President Donald Trump

[nots]

Trump fans like that he is tough, right? A loose cannon that scares the world a little. Maybe that can be used to our advantage with this. Saudi Arabia has preemptively threatened retaliation in the form of expensive oil for the US, but I think we should call that bluff--publicly denounce this act as antithetical both to democracy and the progressive public image the crown prince has so carefully crafted lately. Then, hit them with sanctions, calculated to be tough enough to make them and other countries recognize that such brazen, overt acts of barbarism against American journalists will not be without repercussions. But not so tough that they have nothing to lose in retaliating. Trump is willing to play chicken on trade wars with China. He should be willing to do the same with Saudi Arabia. If he does, I'll be the first to praise him for it.

As far as validating or emboldening Iran, I'm not sure what denouncing this act, and being precise in condemning the crime while not suggesting our relationships with SA are irreparably damaged, does for Iran in a tangible sense. Maybe I'm missing something? What are the tangible repercussions in terms of Iran for us denouncing this act of barbarism?

I think the problem with that is that if SA does call our bluff and spike oil prices, what will folks like Revo say? I am guessing they will label him as Dumb Donald and complain because gas in $5/ gallon. If enough people buy into that narrative, he loses all his political capital. The smart play for him ( not necessarily the country) is to feign indignation and let it blow over. I think that’s what we will see.
As for my personal opinion: stop selling weapons to SA and stop taking such a big role in the ME. It’s a lose lose situation, no matter if you are red team or blue team. Support Isreal and let the rest of them deal with each other.

[Sour Masher]

I'm guessing it would have been ok if they just droned him ?

Edit: I guess I'm really trying to understand what it is in particular about this event makes it unique and important. From your perspective is it because the individual resided in the U.S. ?

Your stance on this is perplexing. It seems like you are more concerned that we maintain our status quo response of tacit acceptance of such behavior, despite also clearly being against it. How do we ever change for the better if we don't let a straw break the camel's back? I think the circumstances here, while not entirely unique or unprecedented represent a good opportunity to finally take a stand against behavior that should be unacceptable. Why take the stance "pssh, this is nothing new, it would be hypocritical to make a big deal about this when we have been involved in past atrocities. It is what it is, nothing will change, let's move on."

Eta: and yes, for the record,.I'd prefer someone kill me via drone strike than being tortured, and dimembered, but no, a drone strike would not have been okay. That is an weird assumption for you to make. When have I ever indicated I was okay with the US killing foreign journalist critical of us via.drone strike? Or SA using them to kill American journalists,.or whatever your point was?

[The Feral Slasher]

Your stance on this is perplexing. It seems like you are more concerned that we maintain our status quo response of tacit acceptance of such behavior, despite also clearly being against it. How do we ever change for the better if we don't let a straw break the camel's back? I think the circumstances here, while not entirely unique or unprecedented represent a good opportunity to finally take a stand against behavior that should be unacceptable. Why take the stance "pssh, this is nothing new, it would be hypocritical to make a big deal about this when we have been involved in past atrocities. It is what it is, nothing will change, let's move on."

Eta: and yes, for the record,.I'd prefer someone kill me via drone strike than being tortured, and dimembered, but no, a drone strike would not have been okay. That is an weird assumption for you to make. When have I ever indicated I was okay with the US killing foreign journalist critical of us via.drone strike? Or SA using them to kill American journalists,.or whatever your point was?

The point was it is hard for America to lecture SA for killing someone on foreign soil when we regard that as our right, and have for some time. Do you really think we have any credibility there ?

I think the U.S. government knows what the Saudis do and generally support them in doing whatever they need to in order to stay in power. So while I agree with you that what they did was wrong, I have a hard time seeing this as something our government is going to strongly oppose. We may (or may not) condemn them for it, but in the end I think we want them to do what they have to in order to hold onto power.

[Sour Masher]

The point was it is hard for America to lecture SA for killing someone on foreign soil when we regard that as our right, and have for some time. Do you really think we have any credibility there ?

I think the U.S. government knows what the Saudis do and generally support them in doing whatever they need to in order to stay in power. So while I agree with you that what they did was wrong, I have a hard time seeing this as something our government is going to strongly oppose. We may (or may not) condemn them for it, but in the end I think we want them to do what they have to in order to hold onto power.

I don't want to quibble over potential differentiations between killings the US has sanctioned and what SA just did in torturing and dismembering a journalist/activist simply for speaking out against them in our press, because even though I think they exist and they matter, I don't want to be on the side of an argument that in any way justifies actions by the US that I am also against. I believe those differences do exist and they are important, but me going down that road would be like me trying to distinguish between different levels of sexual crime/abuse. How do you do that without coming off like you are defending the less horrible but still really horrible offender? So, instead I'll begrudgingly agree with you and nots that nothing is likely to come of this, even though in an ideal world, with an ideal America, I think we all agree, something should.

[Sour Masher]

Who didn't see this coming? I think this is a losing issue for Trump and Republicans. McConnell is basically confirming that the plan all along was to pay with the tax cut with cuts to medcare, medicaid, and social security: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...GyE?li=BBnbfcL

Anyone think this isn't a losing issue for Repubs?

[cardboardbox]

I think the problem with that is that if SA does call our bluff and spike oil prices, what will folks like Revo say? I am guessing they will label him as Dumb Donald and complain because gas in $5/ gallon. If enough people buy into that narrative, he loses all his political capital. The smart play for him ( not necessarily the country) is to feign indignation and let it blow over. I think that’s what we will see.
As for my personal opinion: stop selling weapons to SA and stop taking such a big role in the ME. It’s a lose lose situation, no matter if you are red team or blue team. Support Isreal and let the rest of them deal with each other.

The point was it is hard for America to lecture SA for killing someone on foreign soil when we regard that as our right, and have for some time. Do you really think we have any credibility there ?

I think the U.S. government knows what the Saudis do and generally support them in doing whatever they need to in order to stay in power. So while I agree with you that what they did was wrong, I have a hard time seeing this as something our government is going to strongly oppose. We may (or may not) condemn them for it, but in the end I think we want them to do what they have to in order to hold onto power.

I have to agree with feral and nots but I disagree about not selling weapons to SA. A lot of our usual defense customers are not buying as much or at all from us anymore and the weapons sale to SA is large. We sort of need the business...

[OaklandA's]

I have to agree with feral and nots but I disagree about not selling weapons to SA. A lot of our usual defense customers are not buying as much or at all from us anymore and the weapons sale to SA is large. We sort of need the business...

Of course there is also the issue that the much-trumpeted $110B sale to the Saudis isn't even a real deal yet.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trumps-110-billion-saudi-arms-deal-doesnt-actually-exist

[onejayhawk]

Of course there is also the issue that the much-trumpeted $110B sale to the Saudis isn't even a real deal yet.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/t...actually-exist

Hence the sweet talking.

J

[Bernie Brewer]

Who didn't see this coming? I think this is a losing issue for Trump and Republicans. McConnell is basically confirming that the plan all along was to pay with the tax cut with cuts to medcare, medicaid, and social security: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...GyE?li=BBnbfcL

Anyone think this isn't a losing issue for Repubs?

You write this as if you are shocked. And you’re conflating that the tax cut came first, when in fact the tax cuts were done with the intent to increase corporate tax revenue in the long run. Criticize the tax cut, if you must, but this is a chicken and egg argument posted by a clearly right leaning media source! To your conclusion, I don’t think McConnell’s confirming anything. I think he and other GOP leaders are saying exactly what Republicans have been saying for decades about entitlement programs. Even your linked article says the following:

"It’s disappointing but it’s not a Republican problem," McConnell said of the deficit, which grew 17 percent to $779 billion in fiscal year 2018. McConnell explained to Bloomberg that "it’s a bipartisan problem: Unwillingness to address the real drivers of the debt by doing anything to adjust those programs to the demographics of America in the future."

McConnell insisted that the change had nothing to do with a lack of revenue or increased spending and instead was due to entitlement and welfare programs. The debt, he said, was very “disturbing” and driven by “the three big entitlement programs that are very popular, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid...There’s been a bipartisan reluctance to tackle entitlement changes because of the popularity of those programs. Hopefully, at some point here, weÂ’ll get serious about this.”

President Donald Trump promised to leave Medicare untouched on the campaign trail, but Republican leaders like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Florida Senator Marco Rubio have long indicated their desire to cut entitlement programs to pay for their tax cuts.

Is it a losing strategy for the GOP? Sure, if your goal is to attract liberal voters, otherwise I don’t think so.

[baldgriff]

Honestly - there need to be cuts to social programs and military spending and we need to quit having the government provide funding on stupid shit. If we dont find a way to start minimizing the deficit spending and actually start paying down the debt - we will be in more trouble than we already are.

[Sour Masher]

Honestly - there need to be cuts to social programs and military spending and we need to quit having the government provide funding on stupid shit. If we dont find a way to start minimizing the deficit spending and actually start paying down the debt - we will be in more trouble than we already are.

I agree the deficit is becoming a real issue, and I agree with the second two cuts. But we can turn things around with cutting the defense budget and stupid shit, and raising taxes on the rich some without cutting the social programs. Those should be the last things we touch. Going after them first just shows the fundamental differences in ideology between the two parties.

[Sour Masher]

You write this as if you are shocked. And you’re conflating that the tax cut came first, when in fact the tax cuts were done with the intent to increase corporate tax revenue in the long run.

That is the GOP position, but it never made any sense to me. Certainly such a cut leads to growth, but the level of growth needed to make up the difference from such a massive corporate tax cut was never sustainable. They went too far with it to be a long term tax positive. And I think they all knew that and did it anyway, because it is a long term positive to the oligarchs whose money and influence drive such things more than the common good for all.

[baldgriff]

Personally, I would make sure that there were equal cuts across the board.... and also cut the spending on stupid shit.

Rand Paul lays out some of the wasteful spending:

[revo]

The plot thickens:

"One of the 15 Saudis who arrived in Turkey the same day Jamal Khashoggi disappeared has died in a “suspicious traffic accident” and the Saudi consul in Istanbul could be the “next execution,” according to Turkish media reports.

Mashal Saad al-Bostani, 31, a lieutenant in the Saudi Royal Air Forces, was among the 15-member “hit team” that landed in Istanbul in two private jets from Riyadh on Oct. 2 and headed to the Saudi consulate.

He died in a car crash in Riyadh, but few details have emerged, the newspaper Yeni Safak reported, adding that his role in the “murder” was not clear."

https://nypost.com/2018/10/18/saudi-who-arrived-in-turkey-day-of-khashoggi-disappearance-dies-in-traffic-accident/

[Teenwolf]

A video I'm sure Republicans will enjoy and Democrats will be nauseated by.

Feels like a solid representation of the non-stop chaos of the last 2 years. "this is a turning point... he's backed into a corner... it's the beginning of the end..." on repeat over and over.