Deep Politics Forum
USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Printable Version

+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Players, organisations, and events of deep politics (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-32.html)
+--- Thread: USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! (/thread-15098.html)



USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Peter Lemkin - 14-03-2017

Magda Hassan Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:The GAO [U.S. Government Accounting Office], generally considered a non-partisan accounting division, announced yesterday that their calculations show [under the currently devised plan] the changes in health insurance program would cause 14.000.000 people to loose their health insurance [completely - to none] almost immediately; 24.000.000 within a few years. And, that the richest people in the nation, as a direct result of this would, on average, get a 7.000.000$ boost. [i.e. the money saved on those 24.000.000 who would then have zero health care insurance and face death, or certainly financial ruin, if they needed anything more than minor health care would be re-distributed to the ultra-rich]. That's the USA's system of trickle-up [called trickle-down in double-speak] in action. Those not in the USA should keep in mind that despite 'Obamacare' about 30 million people in the USA still do not now have any health insurance - and certainly will get none anytime soon - perhaps never; this would climb to about 54 million under the current administration [about 1/6th of the population]. Sick Nation! - devoid of humanity/compassion, which is not compatible with US-style capitalism. The largest causes now of bankruptcy, forced homelessness, and preventable death are health crises of the un- or under-insured. The under-insured covers another HUGE segment of the population; who have insurance but only up to a certain limit...exceed that limit and you have to pay or forfeit your car, home and all...certainly your health and often your life too. But we have the money to increase the already obscene budget of the military....no problemo

But surely you don't want Socialised medicine do you Peter!? People need to be responsible for their own health and not bludge off other hard working people. They shouldn't be forced to have health insurance. Freedom is vital in matter of health choices.

Oh, my, NO!...never S-O-C-I-A-L-I-Z-E-D nothing! One of the big jokes and secrets hidden from the public is that all members of Congress get with their office single-payer complete healthcare from the government [i.e., socialized medical care]. Socialism is only for the rich; zombie capitalism is for the poorer classes - remember that! Remember the banks being bailed out by the poor, as just one of thousands of examples. What a system [for 'them']...what a horrible oppressive system [for most of us] - and getting worse at light speed.


USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Peter Lemkin - 14-03-2017

Who.What.Why.

BEN CARSON'S GIFT TO HISTORY REVISIONISTS

Why Words Matter

[Image: 2-6-700x470.jpg]History isn't brain surgery. Photo credit: DonkeyHotey / WhoWhatWhy (CC BY-SA 2.0) See complete attribution below.
Picture this scenario: A young woman is kidnapped at gunpoint in Montreal. She is gagged and tied up, thrown into the trunk of a car and then driven across the border into the US. When the car finally stops in a small town near Des Moines, the kidnapper hands her off to another man in exchange for a payment. The woman is then locked in that man's basement where she is chained to a radiator and forced to do manual labor with no chance of escape.
Some people might call that woman the victim of a horrible crime. According to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson, however, she is an immigrant.
The former GOP presidential candidate created quite a stir earlier this week when he referred to the millions of African slaves shipped to the US as "immigrants."
"There were immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder, for less," Carson said at an event addressing HUD employees.
To be fair, he isn't the first politician who made this unfortunate comparison. Former President Barack Obama said something very similar in 2015 when he noted that life certainly "wasn't easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves."
Carson deserves credit for walking back his remarks, saying "the slave narrative and immigrant narrative are two entirely different experiences."
His apologists also noted that, technically, the definition of "immigrant" is somebody who moves to another country and it doesn't specify whether that move was voluntary or involuntary. But nobody would call the detainees at Guantanamo immigrants. Or refer to Genghis Khan as a "tourist," which is defined as "a person who is traveling or visiting a place for leisure," even though he and his Mongol horde had a lot of fun taking over much of Asia and parts of Europe.
So why does it matter if the nation's leaders use such unfortunate language? Because somewhere in places like Texas, there is a State Board of Education member just itching to use these quotes to whitewash history.
The Lone Star State has a long and sad tradition of using its textbooks to "amend" history. A couple of years ago, a book had to be pulled off the shelves after a parentcomplained about a sentence saying that "the Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations."
If you want your kids to learn about Jim Crow laws or the atrocities the Ku Klux Klan committed, don't send them to school in Texas, where those subjects are not on the curriculum and where one school board member considers slavery "a side issue to the civil war."
These are just some recent examples of Texas officials trying to write textbooks and craft curricula that present an alternative history. There are many more. That is a particularly big problem because of the state's size. Edits made to textbooks used in Texas often find their way into the books of other states as it is easier to mass produce the materials rather than printing different versions for each state.
With that in mind, officials such as Carson and Obama should be particularly careful how they word things not just because children might be listening, but because Texas board of education members certainly are.


USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Peter Lemkin - 14-03-2017

Pilger's Q&A after showing his film "The Coming War On China"....all good and here and there goes into Trump specifically, Bannon's statement on a coming war with China...and other relevant things. Pilger is always good. I'd like to see this film.




USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Peter Lemkin - 14-03-2017




USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Cliff Varnell - 14-03-2017

Peter Lemkin Wrote:
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:The GAO [U.S. Government Accounting Office], generally considered a non-partisan accounting division, announced yesterday that their calculations show [under the currently devised plan] the changes in health insurance program would cause 14.000.000 people to loose their health insurance [completely - to none] almost immediately; 24.000.000 within a few years. And, that the richest people in the nation, as a direct result of this would, on average, get a 7.000.000$ boost. [i.e. the money saved on those 24.000.000 who would then have zero health care insurance and face death, or certainly financial ruin, if they needed anything more than minor health care would be re-distributed to the ultra-rich]. That's the USA's system of trickle-up [called trickle-down in double-speak] in action. Those not in the USA should keep in mind that despite 'Obamacare' about 30 million people in the USA still do not now have any health insurance - and certainly will get none anytime soon - perhaps never; this would climb to about 54 million under the current administration [about 1/6th of the population]. Sick Nation! - devoid of humanity/compassion, which is not compatible with US-style capitalism. The largest causes now of bankruptcy, forced homelessness, and preventable death are health crises of the un- or under-insured. The under-insured covers another HUGE segment of the population; who have insurance but only up to a certain limit...exceed that limit and you have to pay or forfeit your car, home and all...certainly your health and often your life too. But we have the money to increase the already obscene budget of the military....no problemo

But surely you don't want Socialised medicine do you Peter!? People need to be responsible for their own health and not bludge off other hard working people. They shouldn't be forced to have health insurance. Freedom is vital in matter of health choices.

Oh, my, NO!...never S-O-C-I-A-L-I-Z-E-D nothing! One of the big jokes and secrets hidden from the public is that all members of Congress get with their office single-payer complete healthcare from the government [i.e., socialized medical care]. Socialism is only for the rich; zombie capitalism is for the poorer classes - remember that! Remember the banks being bailed out by the poor, as just one of thousands of examples. What a system [for 'them']...what a horrible oppressive system [for most of us] - and getting worse at light speed.


Bernie Sanders 2020.


USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Cliff Varnell - 14-03-2017

Trump Admin Ups Drone Strikes, Tolerates More Civilian Deaths

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-admin-ups-drone-strikes-tolerates-more-civilian-deaths-n733336

Trump vs. CIA? What bullshit.

Quote: by Ken Dilanian, Hans Nichols and Courtney Kube






The Trump administration is moving ahead with plans to make it easier for the CIA and the military to target terrorists with drone strikes, even if it means tolerating more civilian casualties, U.S. officials told NBC News.


The military already has declared that parts of Yemen and Somalia are war zones "areas of active hostilities" in Pentagon parlance which means the U.S. has greater latitude to launch strikes even if civilian deaths are possible.


That is part of a broad policy shift underway, U.S. officials say, to grant the CIA and the military more autonomy to target and kill al Qaeda and ISIS militants without presidential sign-off in countries such as Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan.


"Some of the Obama administration rules were getting in the way of good strikes," said one U.S. official briefed on the matter.


The Obama administration put in place a rule that no drone strike could take place outside a war zone unless there was a "near certainty" that no civilian would be harmed. Obama also put the White House in the decision loop on most strikes against high-value targets. And, outside a war zone, the military or the CIA had to show that the target posed an imminent threat to the United States.


These and other rules along with a general policy preference by Obama led to a dramatic drop in drone strikes toward the end of the Obama presidency. The drop was also due to the fact that the al Qaeda threat in Pakistan diminished considerably.


At the height of the Obama drone campaign against al Qaeda in Pakistan, the U.S. was carrying out an average of two strikes a week, according to various organizations that track the strikes through media reports. Many of those were so-called "signature strikes" against masses of militants whose names were not necessarily known.


By contrast, there were just 38 drone strikes in Yemen last year and three in Pakistan, according to Long War Journal, a web site that counts them. And the administration moved away from signature strikes, which tended to have a higher chance of mishap.


To be clear, none of this applied to the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which was and is being waged as a military campaign under the laws of war.


But the Obama drone rules constrained the U.S. military last year in Yemen, according to a senior U.S. official briefed on the matter. After Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula made gains, the United Arab Emirates sent troops in April to retake territory seized by the group. But the U.S. was unable to fully support the operation with drone strikes because it couldn't show that each target posed an imminent threat to Americans, the official said.


A flurry of strikes in Yemen in recent weeks, against targets that had long been previously identified, was made possible by declaring parts of Yemen a war zone, the official said. The Pentagon no longer had to show that the targets posed an imminent threat to the U.S. or declare a near certainty that no civilian would be harmed.
A military commander can decide whether the risk of civilian casualties is "proportional" to the benefit of the strike, under the international law of war.
The military has yet to say how many civilians, if any, were killed in those Yemen air strikes.


Trump also appears to be reversing a policy preference by Obama to get the CIA, for the most part, out of the drone-killing business. A drone strike in Syria last month that killed Abu Hani al-Masri, a longtime terrorist with ties to Osama bin Laden, was the work of the CIA, U.S. officials told NBC News. Previously, the CIA had not been carrying out drone strikes in Syria.


Human rights groups, which fought for years to get Obama to rein in drone strikes, are dismayed by the Trump approach. At the same time, some former Obama officials told NBC News that many counter terrorism decisions were "over-lawyered" in Obama's National Security Council.


Many military and CIA officials welcome the changes, say officials. So far, no Democrat in Congress has voiced a public objection.


However, a group of former Obama administration officials and others sent Defense Secretary James Mattis a letter over the weekend urging that protection of civilians remain a top priority as the government reconsiders counter terrorism policies.


"I am concerned that loosening standards will harm our ability over time to carry out these operations, because it will affect our standing with the countries in which we need to operate," said Matt Olsen, a signer of the letter and the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center.


"I think these rules proved effective operationally I never saw an instance where we missed an opportunity to carry out a strike because of too much lawyering."



USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - LR Trotter - 14-03-2017

Cliff Varnell Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:The GAO [U.S. Government Accounting Office], generally considered a non-partisan accounting division, announced yesterday that their calculations show [under the currently devised plan] the changes in health insurance program would cause 14.000.000 people to loose their health insurance [completely - to none] almost immediately; 24.000.000 within a few years. And, that the richest people in the nation, as a direct result of this would, on average, get a 7.000.000$ boost. [i.e. the money saved on those 24.000.000 who would then have zero health care insurance and face death, or certainly financial ruin, if they needed anything more than minor health care would be re-distributed to the ultra-rich]. That's the USA's system of trickle-up [called trickle-down in double-speak] in action. Those not in the USA should keep in mind that despite 'Obamacare' about 30 million people in the USA still do not now have any health insurance - and certainly will get none anytime soon - perhaps never; this would climb to about 54 million under the current administration [about 1/6th of the population]. Sick Nation! - devoid of humanity/compassion, which is not compatible with US-style capitalism. The largest causes now of bankruptcy, forced homelessness, and preventable death are health crises of the un- or under-insured. The under-insured covers another HUGE segment of the population; who have insurance but only up to a certain limit...exceed that limit and you have to pay or forfeit your car, home and all...certainly your health and often your life too. But we have the money to increase the already obscene budget of the military....no problemo

But surely you don't want Socialised medicine do you Peter!? People need to be responsible for their own health and not bludge off other hard working people. They shouldn't be forced to have health insurance. Freedom is vital in matter of health choices.

Oh, my, NO!...never S-O-C-I-A-L-I-Z-E-D nothing! One of the big jokes and secrets hidden from the public is that all members of Congress get with their office single-payer complete healthcare from the government [i.e., socialized medical care]. Socialism is only for the rich; zombie capitalism is for the poorer classes - remember that! Remember the banks being bailed out by the poor, as just one of thousands of examples. What a system [for 'them']...what a horrible oppressive system [for most of us] - and getting worse at light speed.


Bernie Sanders 2020.

Only those who live in this country, not wealthy, and tried to purchase suitable health insurance on the open market, prior to the passing of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act, can truly understand the problem. But, it needs remembering that someone has to pay for all healthcare, so all goods and services bought and paid for by consumers have to include the cost of healthcare for those same goods and services, when employees receive healthcare benefits. And, healthcare benefits are normally not taxed, so your company's customers pay for your benefits, and all taxpayers subsidize those benefits. All insurance is socialism to a degree, but not everyone can join the "party". HumptyDumpty sits upon it so tall, but he need not fall, for so soon crumble goes the wall.


USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Peter Lemkin - 15-03-2017

LR Trotter Wrote:
Cliff Varnell Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:
Magda Hassan Wrote:But surely you don't want Socialised medicine do you Peter!? People need to be responsible for their own health and not bludge off other hard working people. They shouldn't be forced to have health insurance. Freedom is vital in matter of health choices.

Oh, my, NO!...never S-O-C-I-A-L-I-Z-E-D nothing! One of the big jokes and secrets hidden from the public is that all members of Congress get with their office single-payer complete healthcare from the government [i.e., socialized medical care]. Socialism is only for the rich; zombie capitalism is for the poorer classes - remember that! Remember the banks being bailed out by the poor, as just one of thousands of examples. What a system [for 'them']...what a horrible oppressive system [for most of us] - and getting worse at light speed.


Bernie Sanders 2020.

Only those who live in this country, not wealthy, and tried to purchase suitable health insurance on the open market, prior to the passing of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act, can truly understand the problem. But, it needs remembering that someone has to pay for all healthcare, so all goods and services bought and paid for by consumers have to include the cost of healthcare for those same goods and services, when employees receive healthcare benefits. And, healthcare benefits are normally not taxed, so your company's customers pay for your benefits, and all taxpayers subsidize those benefits. All insurance is socialism to a degree, but not everyone can join the "party". HumptyDumpty sits upon it so tall, but he need not fall, for so soon crumble goes the wall.

Not everyone now or ever got their health insurance through their employment; in fact, now many fewer do than before and employers now usually pay only a small part of it when they used to pay all of it. The self-employed, those who work for companies that pay zero or nearly nothing of their health benefits, and those unemployed still need health insurance [we all can get ill, and we all grow old]. You are correct in pointing out that insurance by its very nature is the fortunate paying for the unfortunate, and thus a kind of socialization and sharing of the money/risk. The very word 'socialism' [which most Americans can not distinguish from 'communism'] causes a reflexive negative reaction due to the propaganda since about 1900. That Sanders [who is only in part democratic 'socialist'] did as well as he did shows the growing cracks in the propaganda wall. He had to run as a Democrat to manage - and I'm sure had he run under the Socialist Party he'd have failed miserably for two reasons. That people chose Trump, however, shows me that the phony propaganda lines and false promises still work on a significant segment of the population. The same could also be said of those who thought Clinton could/would deliver a rosy USA for the majority. Most Trump supporters will soon learn he lied to them and cared nothing about them other than their vote and adulation. Sanders is too old to run again, I think, and he has no party at this point - though that could change. The USA is either going to change fast or end quickly.


USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Lauren Johnson - 15-03-2017

Quote:Most Trump supporters will soon learn he lied to them and cared nothing about them other than their vote and adulation.

No matter what he does, he will be adored, just like Obama is still adored by the idiots who voted for him. :Worship:


USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!! - Peter Lemkin - 15-03-2017

US President Donald Trump paid $38m in taxes on more than $150m of income in 2005, the White House has said, acknowledging key details it previously refused to release.
The revelation came as a response to an MSNBC report on Tuesday that the US broadcaster had obtained two pages of his returns.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said she received the documents from investigative journalist David Cay Johnston, who said on her show that he received them in the mail.


Speaking to Al Jazeera, Johnston said the $38m figure released by the White House included payroll taxes. When these are not taken into account, Trump's total 2005 federal tax bill was $36.5m, the investigative journalist said.


According to the leaked pages of the tax return, Trump and his wife Melania paid $5.3m in regular federal income tax, and an additional $31m in the alternative minimum tax (AMT) - which the president wants to eliminate.
"If the alternative minimum tax had not been in effect in 2005, Trump would have paid only $5m of tax on $183m of income - that tax rate is less than the tax rate paid by the poorest half of Americans" Johnston said from New York.
"Trump, this very wealthy man ... wants a tax system where he would pay the same rate of tax as people who make less than $33,000 a year in America."
'That makes me smart'

The returns showed Trump paid an effective federal tax rate of 25 percent in 2005 after writing off $100m in losses.
The White House said in a statement that Trump took into account "large scale depreciation for construction."
It said the former reality TV star, as head of the Trump Organization, had a responsibility "to pay no more tax than legally required".
Trump's refusal to release his tax returns despite decades of precedent featured heavily in the 2016 presidential race. He said he could not release the filings as he was under audit.
Democrats hinted that by not releasing the documents, Trump may be trying to hide that he pays little to no tax, makes less money than he claims, or gives a negligible amount to charity.
In January, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway said the White House would not release the documents.
Trump said his taxes are not of interest to the general public.
"You know, the only one that cares about my tax returns are the reporters," he said during a news conference after his January 20 inauguration.


Ahead of the November election, The New York Times published what it said were leaked tax filings from 1995 that revealed a deficit big enough for Trump not to pay federal income taxes for up to 18 years.
In the first presidential debate, when Trump's rival Hillary Clinton accused him of not having paid federal tax in years, he responded, "That makes me smart".
Questions remain

Al Jazeera's Shihab Rattansi, reporting from Washington, DC, said that what many will be interested in is not Trump's 12-year-old tax return, but his potential conflicts of interest - specifically allegations that he has been receiving contributions from foreign governments that could influence policy.
But "any money that he's been making from foreign governments is unlikely to be in his personal income tax return, because he's got so many different corporations, limited liability companies and so on," Rattansi noted.
He added that Tuesday's revelations could actually play out in Trump's favour.
"The way MSNBC hyped it beforehand, and the skillful way the White House handled it, could bolster Trump's base, who'll say 'look, it's more fake news, there was nothing to see here'.
"Incidentally, at least for a while, it took the focus away from the controversy over the plan to replace the Obamacare system that will leave millions of people without healthcare coverage."
The White House lashed out at MSNBC over the leaks.
"You know you are desperate for ratings when you are willing to violate the law to push a story about two pages of tax returns from over a decade ago," it said in a statement.

In the end, the documents didn't contain any overt bombshells which led some including Johnston, who was given the documents anonymously to wonder if Trump leaked them himself.
"Donald has a long history of leaking material about himself when it's in his interest," Johnston reminded Maddow. For all we know, Johnston added, Trump even could have released the "very sleazy girl-on-girl pictures of the First Lady" to the New York Post.