult to follow...nearly as difficult as Mr Trump.
This transcript is quite hilarious
I’m glad it’s not just me...
What a jerk.
[Edited to add] In case it's unclear to anyone, that is President Trump "retweeting" the video of Greta Thunberg, complete with caption, and adding his own comment about it.
She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see! https://t.co/1tQG6QcVKO— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2019
He seems like a mature old man, perhaps slightly overweight, but otherwise happy with what he has accomplished in life. So nice to see!
Hope Trump doesn't blow a gasket when he sees that the response to his trolling was to troll him right back. This is now the description for Ms. Thunberg on her Twitter page:
Right now, Governor Cuomo’s son, the sensitive Tv anchor, must be apoplectic over the reference to the Mafia and POTUS and a shake down of the president of Ukraine! Schrif outdid himself today.
The world now knows what the infamous telephone call was about — actually more than the whistleblower had at the outset.
Words have meaning.
mtierney said:
The world now knows what the infamous telephone call was about — actually more than the whistleblower had at the outset.
We don't know "actually more." Trump and his cohorts have fought tooth and nail to suppress the actual whistleblower complaint.
The question you should ask is why is the Trump admin blocking the release of the whistleblower complaint to congress and the American public? Not that you will.
nohero said:
Hope Trump doesn't blow a gasket when he sees that the response to his trolling was to troll him right back. This is now the description for Ms. Thunberg on her Twitter page:
Speaking of blowing a gasket, what will he do if she wins a Nobel? I'd call that win-win.
Red_Barchetta said:
nohero said:
Hope Trump doesn't blow a gasket when he sees that the response to his trolling was to troll him right back. This is now the description for Ms. Thunberg on her Twitter page:
Speaking of blowing a gasket, what will he do if she wins a Nobel? I'd call that win-win.
He will invade Sweden to seize Greenland and punish Thunberg.
mtierney said:
Right now, Governor Cuomo’s son, the sensitive Tv anchor, must be apoplectic over the reference to the Mafia and POTUS and a shake down of the president of Ukraine! Schrif outdid himself today.
The world now knows what the infamous telephone call was about — actually more than the whistleblower had at the outset.
Words have meaning.
can someone explain the Cuomo/Mafia reference?
DB, I believe that in his interview with Guiliani, he commented at one point that either he or the President was sounding like a Mafia don...
drummerboy said:
can someone explain the Cuomo/Mafia reference?
the wing nuts like to call Cuomo "Fredo." That's what passes for right wing humor. And it makes Cuomo angry because he sees it as an ethnic slur.
And of course people are saying Trump seems like a mob boss on the Zelensky phone transcript.
So, there you go. And people get annoyed when I say right wing jokes aren't funny.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
can someone explain the Cuomo/Mafia reference?
the wing nuts like to call Cuomo "Fredo." That's what passes for right wing humor. And it makes Cuomo angry because he sees it as an ethnic slur.
And of course people are saying Trump seems like a mob boss on the Zelensky phone transcript.
So, there you go. And people get annoyed when I say right wing jokes aren't funny.
I didn’t know this part 
, I did catch the other reference but can’t remember the exact words the point in the interview.
Today, top Democrats reacted to Trump’s conversation with Zelensky, dubbing Wednesday’s revelation a smoking gun.
Schiff’s remarks:
“What those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said, accusing Trump of threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine for political purposes. “This is how a mafia boss talks.”
Incidentally, to justify impeachment proceedings, there must be proof of a crime or misdemeanor. Schaffer’s quote above speaks to “political” purposes. It is my understanding impeachment for political purpose is not permitted under the statute.
mtierney said:
Today, top Democrats reacted to Trump’s conversation with Zelensky, dubbing Wednesday’s revelation a smoking gun.
Schiff’s remarks:
“What those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said, accusing Trump of threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine for political purposes. “This is how a mafia boss talks.”
Incidentally, to justify impeachment proceedings, there must be proof of a crime or misdemeanor. Schaffer’s quote above speaks to “political” purposes. It is my understanding impeachment for political purpose is not permitted under the statute.
your "understanding" is pretty wrong.
When drummerboy sophomorically says what somebody posts is wrong he never explains why its wrong.
The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution. It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In a sense mtierney is correct that "her understanding that impeachment for political purpose is not permitted under the statute." However, an indictable crime is not required, but the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties which can be highly subjective.
Rentals
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Apr 30, 2024 at 4:17pm
Help Wanted
-
PT Driving mother’s Helper needed
May 1, 2024 at 10:31am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Part-time Nanny in Scotch Plains
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Full-time Nanny in Scotch Plains
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Nanny Wanted Live in or Live out $1400-$1600
May 1, 2024 at 4:49am
-
(929)-390-1830 Help Wanted Aides & Non-Certified Aides Wanted $1800 Cash
May 1, 2024 at 4:44am
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
That's a picture of the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee (labeled with #2) trying desperately to prevent Trump's guy Lewandowski from being cross-examined by a skilled attorney brought in just for that purpose. He failed, and Lewandowski was shown to be the lying, shifty, contemptuous-of-the-American-people Trumpist stooge that he is.