Donald Trump Sack Watch

nmv

Do American troops contribute to Iraq's domestic security at the moment? Iraq isn't exactly strong and stable as far as I know. I'm just wondering if kicking the Americans out - if it happens - is going to worsen the security situation in Iraq.

Kicking out the US means Iran takes over completely... they're already the dominant influence.  Of course, kicking the US out... and the US actually leaving...  are two different things.  I bet the "process" will take 20 years lol.

In short, it won't matter what Irak wants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/body-of-commander-slain-by-us-strike-arrives-in-iran-to-crowds-of-mourners/2020/01/05/4ca3281a-2f17-11ea-bffe-020c88b3f120_story.html

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iraq-parliament-expulsion-us-troops-drone-attack

"The majority of about 180 legislators present in Parliament voted in favor of the resolution. It was backed by most Shiite members of parliament, who hold a majority of seats. Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal.

But the Iraqi Parliament vote doesn't mean that the U.S. military has to leave the country immediately. It's a non-binding vote, which is seen as mostly symbolic."

Trump: hey Siri how many miles have I ran today.
Siri: ok. Sending missiles to Iran today.

I'm worried that Biden will shit the bed in debates (not to mention more crap on Ukraine coming out) and Sanders has to bring himself a bit more to the center to get some of those votes (he won't).

So I'm resigned to Trump winning again unless a Michael Bloomberg can somehow find a personality.

Honestly, I'm going to vote for any of Sanders, Bloomberg or Biden. But I live in NYC. The moderates in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, etc. are the ones that will make this election. And the polls look awful for dems there.

This is an electorate college, not a popular vote remember.

sportsczy wrote:I'm worried that Biden will shit the bed in debates (not to mention more crap on Ukraine coming out) and Sanders has to bring himself a bit more to the center to get some of those votes (he won't).

So I'm resigned to Trump winning again unless a Michael Bloomberg can somehow find a personality.

Honestly, I'm going to vote for any of Sanders, Bloomberg or Biden. But I live in NYC. The moderates in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, etc. are the ones that will make this election. And the polls look awful for dems there.

This is an electorate college, not a popular vote remember.

No Warren?

Pedram wrote:

sportsczy wrote:

CBarca wrote:There are maybe 5 americans who like bloomberg

He caught up to Warren as of 2 days ago at 11%
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/476689-bloomberg-rises-to-third-place-alongside-warren-in-national-poll

You're cherry picking a single poll to serve your agenda, literally everyone except the super rich hates Bloomberg's gut.

In case you didn't knew this pollster has a C- rating from Nate Silver's polling aggregate website.

as if there was a possibility sports knew about that

Unique wrote:Trump: hey Siri how many miles have I ran today.
Siri: ok. Sending missiles to Iran today.

I read that one already lol. I would be able to find it funny if I could accept the setup of the joke

But I think it is obvious that Trump literally has not run a single mile in his life. Can you picture Trump running?

Young Kaz wrote:

sportsczy wrote:I'm worried that Biden will shit the bed in debates (not to mention more crap on Ukraine coming out) and Sanders has to bring himself a bit more to the center to get some of those votes (he won't).

So I'm resigned to Trump winning again unless a Michael Bloomberg can somehow find a personality.

Honestly, I'm going to vote for any of Sanders, Bloomberg or Biden. But I live in NYC. The moderates in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, etc. are the ones that will make this election. And the polls look awful for dems there.

This is an electorate college, not a popular vote remember.

No Warren?

If she's the one, I'd just abstain from voting lol. I'm not a fan. She's a different kind of disaster waiting to happen...

sportsczy wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:

sportsczy wrote:I'm worried that Biden will shit the bed in debates (not to mention more crap on Ukraine coming out) and Sanders has to bring himself a bit more to the center to get some of those votes (he won't).

So I'm resigned to Trump winning again unless a Michael Bloomberg can somehow find a personality.

Honestly, I'm going to vote for any of Sanders, Bloomberg or Biden. But I live in NYC. The moderates in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, etc. are the ones that will make this election. And the polls look awful for dems there.

This is an electorate college, not a popular vote remember.

No Warren?

If she's the one, I'd just abstain from voting lol. I'm not a fan. She's a different kind of disaster waiting to happen...

Im curious. What makes her less palatable than Sanders?

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Pedram wrote:

sportsczy wrote:

He caught up to Warren as of 2 days ago at 11%
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/476689-bloomberg-rises-to-third-place-alongside-warren-in-national-poll

You're cherry picking a single poll to serve your agenda, literally everyone except the super rich hates Bloomberg's gut.

In case you didn't knew this pollster has a C- rating from Nate Silver's polling aggregate website.

as if there was a possibility sports knew about that

Polls are useless anyhow... as the last election showed. I was mostly trolling.

He's talking about this site: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

It's the best one for polls... looking at how the polls are all over the place; it just shows you that the error margin is crazy.

The Hill is very reputable in terms of media. Extremely reputable in fact.

Young Kaz wrote:

sportsczy wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:


No Warren?

If she's the one, I'd just abstain from voting lol.  I'm not a fan.  She's a different kind of disaster waiting to happen...

Im curious. What makes her less palatable than Sanders?

i honestly don't agree with either.  I just feel bad for Sanders getting railroaded by Hillary and the dems in 2016.  Since my vote in NYC will mean nothing (dems will win NY), my vote is to protest the dishonesty that occurred in 2016.

As far as how they're different...  here's a good explanation:  

"If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then Warren is the better candidate for you."

“Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable?” Then Sanders is the right fit."

Britain has reduced staff at its embassies in Iran and Iraq to a minimum level amid security concerns after the killing of a top Iranian general in a US airstrike, Sky News understands.

The withdrawal of the diplomats from both countries is a precautionary step rather than based on specific intelligence of a threat, according to diplomatic sources.

The respective ambassadors - Rob Macaire in Tehran and Stephen Hickey in Baghdad - will remain in place.

A spokesperson for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: "The safety and security of our staff is of paramount importance and we keep our security posture under regular review. Both our embassies in Baghdad and Tehran remain open."

sportsczy wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:

sportsczy wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:


No Warren?

If she's the one, I'd just abstain from voting lol.  I'm not a fan.  She's a different kind of disaster waiting to happen...

Im curious. What makes her less palatable than Sanders?

i honestly don't agree with either.  I just feel bad for Sanders getting railroaded by Hillary and the dems in 2016.  Since my vote in NYC will mean nothing (dems will win NY), my vote is to protest the dishonesty that occurred in 2016.

As far as how they're different...  here's a good explanation:  

"If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then Warren is the better candidate for you."

“Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable?” Then Sanders is the right fit."

I would expect you to agree with the 1st rather than the 2nd statement, between those 2. The 2nd is clearly more radical and you're a more moderate person.

Do you work in financial services btw? Warren is hated in those circles, far more than Bernie

I'm involved either as an investor or advisor (mostly both lol) in 3 startups right now.  I like entrepreneurs since I am one myself.

Both are wrong.  Regulation is absolutely necessary (Mr Clinton f-ed up that one); but nowhere near the extent that Warren is suggesting by the federal government.  Politicians have no idea how to regulate so it should be kept to a minimum.

And Sanders is just plain wrong.  He should never ever win.  

In short, I agree that the system is broken.  But neither expanding the reach of a broken system nor blowing it up are the solutions.  To me, I'd let the states run themselves more and compete with each other.  The US is too big and diverse for the federal government to become more involved.  They have no idea what they're doing... the best and the brightest don't become politicians... the narcissists and corrupt do. Let the adults run the show. The kids can play in Washington DC.

sportsczy wrote:I'm involved either as an investor or advisor (mostly a french tax dodger) in 3 startups right now.  I like entrepreneurs since I am one myself.

Both are wrong.  Regulation is absolutely necessary (Mr Clinton f-ed up that one); but nowhere near the extent that Warren is suggesting by the federal government.  Politicians have no idea how to regulate so it should be kept to a minimum.

And Sanders is just plain wrong.  He should never ever win.  

In short, I agree that the system is broken.  But neither expanding the reach of a broken system nor blowing it up are the solutions.  To me, I'd let the states run themselves more and compete with each other.  The US is too big and diverse for the federal government to become more involved.  They have no idea what they're doing... the best and the brightest don't become politicians... the narcissists and corrupt do. Let the adults run the show. The kids can play in Washington DC.

sportsczy wrote:I'm involved either as an investor or advisor (mostly both lol) in 3 startups right now.  I like entrepreneurs since I am one myself.

Both are wrong.  Regulation is absolutely necessary (Mr Clinton f-ed up that one); but nowhere near the extent that Warren is suggesting by the federal government.  Politicians have no idea how to regulate so it should be kept to a minimum.

And Sanders is just plain wrong.  He should never ever win.  

In short, I agree that the system is broken.  But neither expanding the reach of a broken system nor blowing it up are the solutions.  To me, I'd let the states run themselves more and compete with each other.  The US is too big and diverse for the federal government to become more involved.  They have no idea what they're doing... the best and the brightest don't become politicians... the narcissists and corrupt do. Let the adults run the show. The kids can play in Washington DC.

I disagree. National politicians know EXACTLY what they're doing. Many don't get elected to enact policies that improve the lives of you or me. They get elected for 3 reasons IMO:

- To enrich themselves with wealth with campaign donations from wealthy private citizens and corporations.
- To consolidate political power and influence by enacting policy that favors the aformentioned donors.
- To maintain the lifestyle that the above 2 reasons afford them by ensuring their constituents vote the way they want/need them to vote.

Congress is full of elected lobbyists, bought and paid by Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Tech and any other "Big" you'd want to throw in there.

We, as citizens, largely govern ourselves only at the local level and only partially at the state-level. At the national level? It's a lost cause.

I'm not going to pretend that I have the understanding of the financial sector that you have, but I do know history. After the 2008 recession and even going back to previous recessions in the 70s and as well the Stock Market crash of 1929 and Great Depression, each of these have proven that when regulation is lacking, Wall Street have neither the ability nor the will to regulate themselves effectively enough to prevent significant financial distress to the main street. Their greed forced into existence the government's need to regulate them. Their greed forced into existence agencies like the SEC.

Look at the Trump tax cuts. They were marketed and sold (because this is all transactional) as businesses and corporations passing on this good fortune to their employees in the form of higher salaries and wages, resulting in prosperity. What happened instead? These businesses pocketed that money and distributed it to their shareholders, the majority of whom are already stupid wealthy. Their employees saw little to no wage growth as a result of those tax cuts and thus no prosperity. Trump counts this as a campaign promise kept. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so damaging.

Here my final thought on this - If Wall Street and corporations truly could demonstrate an ability to regulate themselves, Warren and Sanders would not be as powerful and as influential as they are today. They'd relegated to merely obscure political agitators instead of full-on, prominent presidential candidates. Their rise is a hell of an indictment on American businesses' ability (more accurately inability) to regulate themselves. I agree with your assertion that neither full-on regulation and full-on deregulation are answer and that it likely runs somewhere in between. However, I do not trust neither our government (controlled by corporations) or the corporations themselves to meet in the middle to the point where it doesn't blow up in the faces of the taxpayers.

Those regulations that were put in place after the 2008 crisis were AWFUL.  Completely idiotic for the most part.  About 30% of them were necessary (they just basically put in place the ones that Pres Clinton had removed) and the rest was a bunch of nonsense.  You need regulation... but the minimum.  Clinton removed that minimum.

Anyhow, the result of this swing to overregulation was that the biggest cost to financial services firms became compliance... a bunch of lawyers.  Financial services firms were basically stuck in the mud and couldn't evolve at all as a result.

Given that the system was now unusable mostly, companies and investors just started bypassing these institutions.  Crowdfunding, cryptocurrency, self-registration to become public, etc.  This is great for a lot of companies...  but it's not great for your average investor.  It has added significant risk to investing, namely because you don't have a big pocket that you can sue and hold accountable.  It's like putting financial statements out there without the opinion of a public accounting firm.  The investors are dealing directly with the raw information.  If something goes wrong, there will be nobody to blame.

SEC is trying to regulate all these new instruments btw.  But as with any federal agency, they're a million years behind.

Corporation are greedy.  Politicians are corrupt.  I'll take greed over corruption any day since greed is more predictable. HOWEVER, again, you need a minimum level of regulation so that the greed doesn't pass a certain level.

They fired on us. its over.

Trump just got a blank check to do whatever he wants.

Young Kaz wrote:They fired on us. its over.

Trump just got a blank check to do whatever he wants.

was any us soldiers killed by the missiles

wow

#بسم_الله_قاصم_الجبارین #بسم_الله_نبدأ #قاسم_سليماني #سننتقم #انتقام_سخت pic.twitter.com/whbi5avuMk

— Mhmd Mahdi Sbaity (@MhmdSb5) January 7, 2020

That's not 10 missiles, I call fake.

well, shit. I have interacted with a fair few Iranians on various forums, etc over the years. I hope they all survive what's to come. Thoughts and prayers. Trump is a fucking mad man, knew something like this was inevitable with him calling the shots.

Unique wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:They fired on us. its over.

Trump just got a blank check to do whatever he wants.

was any us soldiers killed by the missiles

We dont know yet. We know nothing. People are freaking out.