home

Thursday Open Thread

It feels like one day till Doomsday.
I wonder whether protesters will outnumber supporters. I can't think of anyone I would stand in the rain without an umbrella for in 40 degree weather just to see take an oath -- let alone someone I only feel ridicule for.

I'm tuning out Trump. And most American news.
I have lots of backups of Caribbean Life and House Hunters International on HGTV I haven't seen yet, and I'm behind on my episodes of El Chema and James Corden. I should be able to sail through Monday and the Unfestivities without reading or watching a single thing about the UnPresident.

Reading news from Dubai and Abu Dhabi, China Mexico and Latin and South America is actually interesting -- it's a much more productive, educational and less angst-ridden way to spend my time than watching the most unprepared, emotionally immature, bizarre person ever take charge of our country.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Obama's Final News Conference | "El Chapo" Press Conference in Brooklyn >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Path for Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:38:04 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/hfoebkz

    Interesting take on demographics, gerrymandering, and self gerrymanering

    The strategy would require a dramatic realignment of political resources away from the traditional battlegrounds. And Democrats would likely need to re-prioritize immigration reform (Arizona) and issues important to African-American voters (Georgia), which may make it harder for the party to reclaim white working class voters.

    No matter what, Democrats will need to reinforce their decaying state and local party apparatuses to build power outside cities. Conservatives understood the importance of these down-ballot races years ago and have invested heavily in them, while Democrats tended to concentrate on the presidency and interest-group specific causes.

    Party leaders seem to have recognized the error and have the new Obama-backed effort to win state legislatures ahead of the next round of redistricting in 2020. If successful, the party will lessen the headwind of Republican gerrymandering, though they will still have their own self-gerrymandering to worry about.



    Mostly people (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:42:14 AM EST
    are going to have to learn through the school of hard knocks. Apparently George W. Bush was not enough and the lesson is going to have to be taught again to voters. There's going to be no Obama for the GOP to point at so the voters are going to be looking straight at the GOP and holding them accountable for everything. It seems they are getting the message already with Trump's numbers. Too late though to finally realize what a putz Trump is.

    Parent
    Trump is like W in many ways (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:38:26 AM EST
      1.  Both were touted as having business and executive experience.
       2. Both were touted as being different kinds of conservatives and having a "common" touch;  Bush was someone you could have a beer with, and Trump was a populist who could communicate with WWC.
       3. Bush was a compassionate conservative while Trump is populist conservative.
       4. But both still adhered to conservative orthodoxy if cutting taxes for the wealthy.
       5.  Both will increase spending in a bid for popularity--Bush with Prescription Drugs and Trump with infrastructure spending.
       6.  Both start out saying they will have a less interventionist foreign policy.
       7.  Both sneer at having education, expertise and experience and go by "their gut."
       

    Parent
    And both lost polular vote (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:43:46 AM EST
    The above comparison (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:46:10 AM EST
    assumes a benign Trump who acts like a decent human being.  But I don't see any evidence of that in my opinion.  Trump is uniquely unqualified and dangerous.

    Parent
    Why (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:44:11 AM EST
    is this not a big story? FBI and 5 other agencies investigating possible covert payouts to Trump from Kremlin
    The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.

    Note the timeline
    The informal, inter-agency working group began to explore possible Russian interference last spring, long before the FBI received information from a former British spy hired to develop politically damaging and unverified research about Trump, according to the sources,

    We apparently have two independent paths of investigation pointing in the same direction, fancy that.

    This may be what John Lewis (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    Is speaking of that was learned at the classified briefing. He said if Americans knew what Congress now knows they would completely understand not attending the inauguration.

    Because it is still classified and under investigation, all the news agencies are probably having difficulty meeting their verification requirements swiftly.

    Parent

    The plot (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:13:06 AM EST
    thickens
    Late tonight, the New York Times reported that anonymous intelligence sources are confirming they've intercepted communications and financial transactions from Russia which may link Trump associates to Russian officials.

    or "The Three Amigos go to Moscow",

    Paul Manafort is a focus, as is Carter Page and Roger Stone.
    .

    All kidding aside I agree here.

    This may be the most chilling part of the entire report -- the reasons why they're leaking it now:

    Representatives of the agencies involved declined to comment. Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases.
    [Karoli's Bold]

    Parent
    The New Tork Times story ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 07:37:02 AM EST
    ... referenced by Karoli is here:

    New York Times | January 19, 2017
    Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates - "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said. The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Yikes.

    Parent

    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:38:17 PM EST
    if it's in the news or not. It certainly will be in lots of political ads for people running for reelection even in deep red districts in 2018.

    Parent
    BREAKING:El Chapo extradited to U.S. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:35:33 PM EST
    Per the Los Angeles Times, Mexico's Foreign Ministry has announced that the alleged drug lord Joaquin Guzman is being extradited today to the United States, where he's long been wanted on drug trafficking and other charges.

    I'm sure that Jeralyn will have more on this story later today.

    CST and any other TLers that are headed to DC (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 11:24:14 PM EST
    for the Women's March. Stay safe!

    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:01:51 PM EST
    First report is that the rest area on the New Jersey turnpike seemed remarkably crowded for a Friday afternoon and the demographics were telling.

    Hopefully we'll have a good crowd tomorrow and everything goes smoothly.

    Feeling grateful right now for the 22nd amendment.  Whatever else happens, we've only got to deal with this particular@sshole

    Parent

    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    For a maximum of 8 years (hopefully 4)

    Parent
    I'll be thinking (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    of you and everybody else marching. Ironically I know a lot of people that are marching either in their local area or in DC. I'm 56 years old and I've never seen anything like this before.

    Parent
    Yea (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    Most of my family and friends will be at the Boston March.  And these are, for the most part, not people who typically partake in this kind of thing.

    If I didn't have a ride and free place to stay (my uncle lives in DC) I probably would have stayed local, but I couldn't pass up the chance to be in the thick of it.

    Parent

    Doomsday has arrived (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 07:06:43 AM EST


    I thought I was past my depression and in the (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:35:18 AM EST
    anger phase. But, apparently not.

    While my rational mind understood that nothing was going to stop this nightmare from actually happening, I guess I was holding on to a tiny bit of hope that something would happen to stop this inauguration.

    Have been feeling really depressed since yesterday.

    Parent

    Today is Garbage Day (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 07:09:32 AM EST
    Usually they pick up.  Today, they'll be dropping off.

    (That said, it's time for me to get back to reengineering my mouse so its scroll wheel can scoot me past the next four years.)

    Ha! Today is literally garbage pick-up day for me. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    I put the can out last night because they sometimes come by quite early. Only to find this morning that some a**hole has put a bag of dog poop in my trash can after the garbage was already picked up. So, I am stuck with it till next garbage day. Grrr!

    We have multiple trash cans for dog poop around the community but this person was too lazy to walk there and did not want to stink up his/her garbage can, so they threw it in mine.

    But, then I thought how fitting that it happened today of all days. We are all having a big bag of sh!t dumped on us today thanks to some of our countrymen and we are stuck with it for God only knows how long.

    Parent

    Don't sweat the small stuff... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    or its gonna be an even longer 4 years pal. At least they curbed their dog.

    Parent
    Kdog, I normally would let something like (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:58:05 PM EST
    this slide because I am always glad when people pick up after their dogs. But, we have been having 80+ degree days. So having dog sh!t cook in your garbage can for a few days till the next pick-up makes for an extremely stinky garage.

    I can't fish it out because we have these monster garbage cans and I am a shortie and can't reach. The person also did not have the decency to tie the bag so if I tip the can to dump it out, I will end up with cr@p all over the floor/ driveway! Ugh!!!

    Happy Inaugaration Day, to me!!!

    P.S.- I bet you are wishing you had not responded to my comment :-)

    Parent

    No regrets... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 03:20:42 PM EST
    and sh*t happens...clearly ;)

    Parent
    Legitimate questions (none / 0) (#1)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:32:34 AM EST
    regarding NATO.

    http://tinyurl.com/gpbwck3   The Week

    Probably the most famous answer was given by Lord Ismay, the first secretary general of NATO. He quipped that the purpose of the alliance was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

    If that's what NATO is for, then much of what the alliance has been doing for the past 20 years would have to be described as "off-mission." So would Trump's call for NATO to "focus on terrorism," for that matter. But if the original mission no longer makes sense, perhaps the organization needs a new mission -- or it needs to be scrapped. So: Is the original mission obsolete?



    Perhaps better described... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:40:52 AM EST
    Communism out, Capitalism in, and Fascism down.

    Now that Russia (and maybe us) are fascists, Europe should keep NATO and boot our sorry arses. Problem there is we got all the weapons.

    This is what happens Europe, when you leave your defense in the hands of a quirky electoral college.

    Parent

    Oh Fer pucks sake (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 03:53:39 PM EST
    We don't have all the weapons. I have no idea where you come up with stuff sometimes dog.

    Parent
    You're right... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:04:10 PM EST
    I exaggerate...we have more military spending/capability than the rest of NATO combined, by a ridiculous margin.

    Parent
    Not a legitimate question, since (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    ...the question quoted is based on a quip by someone who was not involved in the creation of NATO, who was selected in haste, and who did not define "a mission" for NATO.  Treating it as a mission statement is quite a stretch.

    The important part of your quote:

    If that's what NATO is for...

    However, since NATO last published a 10-year mission statement in 2010 (updated 2012, apparently), I supposed we could say that the original mission is obsolete, and can not be used to measure the actions of today's NATO.

    Parent

    One of the key ideas (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 11:45:04 AM EST
    was to avoid another war in Europe, after two World Wars.

    It is amazing that Trump thinks he has a mandate to dismantle NATO and the EU.  The campaign was really about that?  (Setting aside the fact that he lost the popular vote and thus has no mandate for anything.

    What do we get for giving Putin his wish list?  Help fighting ISIS?   Really?  What would he do to help?  Giving away the Ukraine and throwing away NATO is worth Putin's saying he will help with ISIS?

    And Russia will help with terrorism generally?  How so?  We have avoided a major coordinated attack in the U.S. since 9/11.  We have had lone wolf single shooter attacks from home grown terrorists.  And Russia would help with those how?

    The GOP has shown how far it will sell its soul to support Trump--giving up on all their national security positions appears to be on one area they will gladly give up.  But there is probably more.

    The GOP has shown it has no soul.

    Parent

    As though Ukraine was ever ours to give away. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 12:20:09 PM EST
    In any event, I believe that the key test for Trump's commitment to the NATO alliance will likely come with Putin's designs on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, three small countries which Russia clearly covets, but which are also members of NATO for that very reason.

    Parent
    Two (none / 0) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 06:30:24 AM EST
    out of three ain't bad to
    keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down
     I don't know about keeping Germany down, we did spend a lot of money and effort to rebuild them as a capitalist democracy, but. You could argue that America has spent too much to stay "in" but it has definitely paid off better than much of our other military, that is if you consider keeping the Russians out a worthwhile goal.

    Parent
    The new mission (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:36:43 AM EST
    would be against Putin it would seem. Since Republicans have embraced Putin full on I know they do not see that as a worthy goal.

    Parent
    The question is (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:39:19 AM EST
    what does the American citizen see as a threat?

    "The Russians stole Hillary's coronation!" doesn't seem to be working as a call to arms despite the new Cold Warriors in the Democratic environs anxious to use that as the reason Trump won the election.

    "They did bad things and must be contained!" from the Republican Old Guard hasn't flipped many Bics either.

    I have watched this for 58 years and it was hard enough to keep the public focused on an external threat when the Soviets were actually saying they would bury us, seizing countries in Europe, installing missiles in Cuba and fostering revolutions to the south of our borders.

    What the public sees as a threat is radical Islam. While its attacks, threats and invasions may be seen as our fault by the people who worry over Russia the public views it otherwise. The continual flood of improperly vetted "refugees" into Europe paints as clear a picture of grave problems to come as did Hitler's early moves. Yet we import our own and if we complain we're lectured on the need for "diversity" to atone for our support for the former colonial powers.

    So Trump finds himself much like FDR. He finds us facing an external group, who has many internal American supporters, that wants to destroy us for "religious" reason. In the meantime he has a Russia that is also threatened by the "new Germany," radical Islam, but wants to take back what it lost in the Cold War while defending itself from radical Islam.

    To that end Putin has made some smart moves in the ME that may be more successful than Stalin's treaty with Germany.

    What we need is for the radical Islamists in Iran and the rest of the witches brew of terrorists to convince Putin that he must first defend against them and that he needs us to help.  

    And after that he can continue his own attempt at world dictatorship.

    Lend Lease anyone?

    Parent

    Oh dear GAWD ... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:45:56 AM EST
    So Trump finds himself much like FDR. He finds us facing an external group, who has many internal American supporters, that wants to destroy us for "religious" reason
    .

    What a crock.  ISIS does not have "many internal American supporters".  You guys have just switched from a Red Scare to a Muslim Scare.

    Parent

    ... in which they just fill in the blanks with the name of their self-perceived threat du jour, and then run with it. They sure know how to push their base's fear buttons.

    Parent
    jim don't bait people (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 01:28:43 PM EST
    you know readers here do not agree with  you and you are now just regurgitating things that are baseless, make us yawn or want to scroll through. If you have a substantive comment or news event you'd like to bring up, by all means do it. But you really need to find another blog if all you want to do is argue. It's 2017 and no one wants to listen to that stuff anymore or debate it.

    Parent
    No one wants to debate war, peace, Russia, (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    the ME and how that all relates to our internal politics?

    Well we use to have some great discussions but if things have changed it's your blog.
     

    Parent

    Actually, we used to have (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    a lot of interesting posters here who said either the troll goes or I go.

    Parent
    Because they are stupid? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:55:54 AM EST
    What the public sees as a threat is radical Islam.

    Only the most stupid and paranoid demographic believes that.

    Since 9/11 100 times as many Americans have died at the hands of other Americans wielding Second Amendment rights.

    We rank 35th in terms of outcomes of health care, and first in expense, which kills thousands more.

    But the morons are worried about Muslim extremists, who didn't manage to kill a tiny fraction of the number of us killed by...ourselves, deaths that don't take place in other countries for some reason.

    If only we could figure out why tens of thousands of people die in this country who don't die in others.

    But no, the drooling class is skeered of mooslims.  Go figure.  How dumb are they, Jim?

    Parent

    Being chosen to channel the voice (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 10:55:57 AM EST
    and bear the burdens, cares, and worries of "the public" sounds like a full-time job, Jim.

    Your imagined ability to have your finger on the nation's pulse and know precisely what everyone is concerned about here puts one in mind of when Louis IV said "I am the state".

    The Cold War paranoia is a very misleading and disingenuous analogy for the current state of affairs.

    It's hard to believe you need to have this explained to you, but the issue isn't that Russia specifically interfered in the election, but that Any foreign government would be allowed to freely interfere in and sabotage a national election here.

    Yours and the Right's bankrupt, power-hungry "Any enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality further feeds into the perception amongst other peoples that the U.S is a country in which the power is primarily in the hands of cutthroats and cynics.

    And then you wonder why anyone would want to attack us.

     

    Parent

    Dr. Neal Milner, professor emeritus of ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    ... political science at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, notes the distinct difference between willful ignorance, in which one adheres stubbornly to a personal belief regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary, and knowledgeable ignorance, in which one is fully cognizant of what one does NOT know about a given subject and seeks further information accordingly:

    Honolulu Civil Beat | January 19, 2017
    Politics Works When We Embrace Right Kind Of Ignorance - "As psychologists have shown time and again, our core values powerfully drive the way we think and learn about politics. These values are quite stable. We avoid information that challenges or contradicts these values. If we do consider the information, it is usually not to accept it but to argue with it. These core beliefs are your guides. They are also your blinders. That goes for ordinary folks as well as for politicians, who in fact are more likely to have well-formed ideologies that are even harder to change. That may in be our nature, but so are other things like curiosity, self-awareness, and skepticism toward authority."

    It's worth a read.

    Parent

    The essence of political onservativism (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:10:26 PM EST
    is the conviction that the most important things that we need to know, we know already.

    So much for openness, curiosity, and tolerance for novel experiences and new perspectives.

    Parent

    "Fostering Revolutions to the South" (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    What do you know about that?

    Which revolution to the South did the Soviets foster?

    The rest of your post is frankly weird. It makes no sense.

    Parent

    WTF? (none / 0) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    To that end Putin has made some smart moves in the ME that may be more successful than Stalin's treaty with Germany.
    I know you like to airbrush history, but forgetting such minor details like Operation Barbarossa is quite a heavy lift, even for  the best revisionists.

    But then again I suppose anything less then 30 million deaths could be considered "more successful".

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 12:25:45 PM EST
    May be more successful than Stalin's treaty with Germany.

    Ain't that a load off.

    And Putin's made some deals with the Republicans that may be as supportive of democracy as Stalin's treaty with Germany.

    Parent

    Airbrush history? That's an understatement. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 03:26:34 PM EST
    Through the far right's ideological lens, U.S. history becomes a gross caricature not unlike Mae West in Sextette.

    Parent
    Yeah, nothing has changed since (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 03:49:26 PM EST
    1952

    Parent
    the author is in the wrong era (none / 0) (#53)
    by linea on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:10:16 PM EST
    Sweden and Finland undoubtedly cannot deter Russia alone, even if they make a robust commitment to doing so.

    finland can easily deter russia (broken-down meager forces manned by dispirited troops) in any conventional attack. joining nato would make finland more vulnerable as the protection by america's nuclear deterence is a chimera.

    Parent

    Drain the Swamp (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    The omission was largely his real estate (none / 0) (#21)
    by Green26 on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 12:25:36 PM EST
    A co-op in New York City, a residence in Southampton, NY, a residence in Los Angeles, and $15 million in Mexican real estate holdings.

    Looks like he probably didn't realize that real estate was to be included.

    Or, maybe he's just not very good with numbers. Ha.

    Parent

    At Mnuchin's level, it's inexcusable. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    When I worked as senior staff for State House leadership, I was required by law to disclose my assets and holdings to the State Ethics Commission, which of course included real estate.

    With some of our Treasury Secretary-wannabe's financial stature, I would assume that he has people on his personal payroll whose job it is to track and report this stuff. Therefore, how does $100 million in personal assets just fall through the cracks?

    If this guy apparently can't be bothered to ensure his own compliance with the most basic of ethics disclosure law, is he really the man for this particular job?

    The computer says, "No."

    Parent

    A Trump quote today (2.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Green26 on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 04:08:47 PM EST
    "We have by far the highest I.Q. of any cabinet ever assembled,"

    There you have it. I assume it's a well-researched stat. Ha. Even better than the Best and the Brightest.

    Or, maybe he doesn't know the difference between net worth and IQ.

    Parent

    But isn't ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Erehwon on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    Net worth a synonym for IQ in the intellectual heft of The Unpresident?

    Who was the last Republican president who could speak in 10th-grade-level sentences without a teleprompter?

    Parent

    Facebook Führer Mark Zuckerberg ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    ... barges into Hawaii and announces to everyone that he's a major league a$$hole:

    Honolulu Star-Advertiser | January 18, 2017
    Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sues to force land sales - "When Facebook's co-founder Mark Zuckerberg paid around $100 million for 700 acres of rural beachfront land on Kauai two years ago to create what Forbes magazine described as a secluded family sanctuary, he actually acquired a not-so-secluded property. Close to a dozen small parcels within Zuckerberg's Kauai estate are owned by kama'aina families who have rights to traverse the billionaire's otherwise private domain. Now the Facebook CEO is trying to enhance the seclusion of his property by filing several lawsuits aimed at forcing these families to sell their land at a public court auction to the highest bidder."

    For the record, we're talking about 14 separate kuleana plots on eight acres of land within Zuckerberg's vast Kauai estate that are owned by local Hawaiian families, in most instances since the 1850s. Per state law that was grandfathered from the days of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the owners of these parcels have the inherent right to traverse the tech billionaire's land in order to reach their own respective properties, and Zuckerberg would be in breach of that law should he attempt to impede or deny them that right.

    Because this lawsuit involves kuleana lands, a little background is in order. Per the late Native Hawaiian language scholars Mary Kawena Pukui and Samuel H. Elbert, whose definitive "Hawaiian Dictionary" has legal standing whenever the meaning of Native Hawaiian terminology is in dispute, kuleana translates roughly in English as one's own sense of personal privilege, responsibility, and ownership of property and business.

    Kuleana lands emerged out of a critical juncture in Hawaiian history, when King Kamehameha III had first responded to increasing economic pressure from foreigners who sought to control land by fundamentally changing the land tenure system to a westernized paper title system. The lands were formally divided among the King and his chiefs, and the fee titles were recorded in the royal government's Mahele book.

    Lands granted in accordance with the 1848 Mahele law promulgated by the King were also "subject to the rights of native tenants," usually native Hawaiian tenant farmers who already worked and resided on portions of those lands. In 1850, Kamehameha III further clarified his intent by promulgating a new law which allowed these "native tenants" to claim fee simple title to the lands they worked. Those who did so successfully thus acquired what is known as a kuleana.

    Therefore, because this involves Native Hawaiian land rights dating back to the Great Mahele, at least in part, the Hawaii judiciary is going to move very gingerly on this issue and if any of the kuleana families move to contest Zuckerberg's lawsuit, judges will likely rule in their favor, the Facebook CEO's celebrity mogul status notwithstanding.

    Local residents -- particularly on Kauai -- tend to be very welcoming of recently arrived newcomers by general nature, but they also take a very dim view of outsiders who would attempt to dictate to their new neighbors how things ought to be. If Mark Zuckerberg desires to seek goodwill from Kauai residents, he's chosen a very strange way to show it.

    Aloha.

    Zuckerberg seems to be one of the eight (none / 0) (#29)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 03:44:30 PM EST
    richest men in the world who own as much as the poorest half of the planet.

    1. Bill Gates: America founder of Microsoft (net worth $75 billion)
    2. Amancio Ortega: Spanish founder of Inditex which owns the Zara fashion chain (net worth $67 billion)
    3. Warren Buffett: American CEO and largest shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (net worth $60.8 billion)
    4. Carlos Slim Helu: Mexican owner of Grupo Carso (net worth: $50 billion)
    5. Jeff Bezos: American founder, chairman and chief executive of Amazon (net worth: $45.2 billion)
    6. Mark Zuckerberg: American chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Facebook (net worth $44.6 billion)
    7. Larry Ellison: American co-founder and CEO of Oracle  (net worth $43.6 billion)
    8. Michael Bloomberg: American founder, owner and CEO of Bloomberg LP (net worth: $40 billion)


    Parent
    Both Zuckerberg and Ellison ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 04:12:00 PM EST
    ... have significant property holdings here in the islands. Ellison, in fact, owns most of the island of Lanai.

    And Pierre Omidyar, who founded eBay and Honolulu Civil Beat, lives most of the year in Honolulu and on the Kona side of the Big Island. Alas, his net worth is but a paltry $8.1 billion.

    Other wealthy Hawaii full-time and part-time residents have included the late Doris Duke (whose Diamond Head estate is now a museum devoted to Islamic Art), the late George Harrison, Neil Young, Terry Bradshaw, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oprah Winfrey, Carol Burnett, Julia Roberts, Beyoncé and Jay Z.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    My understanding of Hawaii is (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 04:04:18 PM EST
    He has crossed an unforgivable line?

    Parent
    Zuckerberg will have indeed done so ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 04:45:48 PM EST
    ... if he actually presses forward with this lawsuit, at least in my opinion. I'm rather surprised that the Honolulu law firm he retained in this matter, Cades Schutte, agreed to represent him. It must've been the money.

    The late George Harrison similarly ran afoul of local land-use law on Maui when he physically blocked longstanding public easement to the coastline across his 68-acre east Maui property near Nahiku, and thus denied access to local Native Hawaiian residents who depend in part on the sea for their sustenance and livelihood.

    That move did not endear Harrison to Maui's Native Hawaiian community, and those residents subsequently took him to court, where he lost decisively when the judge ordered the barriers removed. The matter was subsequently settled to everyone's satisfaction when Harrison agreed to deed to Maui County another public easement to Kapukaulua Point, exchange for title to the original easement, which actually ran only 100 feet behind his house.

    The preservation of existing Native Hawaiian property and gathering rights is a very big deal out here, and rightly so. The primary difference between indigenous rights here and those held by native peoples on the U.S. mainland is that Hawaii, in a previous life, had long been an independent country when the U.S. took over in 1898.

    Thus, laws were already on the books which specifically protected those rights. You can't block Native Hawaiians' access to either the sea or the mountains, you can't dam up a river or stream and reserve the water for your own exclusive use, and nobody can exclusively "own" a beach or shoreline.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    This is an interesting post, nice. (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:03:26 PM EST
    Here is what Zuckerberg said:

    "The land is made up of a few properties. In each case, we worked with the majority owners of each property and reached a deal they thought was fair and wanted to make on their own.

    "As with most transactions, the majority owners have the right to sell their land if they want, but we need to make sure smaller partial owners get paid for their fair share too.

    "In Hawaii, this is where it gets more complicated. As part of Hawaiian history, in the mid-1800s, small parcels were granted to families, which after generations might now be split among hundreds of descendants. There aren't always clear records, and in many cases descendants who own 1/4% or 1% of a property don't even know they are entitled to anything.

    "To find all these partial owners so we can pay them their fair share, we filed what is called a 'quiet title' action. For most of these folks, they will now receive money for something they never even knew they had. No one will be forced off the land."



    Parent
    If they want to sell, that's their kuleana. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    But that statement written by Zuckerberg's attorneys at Cades Schutte aside, nobody should ever be compelled to sell their property merely for the convenience and expediency of the rich and powerful, particularly in the case of well-to-do transients.

    Please don't labor under the delusion that the Facebook CEO has filed suit to quiet title due to some magnanimous desire on his part to assist any of these kuleana families regarding notification of assets. Rather, he wants their lands. Period.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Of course he wants their land. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:51:04 PM EST
    I wanted the land I bought for my home, and I'm pretty sure you wanted someone else's land in Hilo, and so you bought it.

    If the statement is to be believed, he has agreements with the majority owner of each parcel. If that is the case, well, as they say, everyone has their price.

    fwiw, he has a co-plaintiff, one Carlos Andrade, a retired 72-year-old University of Hawaii professor of Hawaiian studies who said he lived on his family's kuleana land from 1977 until recently...

    Parent

    As long as the transaction is voluntary, ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 10:15:46 PM EST
    ... and all parties agree to the sale, I don't have a problem with it. But not a single Hawaiian should be compelled to divest his or her share in kuleana lands against his or her will. For too many decades, Native Hawaiians have ended up on the short end of such transactions made in their name, while non-Hawaiians have profited enormously at their expense. Further, this not just the stuff of history, but is an ongoing problem even today.

    This travesty has most recently been playing out atop Mauna Kea, in the battle between the State and Native Hawaiian activists over the proposed Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), by which the State as Trustee over the Ceded Lands of Mauna Kea signed a sweetheart deal leasing the land upon which the TMT was to be built for a paltry $1 / year for 75 years.

    Not surprisingly, the Big Island's Native Hawaiian community -- which considers Mauna Kea to be sacred land -- blew its collective stack when the deal was announced without any input at all from them, the supposed beneficiaries of the Ceded Lands Trust. They occupied the site and blocked the road leading to the summit, which of course led to confrontations with state law enforcement officials, who assert the State's right to act as trustee even as it abuses the trusteeship. The State Supreme Court has since tossed out the TMT agreement, and instead ordered that a contested case hearing be held.

    (The Ceded Lands Trust is comprised of the former Crown lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which constitute nearly 60% of Hawaii's land. These were not the private lands of the royal family, but lands which were held by the reigning monarch in trust for the Native Hawaiian people. They were seized by the U.S. government upon annexation in 1898, renamed the Ceded Lands Trust to reflect that involuntary cession, and then turned over to the State of Hawaii as trustee in September 1959, once the islands were no longer under U.S. territorial status.)

    Lands that are recognized as (a) Native Hawaiian-owned, such as kuleana lands; (b) part of a Native Hawaiian trust, such as Hawaiian Home Lands, the Kamehameha Schools, the Queen Emma Foundation and the Queen Liliuokalani Trust; or (c) part of the Ceded Lands held in trusteeship by the State of Hawaii, need to be treated differently from other lands in the islands, particularly when the proposal on the table is to shift fee simple ownership to a non-Hawaiian individual or entity. These lands do in fact belong to the Hawaiians, and it is imperative that they have final say in any proposed disposition of them.

    That's the issue at stake here.

    Parent

    It sounds to me like Zuckerberg (none / 0) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    is being prudent in getting all his ducks in a row.

    While in a legal sense the majority owner(s) of an asset have all the power in the disposition of that asset, I think it's probable that family members who are minority owners can disrupt that process, even if they are fractional minority owners. Family is family.

    My bet is much of Zuckerberg's focus is making sure all the family member owners are identified and agreeably compensated such that there are minimal hiccups in the transactions.

    Parent

    ... of real estate law as it exists on the U.S. mainland, to a state which has uniquely different land classifications by virtue of its lengthy existence as an independent nation prior to U.S. annexation. Nearly 70% of the State of Hawaii's lands are Native Hawaiian-based in title. Native Hawaiian law is a legal field unto itself.

    Suffice to say that California doesn't have any laws even remotely similar to the Mahele Act of 1848 and the Kuleana Act of 1850, both of which were grandfathered when Hawaii was organized as a U.S. Territory under the Organic Act of 1900.

    In just one day, Zuckerberg is already encountering considerable blowback in his quest. This morning the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation announced its intent to oppose his motion to quiet title, and they are a considerable force to be reckoned with in court when it comes to Native Hawaiian rights.

    And state legislators, who just convened for the 2017 Regular Session on Wednesday, are discussing proposals which would effectively block non-Hawaiians from using the legal system to compel Native Hawaiian individuals and trusts to divest those lands to which they hold title in fee.

    Mark Zuckerberg will likely fail, simply because he's selfishly trying to open a can of worms which most of us who actually live here year-round as full-time residents, rather than as transient visitors, believe should be left alone.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    ... of real estate law as it exists on the U.S. mainland, to a state which has uniquely different land classifications by virtue of its lengthy existence as an independent nation prior to U.S. annexation. Nearly 70% of the State of Hawaii's lands are Native Hawaiian-based in title. Native Hawaiian law is a legal field unto itself.

    Suffice to say that California doesn't have any laws even remotely similar to the Mahele Act of 1848 and the Kuleana Act of 1850, both of which were grandfathered when Hawaii was organized as a U.S. Territory under the Organic Act of 1900.

    In just one day, Zuckerberg is already encountering considerable blowback in his quest. This morning the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation announced its intent to oppose his motion to quiet title, and they are a considerable force to be reckoned with in court when it comes to Native Hawaiian rights.

    And state legislators, who just convened for the 2017 Regular Session on Wednesday, are discussing proposals which would effectively block non-Hawaiians from using the legal system to compel Native Hawaiian individuals and trusts to divest those lands to which they hold title in fee.

    Mark Zuckerberg will likely fail, simply because he's selfishly trying to open a can of worms which most of us who actually live here year-round as full-time residents, rather than as transient visitors, believe should be left alone.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sorry about the double-post, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 02:59:50 AM EST
    Please delete one of them.

    Parent
    If A owns some thing, (none / 0) (#140)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 10:27:05 AM EST
    and B makes what A considers an acceptable offer to buy that thing, in what way is A being compelled to sell?

    Anyway, I think you are right in that Z may well have opened up a right can o' worms...

    Parent

    Honolulu Star Advertiser (none / 0) (#141)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 11:12:36 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/grpy765

    It's complicated

    T

    hrough the quiet title law, Zuckerberg aims to identify family members who share ownership of the 14 parcels. After a judge validates who the lawful owners are and their share of ownership, the judge can order that all the ownership shares be sold at auction because it wouldn't be possible to physically divide the land amongst all owners. In one of the lawsuits, it is alleged that ownership of four parcels totaling two acres is divided among more than a hundred members of one family.

    Zuckerberg aims to acquire these ownership interests at an auction.

    "To find all these partial owners so we can pay them their fair share, we filed what is called a `quiet title' action. For most of these folks, they will now receive money for something they never even knew they had. No one will be forced off the land."


    Parent
    Zuckerberg 'reconsidering' lawsuits (none / 0) (#143)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 25, 2017 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    Mark Zuckberberg soon could be getting some more "likes" in Hawaii.

    The Facebook CEO now says he is "reconsidering"a set of lawsuits that he recently filed to compel hundreds of Hawaiians to sell him small plots of land they own that lie within his 700-acre beachfront property on the island of Kauai.

    The billionaire's potential about-face came after widespread publicity last week about the suits, which target a dozen plots covering slightly more than 8 acres of land strewn throughout the acreage that Zuckerberg bought for $100 million two years ago.
    [...]
    But on Tuesday night, Zuckerberg said, "Based on feedback from the local community, we are reconsidering the quiet title process and discussing how to move forward."

    "We want to make sure we are following a process that protects the interests of property owners, respects the traditions of native Hawaiians, and preserves the environment."

    Zuckerberg added, "We love Kauai. We want to be good members of the community and preserve the land for generations to come."


    Parent

    Trump likes him some billionaires... (none / 0) (#27)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 03:23:45 PM EST
    Come back Geno.

    Donald Trump has reportedly tapped New York Jets owner Woody Johnson as the next ambassador to the United Kingdom, breaking a campaign promise not to appoint political donors to negotiate with other countries.

    What the eff is Paul Ryan talking about? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 04:59:26 PM EST
    Does he even know?

    "The hollowing out of our military".

    That brief statement in itself fairly well encompasses the truly monumental level of  bullsh*t today's GOP runs on.

    Well, at least they believe in deregulation, lower taxes, and that this is a "Christian nation". Who cares what else they do. Right?

    Our military maintains upwards of 700 bases around the world.

    What other country even scratches the surface of that kind of presence?

    The military has been hollowed out (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:46:07 PM EST
    The equipment sidelined in need of repair and maintenance is shameful.

    the military's budget has been cut by 25 percent in real terms since 2011--much of it coming from accounts used to maintain and build combat readiness. Yes, leaders from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps have all publicly expressed their deep concerns about readiness levels. And, yes, top brass are publicly discussing "Carter-era" readiness problems and even the prospect of a hollow military.

    The size of the U.S. Army has been reduced to the fewest number of active soldiers in more than 70 years, Army Times reported. ... shrinking the number of soldiers on active duty to less than what it was during World War II. The current number of active troops is slightly more than 479,000 soldiers.

    This was a result of the sequester budgeting, cuts were across the board, and the military took a bigger hit than they usually do.

    Parent

    Nice pitch (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    but no sale, Trevor.

    You sound like a slick, Ryan-ese-speaking  lobbyist in the pay of the defense contractors and with one foot in revolving door.

    So much for cutting spending and smaller government, eh?

    And for those concerned about our infrastructure and poor kids in crumbling schools and neighborhoods, Let 'em eat depleted uranium.

    "Hollowed out" is ultimate hyperbolic, relative expression.

    Hollowed out compared to what Other country on the planet's military capability and "readiness"?

    I thought The Donald was going to make other countries start pulling their weight?

    Parent

    Just the facts (none / 0) (#54)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:18:31 PM EST
    Equipment is broken down, active force is depleted,
    Bdget cuts over the past several years

    All facts, No sales job neccessary

    Parent

    readiness? (none / 0) (#58)
    by linea on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:32:31 PM EST
    for what? invading iraq again?

    on television news today: b-2 bombers that cost 2-billion-usd each flew from usa to libya refueling in-air 13 times to drop bombs on a few absolutt morons. great strategy america.


    Parent

    The world is not a nice place (none / 0) (#61)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    Nor a safe place

    Boy Scouts motto

    Be prepared

    Parent

    Be prepared and keep the government (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:44:37 PM EST
    contracts and the corporate welfare checks rolling in.

    I see Mr Small Government's family built their business on government contracts; or as they call it when poor people are the recipients, "workfare".

    What would Ayn Rand say?

    Parent

    What word salad have you ingested (none / 0) (#67)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:14:09 PM EST
    You sound like The Donald,

    Can't make any sense of that

    Parent

    What part don't you get? (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:26:49 PM EST
    the part that alluded to the the massive corporate welfare doled out to the defense industry and the "Big Governnent" bureaucracy that goes hand-in-hand with it, or the part about Paul Ryan and his family being the hyppcritical beneficiaries of government programs?

    Parent
    The Donald (none / 0) (#71)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:30:36 PM EST
    Already has them on edge. questioning expense, how dare he/
    And Mattis is all in with him on questioning cost over runs.

    They are set to rein in unnecessary defense spending

    Parent

    They are set to rein it in.. (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:53:00 PM EST
    sounds like you've taken the leap of faith that the rhetoric and the actuality will line up perfectly.

    Tell me, wasn't your faith in Trump's rhetoric shaken a little when he nominated for Interior Secretary someone who acknowledged the human influence on Climate Change?

    What happened to "it's all a hoax"?

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 09:01:18 PM EST
    I was one that understood, Trump never said what he meant. which is one reason why I didn't support him.
    You take Trump literally, Trump supporters took him figuratively.
    You still haven't figured that out.

    What is a hoax is that it is man made, and that the costly measures taken will have any effect.

    What most skeptics say is we are wasting money  and losing jobs all for feel good measures

    Parent

    Trump's supporters took him (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 09:23:31 PM EST
    fuguratively.

    I love it.

    Yes, because Trump's beloved "poorly educated" are so deeply attuned to nuance and reading between the lines and not taking anything literally..

    Just like the way they read the Bible.

    What do you folks have against clear, direct, honest, communications that treat the electorate like adults capable of critical thinking?

    Too boring? You prefer fairy tales and campfire ghost stories?

    Parent

    I guess the trick is to take Trump (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 09:55:52 PM EST
    figuratively no matter what he says.

    That way you'll never be disappointed.

    Like when The Donald says he's going to rein in spending.

    That could just mean he sees the Pentagon as American Pharoah and he's the jockey coming into the homestretch.

    Parent

    "Take him figuratively" - heh (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:26:42 AM EST
    That's a funny euphemism for the fact that Republicans are fine with a candidate who consistently lies, as long as they like the lies.  

    Parent
    "The Donald" (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 09:02:47 PM EST
    How cute.  Hearing or seeing that is vomit inducing.

    He is not just some cut-up...

    Do you use that pet name for Trump just to annoy liberals and those on the Left?  

    Parent

    Well, Trump Did wrestle once (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 09:39:58 PM EST
    for two minutes..

    And a lot of people love the guy. Like they love pork rinds and not-breaking for animals.

    Parent

    I think that "The Donald" (none / 0) (#80)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 10:12:42 PM EST
    is a euphemism for a 13 year old boy stuck in a 70 year old body.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:44:55 AM EST
    Actually, since The Donald entered the Republican primary, I called him The Donald. As a candidate for President, I called him The Donald. I see no reason to change now.
    No one complained about me using The Donald during the republican primary, no one complained about it during the presidential campaign, so it appears that only now , as President , it is bothersome.

    I considered him a celebrity candidate, a reality tv show host, and called him The Donald, as it suited him. Never ever expected him to win either the primary, or the election.

    The Donald, It still suits him.

    Parent

    Bizarre (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:42:17 AM EST
    You're twisting yourself into pretzels here. First of all you're saying that the military doesn't get enough money and then you're saying the military wastes the money it does get.

    Mattis is there to take Trump down if need be and watching him to keep from giving away the store to Putin.

    Parent

    Correct!!! (none / 0) (#88)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:46:25 AM EST
    First of all you're saying that the military doesn't get enough money and then you're saying the military wastes the money it does get.

    There is no pretzel there, only 2 separate and distinct statements, both true.

    And both need to be implemented

    Parent

    Your argument (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:47:47 AM EST
    is give them more money to waste.

    Parent
    Do you mean "implemented" (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:15:45 AM EST
    in the figurative sense, or in actuality?

    Parent
    Mattis (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:09:17 AM EST
    Many seem to have a lot of faith in him.   I certainly hope so.  It is a little worrisome we have to pass a statute waiving the seven year rule  for him.

    But if can truly be a check on Trump, and Trump's use of nukes in particular, it could be worth it.

    Parent

    Well, I don't think (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    we have any other volunteers coming forth to do it and we certainly can't rely on the rest of the Trump nominees to do much even if they are not actively handing information over to Russia.

    Parent
    I never thought I'd see the day (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    when I wished some guy named Mad Dog would seize control of the Whitehouse.

    At least Mattis is a student of Marcus Aurelius. I'm clutching at straws here.

    Parent

    you are (none / 0) (#64)
    by linea on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    not being rational. you are saying, "i want a shotgun with THREE barrels and i dont care what it costs or what i need it for."

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#66)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:13:10 PM EST
    I never said that.

    They are trying to prepare for many scenarios,
    1st and foremost is the nuclear, but also probably, hopefully, the least likely.

    And yes, I would prefer our military be superior to that of Russia and China

    Parent

    i dont know (none / 0) (#68)
    by linea on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:26:02 PM EST
    why you imagine russia is anything at all. ive already explained that finland can beat russia in a conventional war. why dont you down-size to the level of finland?

    russia is beligerant because no one will bomb moscow. maybe estonia needs a nuclear deterrant? if russian tanks are parked in tallinn tomorrow, nobody is bombing moscow. america wont bomb moscow and estonia pays all of it's nato dues. just me talking.  

    Parent

    Finland actually lost that war, linea. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 04:12:28 AM EST
    linea: "ive already explained that finland can beat russia in a conventional war."

    But the Finns exacted such an enormous toll on the invading but ill-equipped Russian troops during the "Winter War" (November 1939 - March 1940) that their initial advance into Finland in the late autumn of 1939 was literally stopped in place along the Russo-Finnish frontier.

    One problem the Russians encountered was the fact that Finland is very heavily forested, which compelled the mechanized Soviet forces to keep to the few roads in the region. That rendered their movements easily predictable, and highly mobile Finnish regiments on skis took advantage of that to inflict a few rather devastating defeats on the much larger Russian columns.

    The worst took place at the Battle of Suomussalmi from December 7, 1939 to January 8, 1940. A single Finnish division caught significant elements of the Soviet 9th Army on the road in central Finland during a blinding snowstorm and easily blocked their advance, causing Soviet units to pile up onto one another in a chaotic single line stretching 15 miles in length to the rear.

    Clinging to the road in the bitter cold and unwilling to abandon their tanks and armored vehicles in order to advance into the forest to counter their wily adversaries, the Russian forces were methodically destroyed in piecemeal fashion over the course of four weeks. This was accomplished by only three Finnish infantry regiments, which were otherwise outnumbered by their Soviet adversaries by a 5-to-1 margin.

    The Finns moved silently through the surrounding forests to attack individual Russian units one by one, and the Russians became so unnerved that they stayed in place, unwilling to support one another even when a neighboring unit came under assault. When Russian units broke and tried to flee, they were ruthlessly pursued and slaughtered, sometimes to a man.

    When the battle was over, nearly 30,000 Russian troops had been killed and some 10,000 had been taken prisoner. The Finns took possession of all the tanks of an entire Soviet Armored Brigade, as well as hundreds of field guns and trucks. The Finnish 9th Division lost 350 killed and perhaps 1,000 wounded at Suomussalmi, while the Russian 44th and 163rd Divisions and 8th Armored Brigade had effectively ceased to exist.

    In March 1940, the greatly reinforced Soviet forces resumed the offensive in Finland and after fierce fighting, the Finnish lines gave way and the country was forced to sue for peace. But Finland's spirited resistance and Russian ineptitude during the Winter War had profound implications for Stalin and the Kremlin. Adolf Hitler became convinced that the Red Army would be no match for the German blitzkrieg, and he ordered the Wehrmacht General Staff to commence planning for an invasion of the Soviet Union in the spring of 1941.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I always made sure (none / 0) (#139)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:44:25 AM EST
    To watch the Olympic hockey matches between Finland and Russia.
    They were always quite spirited, with the Finns doing quite well in them  

    Parent
    Lol (none / 0) (#70)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:28:20 PM EST
    You didn't explain it,

    You just stated that, but , unfortunately, that statement didn't convince me

    Parent

    "Superior" always means (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:37:47 PM EST
    another arms race.

    That's a nihilistic, Trumpian proposition.

    I'm sure a lot of Russians and Chinese also see superiority as the ultimate goal.

    Parent

    Never try to con a con (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:57:58 PM EST
    "Hollowed out" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 08:56:45 PM EST
    What an arbitrary timeframe to choose - from 2011 until now.  Or probably not, given that 2011 was the highest defense budget in the last 50+ years.  Of course, in reality, the "hollowed out" military budget is still higher than all but about 4 years (2007-2011) since 1962, and we were involved in two wars during those four years.

    Parent
    5 policies Trump might get right - WaPost Editoria (none / 0) (#56)
    by Green26 on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:19:46 PM EST
    "Mr. Trump and the Republicans are right to emphasize a stronger military defense, after years of budgetary uncertainty exacerbated by the ill-advised sequestration limits. Again, much depends on how they go about boosting military spending and how they propose to pay for it, if at all. Yet the basic principle seems sound, given multiple threats: terrorism, China and, yes, Russia. Mr. Trump's insistence that the government get a better deal from defense contractors -- as from drug manufacturers -- also isn't crazy."

    Jan. 18 editorial of WaPost editorial board.

    Parent

    Pay for it (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:34:20 PM EST
    is the crux and frankly we don't need a Cold War military. It needs to be restructured for the 21st century with less money on expensive equipment and more on things that are more effective with regards to terrorism like intelligence.

    But since we have Trump wanting to give everything to Putin why bother spending any money? Putin will just benefit from whatever we do.

    Parent

    The Post (none / 0) (#57)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:21:54 PM EST
    Is trying to play nice, lol.

    But accurate, The Donald gives areas where some bi partisanship may occur

    Parent

    Pfffft (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:36:39 AM EST
    We are so hollow

    Parent
    El Chapo extradited to U.S. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Michael Masinter on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:09:29 PM EST
    The Washington Post and CNN both report Mexico has extradited El Chapo to the United States.  He'll need a good criminal defense lawyer.

    I thought that was going (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:49:05 PM EST
    To take years to happen.

    Someone cut through a lot of red tape,
    And saved Mexico future embarrassment as he can't escape from them again

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 06:45:42 PM EST
    it's a down payment on the wall.

    Parent
    I read that the timing is no accident. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 10:40:39 PM EST
    Apparently, Mexico did not want Tr*mp to get the credit.

    Parent
    Good for them. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 07:10:35 AM EST
    Now that is a possibility (none / 0) (#55)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    Drug seizure laws,
    we split El Chapo's finances with Mexico, after paying for the wall, of course

    Parent
    How cool would it be if J got the gig... (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:20:08 PM EST
    Republican's health care dilemna. (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 05:29:12 PM EST
    Repeal and replace is intended to be repeal and replace--with nothing.  The remaining issue is how to make nothing appear to be something. And, that is the crux of the Republican dilemna.

    It may seem to be easiest to change the pejorative name bestowed by the Republicans, Obamacare, to Trumpcare.  But, that does not meet the criteria, despite its inevitable description of beautiful or terrific.  

    So what to do?  Promise "insurance for all" with "catastrophic", high premiums, co-pays and deductibles in small print.  Provide income tax credits and hope that those without income, or insufficient income, will not notice.  Keep the popular pre-existing conditions idea by creating "access" through high risk, high cost, high premium pools.   Or, require "continuous coverage," i.e., never let coverage slip, and, of course, hopefully, the original coverage occurred before the pre-existing condition.

    Maintain the coverage of children until 26, if the parents are able to have coverage to include children.  ACA will be a misnomer, too, since access is dependent on ability to field the costs, and, care, will be an afterthought, that can not be afforded.  Maybe, the "Not Affordable, No Care, and Don't Care Act, will do it.

    The Republican (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 06:09:50 PM EST
    plan is called U Pay. I mean just cut to the chase. Even with insurance you are going to foot the bill for everything.

    Medicare is going to be replaced with coupons that allow you to pay for everything yourself too.

    Prescription drug coverage will be a discount card.

    Of course none of the Republicans in DC will be under any of these plans.

    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 11:08:48 PM EST
    and Social Security will be on the block, too.  I think Trump will go with the Heritage Foundation (aka, Paul Ryan). Trump will stick to show biz of making America feel great again with tweets and military parades, just like Russia, China and North Korea.

    Parent
    Song for the day (none / 0) (#97)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    When the Donald is in the White House
    And Russia aligns with FBI
    Then disharmony will guide the planet
    And hate will stain the sky

    This is the dawning of the Age of Dystopia
    Age of Dystopia
    Dystopia! Dystopia!


    Apologies to James Rado & Gerome Ragni (lyrics), and Galt MacDermot (music), the cast of Hair and the 5th Dimension


    So unfair (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:08:00 AM EST
    Get a real job Fifth Dimension. Losers.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 11:17:48 AM EST
    but I don't think I have ever laughed as much at inaugural pictures and the statements coming from supporters as I have today.

    You gotta love evangelicals praising Melania as "classy". I guess they either don't know about all the pictures or they don't know what the meaning of "classy" is.

    Don't the photos (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    show Melania, full chest without clothing, embracing another women similarly unclad?  And the Christian Right thinks this is Classy?

    Interesting turn of events.   I don't object to the photo per se....but how is this the example of Right Wing Family Values?

    Parent

    They're also willing to put classiness (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    aside when they shoot people at Planned Parenthood.

    Parent
    Darkness at Noon (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    is the appropriate metaphor.  

    I was more interested in Obama's leaving via helicopter....Very sad.  What a tragic loss for this country.

    Parent

    And now we get (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    baby Caligula--in my opinion only, only in my opinion--disclaimers to appears and please Mama Bear.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:09:33 PM EST
    they are pretty much lesbian p*rn. That is why I find what they are saying hysterical. It's entirely possible that they don't know since so many of them reside in a news bubble. What a shock it will be for those who find it out later on.

    Parent
    Yes, we have the first First Lady (none / 0) (#132)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:14:59 PM EST
    seen nekkid, by millions, in porn spreads.

    (By the way, I was reminded of this because those photos are showing up a lot on Twitter today.)


    Parent

    "classy" (none / 0) (#120)
    by mm on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:22:25 PM EST
    means not black

    Parent
    That seems (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 02:14:00 PM EST
    to be the case apparently.

    Parent
    Protesters breaking windows of (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    businesses and cars, etc,. in DC.

    Looking for solace in that? (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    The larger point is illustrated I think by the astonishingly small crowd at the Inauguration.

    Confirming that Trump is not the People's President....was not the choice of the People and was elected via the Electoral College structure designed to support the Slave States.

    Parent

    There are also anti-Trump demonstrations (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:45:06 PM EST
    taking place today in 32 countries.

    When has anything like that ever taken place in modern history?

    Parent

    All I know (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    is I've never seen anything like it in my entire life and im' 56

    Parent
    The GOP outsourced their Watergate (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    break-in and burglary, this time in the form of hacking, to the Russians..

    No more E Howard Hunts and Frank Sturgises..

    Let the people who've been in the business of intrigue for centuries take care of it.

    And then let the plausible deniability chips fall where they may.

    Parent

    Oy, I am older (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:58:22 PM EST
    than most everyone else...

    Parent
    Well I was going to go to (none / 0) (#122)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    Il Duce's inauguration but today is the day that I usually brush my cat.

    Parent
    As Jeff Bridges's Dude would say (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    I might've dropped by if I had to use the john.

    Parent
    Reichstag (none / 0) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    fires?

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 03:25:57 PM EST
    Who is the loon (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 03:27:51 PM EST
    on the right who is always trying to scam Planned Parenthood on video?  O'Keefe?

    I heard he got caught trying to bribe people to riot......So, the GOP would have an out, or a distraction, on how dismal the Inauguration is.

    Parent

    I know the little weasel (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 04:03:05 PM EST
    went to a Sanders rally with camera in tow, posing as a rabid, confrontational Clinton supporter..

    He also was caught posing as a building maintenance person in an attempt to plant listening devices in someone's office.

    The Army of God and Free Markets demands much of his acolytes.

    Champion pos Andrew Breitbart actually went to an Occupy encampment and yelled rape! in an attempt to get the cops to wade into the crowd and disperse the demonstraters..

    When they go low that only means you ain't seen nothin' yet.

    Parent

    Another one of O'Keefe's greatest hits (none / 0) (#134)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:29:22 PM EST
    I forgot to mention: according to someone who worked for him, he sent one of his operatives to a BLM meeting and told him to say to the other attendees "I wish I could kill me some cops".

    Probably in the hopes of getting some sort of Cop Killer chant going so he could sell the footage to Breitbart and Fox and also plaster it all over Youtube.

    Parent