Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Friday April 07 2017, @02:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the things-that-go-fast-and-go-boom dept.

Following reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, President Trump authorized the launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles against a base in Syria. The Russian government was notified prior to the launch as they have resources in the area that was attacked.

According to NBC News:

The United States launched dozens of cruise missiles Thursday night at a Syrian airfield in response to what it believes was Syria's use of banned chemical weapons that killed at least 100 people, U.S. military officials told NBC News.

Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target — Ash Sha'irat in Homs province in western Syria, the officials said. That's the airfield from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired the banned weapons.

There was no immediate word on casualties. U.S. officials told NBC News that people were not targeted and that aircraft and infrastructure at the site were hit, including the runway and gas fuel pumps.

Also at Al Jazeera:

The United States has launched 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Syrian government targets in retaliation for what the Trump administration charges was a Syrian government chemical weapons attack that killed scores of civilians, a US official says.

The targets hit from US ships in the Mediterranean Sea included the air base in the central city of Homs from which the Syrian aircraft staged Tuesday's chemical weapons attack, the US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

[...] He [Trump] called on "civilised nations" to join US in "seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria".

Syrian state TV said "American aggression targets Syrian military targets with a number of missiles".

The poison gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on Tuesday killed at least 86 people, including 27 children, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Turkey said samples from victims of Tuesday's attack indicate they were exposed to sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent.

The New York Times adds:

The Pentagon informed Russian military officials, through its established deconfliction channel, of the strike before the launching of the missiles, the official said, with American officials knowing when they did that that Russian authorities may well have alerted the Assad regime. "With a lot of Tomahawks flying, we didn't want to hit any Russian planes," he said.

[...] It was Mr. Trump's first order to the military for the use of force — other operations in Syria, Yemen and Iraq had been carried out under authorization delegated to his commanders — and appeared intended to send a message to North Korea, Iran and other potential adversaries that the new commander in chief was prepared to act, and sometimes on short notice.

The airstrikes were carried out less than an hour after the president concluded a dinner with Xi Jinping, the president of China, at Mar-a-Lago, sending an unmistakably aggressive signal about Mr. Trump's willingness to use the military power at his disposal.

Mr. Trump authorized the strike with no congressional approval for the use of force, an assertion of presidential authority that contrasts sharply with the protracted deliberations over the use of force by his predecessor, former President Barack Obama.

[...] Mr. Trump moved with remarkable speed, delivering the punishing military strike barely 72 hours after the devastating chemical attack that killed 80 people this week.

Wikipedia notes: Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war .

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by mendax on Friday April 07 2017, @02:48AM (26 children)

    by mendax (2840) on Friday April 07 2017, @02:48AM (#490008)

    This is an example of Donald Trump showing the world that he has a big dick, and that his is bigger than Assad's, and indeed his is bigger that Putin's. Anyone who thinks Trump actually cares for dead Syrian children needs to perform a reality check.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 5, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 07 2017, @02:53AM (16 children)

      Anyone who feels the need to demonize a political opponent to that extreme should seek help.

      --
      "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Friday April 07 2017, @02:59AM (2 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @02:59AM (#490012)

        I'm sure Hillary Clinton is cackling with glee over Trump's murder shot, but pissed she didn't get to push the button herself.

        I don't think it is possible to demonize these two enough.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:07AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:07AM (#490062)

          Yes, I wonder what Steve "Jared Kushner is a Globalist Cuck" Bannon has to say about this action.

        • (Score: 2) by GlennC on Friday April 07 2017, @01:23PM

          by GlennC (3656) on Friday April 07 2017, @01:23PM (#490198)

          I'm sure Hillary Clinton is cackling with glee over Trump's murder shot, but pissed she didn't get to push the button herself.

          I'm sure she's consoling herself with the profit she's going to make, and that part of her glee is because Trump will get the blame instead of her.

          --
          The only gods that have ever been truly worshipped are wealth and power. Others are just cover.
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:09AM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:09AM (#490016)

        Anyone who feels the need to demonize a political opponent to that extreme should seek help.

        Hey buzz, you are looking a little anemic tonight.
        Have you checked your irony levels?

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 07 2017, @03:38AM (7 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @03:38AM (#490036) Journal

          Modded +1 Touche because we do not, as of yet, possess a "+1, Sick Burn" category :D But in all seriousness, no, the man has no sense of irony. That requires the ability to critically self-examine.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:47AM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:47AM (#490045)

            He even rips off his sig, I wonder if he's trolling with it or actually thinks its clever.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 07 2017, @04:04AM (5 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @04:04AM (#490059) Journal

              A little from column A, a little from column B, is my guess. The guy's a complete no-op when it comes to anything outside coding, sad to say.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:22AM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:22AM (#490072)

                > The guy's a complete no-op when it comes to anything outside coding, sad to say.

                Even then I don't think he's all that bright.
                Remember that crusade he went on to 'fix' the moderation system here because 'good' posts were getting downvoted too much?
                He never had any solid proof of his premise but he spent months dicking around with moderation and lots of people gave him attaboys for it.
                But even when it was all said and done he never had any proof that the new version was better than original version in any quantifiable way.
                He was just fucking with it to fuck with it.

                And now I'm beginning to think the moderation system here is holding the site back in exactly the opposite way. I think it elevates empty partisan bickering and does little, if anything, to encourage thoughtful discussion. Just look at the stories that get the most comments, they are all political stories and half the comments are the same old shit about horrible SJWs. Lather, rinse, repeat. Giving everybody 5 mod points every single day encourages people to use them on bullshit posts. And when someone does mod down a bullshit post, there is always at least one butthurt fool who thought the post was an expression of their own personal angst who feels it ought to to be modded back.

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 07 2017, @04:27AM (1 child)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @04:27AM (#490074) Journal

                  All true, but the code itself works. If the idea behind it is bad, well, it's at least competently coded I guess \(O_o)/ I dunno. Makes it easier to make changes later maybe?

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:38AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:38AM (#490079)

                    > All true, but the code itself works.

                    And yet meta-moderation was too hard to get working.

                • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday April 07 2017, @02:50PM (1 child)

                  by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday April 07 2017, @02:50PM (#490250)

                  Maybe, but I do have to say that for whatever faults this site's moderation system may have, it's still light-years better than Slashdot's. Discussion there has devolved to nothing more than nasty bickering and flame-wars over inconsequential bullshit. At least here I don't see so much of that, and I do see a much higher ratio of thoughtful posts than over there. Some of that may be due to size (the population here is much smaller) and selectivity (basically all the decent people left Slashdot or curtailed their usage of it in favor of sites like this, leaving the scum at Slashdot).

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:08PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:08PM (#490314)

                    Moderation has nothing to do with that.
                    Its a function of the number of participants.
                    Soylent is just a microcosm of what you complain about happening at slashdot.
                    There are just less people here and there is only so much any one person can write in a day.

      • (Score: 2) by mendax on Friday April 07 2017, @03:47AM (2 children)

        by mendax (2840) on Friday April 07 2017, @03:47AM (#490046)

        This wasn't a demonization; it was a psychological analysis of a political opponent. Trump has long given me the sense that he feels inadequate. In this case he decided to use penis-shaped objects--59 of them to be precise--to compensate.

        --
        It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @01:18PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @01:18PM (#490194)

          Sometimes a missile is just a missile.

          • (Score: 2) by n1 on Friday April 07 2017, @04:23PM

            by n1 (993) on Friday April 07 2017, @04:23PM (#490324) Journal

            As footage of missiles being fired plays on loop across the country on all the networks....

            "They are beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments" - Brian Williams

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:50AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:50AM (#490050)

        Such a wimpy reply, everyone tells me this vulture person is just a troll. Sad.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:58AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:58AM (#490011)

      Fun fact: nobody cares about dead Syrians, or this would have been over long ago.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:36AM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:36AM (#490034)

        But they are absolutely shitting-bricks terrified of live syrians coming to live with us.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:45AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:45AM (#490042)
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:51AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:51AM (#490052)

            J.K Rowling is my favorite author and will most assuredly take in refugees, at least to her main mansion estate. If she housed 2 refugees in each of her 18 spare bedrooms that would be 36 very well treated wayward souls.

            Please do this J.K! Show these alt-right nazi's that refugees don't steal or rape, they are misunderstood, and sometimes get confused of western culture. Please save them!!

            Paul Whaley, Greybull, WY

            Real or satire? Who knows anymore.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:26AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:26AM (#490106)

              J.K Rowling has been politically active in favor of refugees, but she doesn't suffer the impact because she is isolated by her wealth. She's effectively saying "refugees for you, in your neighborhood, not anywhere near me". This is typical of wealthy liberals who have become detached from normal people's reality.

              So it's a real request, but knowing that she will certainly refuse. The bit about refugees being harmless is of course known to be false.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:03AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:03AM (#490123)

                I meant the comment I quoted in support of the petition. Could be real, could be satire.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:03PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:03PM (#490491)

                J.K Rowling has been politically active in favor of refugees, but she doesn't suffer the impact because she is isolated by her wealth. She's effectively saying "refugees for you, in your neighborhood, not anywhere near me". This is typical of wealthy liberals who have become detached from normal people's reality.

                While I do have a job that pays above median income, I don't consider myself at all wealthy. And, for a time, I was registered as Republican, although I left the party back when I moved to another state several years ago. (Actually, it's more like the party left me.) I would say that I am not all that detached from "normal people's reality". I can't speak for Rowling but I welcome refugees to move into my neighbourhood. In fact, several years back I was a volunteer for a charitable organization that was helping to acclimate recently arrived refugees to American life. I spent a lot of time with a recently arrived Iraqi family; got to know some of their other expat Iraqi friends. I am hoping to do the something similar again soon.

                The bit about refugees being harmless is of course known to be false.

                Says who? At least in America, refugee communities have below-average crime rates. In fact, my experience has been that it is more likely that the refugees are far more terrified of your typical American than the Americans are of them. Typically, they are afraid of not being able to communicate with the local population and not understanding the local culture and customs. My experience has been that refugees are extremely appreciative when an American takes the time to befriend them and teach them about the culture and language. Maybe you should try and be more friendly. Just sayin'.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Friday April 07 2017, @01:29PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @01:29PM (#490203)

      This is an example of Donald Trump showing the world that he has a big dick

      Um, the tiny handed one needs to understand that Clinton's is bigger.

      And her husband's is even bigger than that.

      --
      ALL LIABILITY IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH THAT RESULTS FROM READING THE SOURCE CODE.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:56AM (57 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:56AM (#490010)

    Of course he responded rapidly, Assad gave him exactly what he needed - a distraction from failing at every single domestic policy initiative he's tried so far. He gets to act like a tough guy and all of his worshippers will cheer. FYI, old men who had military training (like military boarding school) but who never saw actual combat are the most likely type to get a country involved in military adventurism because they've only ever experienced the propaganda of war, not the actual consequences,.

    BTW, all you people who thought Clinton was the war-monger and Trump wasn't, he just did exactly what Clinton said to do: [thehill.com]

    "That air force is the cause of most of the civilian deaths, as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days," Clinton said at the Women of the World Summit in New York.

    "I really believe that we should have — and still should — take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:01AM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:01AM (#490013)

      "Yes, we prefer Clinton at war than the Donald at war".

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:18AM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:18AM (#490019)

        "Yes, we prefer Clinton at war than the Donald at war".

        Yes we do.
        Don the Con is purely reactive, the guy is so ADHD that he doesn't even know the meaning of the word strategic.
        Clinton is a planner. If we are going to get in a real fight, not just a twitter beef, I'd much rather have her running it because she knows how to think ahead and most importantly, consider the consequences. Nobody can seriously argue that Don has even the faintest grasp of consequences. Thus far in life he's been insulated from consequences by a big fat pile of money.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:33AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:33AM (#490030)

          >Clinton
          >plan

          She failed to plan against a buffoon, despite all the connections, despite all the donations, despite all the favors, yet you are telling me that was her strength?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:04AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:04AM (#490060)

            (other AC) The opposition party typically gets the win after 2 terms of the party in power. No mystery there.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:10AM (#490064)

              Furthermore, winning a campaign doesn't mean you did everything right nor does losing a campaign mean you did everything wrong.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @04:29AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @04:29AM (#490694)

                Clinton ran one of the most incompetent campaigns in recent history, and her whole attitude seemed to be "I'm going to win anyway so why even try?".

                Trump didn't deserve to win, but Clinton deserved every bit of her loss.

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday April 07 2017, @11:23AM

          by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @11:23AM (#490158) Homepage Journal

          Planning?
          "At this point, what does it matter???"

          I wiped my planning... "You mean, like, with a cloth?"

          Hillary plans her poops in the morning, maybe, but wtf else?

          --
          --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 07 2017, @12:15PM (2 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @12:15PM (#490169) Journal

          Clinton is a planner.

          Neither Clinton is a planner. They're opportunists only. To be a planner you would have to have some sense of what it takes to do something, and to organize action accordingly. Bill and Hillary are lawyers and politicians and influence peddlers and have never been anything else and don't know how to do anything else. They have no clue what it takes to do the simplest tasks. True story: Bill has a posh crash pad in a penthouse on the roof of the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas. He stays there when in town. One time he wanted to hang an award somebody gave him on the wall, and had to call maintenance at 10pm to drop everything with their families at home to come over and hammer a nail into the wall.

          The dude had to call a specialist to hammer in a nail.

          I'll let that sink in.

          Such a person is in no way a planner.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:43PM (#490241)

            The dude had to call a specialist to hammer in a nail.

            I'll let that sink in.

            Such a person is in no way a planner.

            What you fail to mention is that the maintenance staff at the clinton library is unionized.
            If he had hammered that nail himself it would have been a union violation.
            Sure, he could have done it and crossed his fingers that no one noticed.
            But if it got out that clinton himself was not honoring the contract with labor that would have been a huge scandal.
            So he followed proper procedure and because he is clinton they hopped to it and took care of it post haste instead of waiting until the next day.

            So yeah, unlike you and your petty invective, he absolutely did think through the repercussions of his choices.
            Not that what Bill Clinton did has anything to do with what Hillary would do in office. But again, petty invective.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:38AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:38AM (#490666) Journal

            Let me add that a "planner" has to actually have some goals. No goal, no plan. If any of our politicians have any real goals, they manage to keep those goals very secret. There are no long range goals, other than accumulating and holding power and wealth. All of our modern technology, for instance, takes politicos by surprise. All the stupid shit over "online bullying" is simple reaction to unforeseen consequences of that technology. No one had a plan, no one had a goal to make the internet "safe". Cyber security, ditto - everything we do in regards to security is reactionary nonsense, after some OTHER actor discovered how to use technology to their own advantage.

            There are few if any plans in Washington, aside from acquiring personal wealth.

            --
            Keep all chemicals out of the reach of meth heads.
      • (Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Friday April 07 2017, @12:49PM

        by SpockLogic (2762) on Friday April 07 2017, @12:49PM (#490184)

        Oh Snap!

        As soon as I saw the announcement of the strike I turned to my wife and said "Time to watch Wag The Dog again".

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/ [imdb.com]

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday April 07 2017, @03:03AM (37 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @03:03AM (#490014)

      With Clinton, there was a 100% chance she'd be war criminal.

      With Trump, there was a remote chance he would choose not to be.

      In any event, both are despicable but we should never forget, the reason we have Trump is because the DNC coronated Hillary rather than run an honest contest. So of any entity, the DNC deserves the most scorn.

      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:14AM (36 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:14AM (#490017)

        With Clinton, there was a 100% chance she'd be war criminal.

        With Trump, there was a remote chance he would choose not to be.

        Oh puhleeze, "100% chance" my ass.
        That's nothing more than you claiming your fantasies as fact.
        Grow up.

        In any event, both are despicable but we should never forget, the reason we have Trump is because the DNC coronated Hillary rather than run an honest contest.

        Blaming the democrats for trump is bullshit.
        People voted for trump because either they were rich republicans or they were racist. [theintercept.com]
        The only way the DNC fixes that is either become more racist themselves or cater even more to the rich.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:21AM (29 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:21AM (#490020)

          Blaming the democrats for trump is bullshit.

          Yes, why blame the democrats for putting forth a terrible candidate that managed to lose to someone as bad as Trump? Even though he won because of the electoral college, those were the rules and everyone knew it.

          People voted for trump because either they were rich republicans or they were racist.

          Wow, that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It's so very simplistic and it Others your opponents, so it makes rabid partisans feel good to believe it.

          The only way the DNC fixes that is either become more racist themselves or cater even more to the rich.

          They can fix it by being less corporatist and pushing for more policies that actually help the people, such as single payer, free college, and no unnecessary wars. Some democrats support those things, but not nearly enough; at least that number seems to be growing, for now. Make the distinction between the two parties so great that everyone can see it.

          It's not enough to simply be better than the Republicans.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:34AM (23 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:34AM (#490031)

            Wow, that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It's so very simplistic and it Others your opponents, so it makes rabid partisans feel good to believe it.

            What a simplistic dismissal of all the research, not to mention what was plain to see by anyone who bothered to pay attention.
            Trump's entire campaign was about racism.
            Mexicans are rapists.
            Black people live in inner city wastelands.
            Muslims are terrorists.
            Even retweeting white genocide shit.

            Quit trying to be politically correct by denying the truth. Trump voters who weren't overtly racist were still a-ok with levels of racism unlike any serious presidential candidate has campaigned on more than half a century. As long as the democrats weren't willing to co-opt some of that racism for themselves, it didn't matter who their candidate was.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:42AM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:42AM (#490040)

              Looks like you're the racist with a simplistic view, projecting it into everyone you disagree with.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:59AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:59AM (#490057)

                > Looks like you're the racist with a simplistic view, projecting it into everyone you disagree with.

                Ah, the old he who smelt it delt it defense.
                The Real Racists™ are the ones who point out racism!

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:23AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:23AM (#490073)

                  Exactly, there was no racism to begin with, only racists make them up.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:41AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:41AM (#490081)

                    > Exactly, there was no racism to begin with, only racists make them up.

                    I honestly can not tell if you are Poe'ning me.
                    But if you aren't, you need to read the intercept article linked back up near the top of the thread.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:13AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:13AM (#490125)

                #TCM Dude!

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:11AM (11 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:11AM (#490066)

              Tens of millions of people voted for Trump. Are you really going to say that there are literally only two reasons to vote for Trump, that you're rich or that you're racist? What if many people mistakenly believed that Trump would bring jobs back? What if many people mistakenly believed that he would be anti-interventionist? I can at least understand those concerns, even though I disagree that voting for Trump would accomplish their goals. I don't know how you can so easily generalize the motivations of tens of millions of people; it's baffling.

              And keep in mind that countless voters vote for 'the lesser evil', so a sizable portion of Trump's voters probably don't even like him.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:29AM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:29AM (#490075)

                > Are you really going to say that there are literally only two reasons to vote for Trump, that you're rich or that you're racist?

                Racism was the number one focus of his campaign. Literally his opening statement when he announced his candidacy.
                Not to mention his most popular chant, "Build the wall!"

                You know what kind of person sees all that and decides it does not disqualify him?
                A racist.

                • (Score: 4, Insightful) by rondon on Friday April 07 2017, @01:25PM (3 children)

                  by rondon (5167) on Friday April 07 2017, @01:25PM (#490200)

                  Completely ignore Miss "Superpredator" because it is convenient. Both parties ran a racist candidate, even if one was more racist than the other.

                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:48PM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:48PM (#490245)

                    Completely ignore Miss "Superpredator" because it is convenient. Both parties ran a racist candidate, even if one was more racist than the other.

                    Completely ignore that one candidate was ashamed of what she said 20 years ago and apologized for it [time.com] while the other reveled in what he was saying on a daily basis.

                    You know who wasn't fooled by your idiotic false equivalence?
                    Actual minorities: Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades [reuters.com]

                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Friday April 07 2017, @10:45PM

                      by Pav (114) on Friday April 07 2017, @10:45PM (#490577)

                      ...and Clinton lost because she had a low voter turnout among ALL demographics. Seriously, Clinton previously lost to a black guy with an islamic name. Racism Did Not Decide This Election.

                    • (Score: 2) by rondon on Monday April 10 2017, @04:50PM

                      by rondon (5167) on Monday April 10 2017, @04:50PM (#491725)

                      Let me try again - both parties ran racist candidates, one was just much more openly, honestly, and hysterically racist than the other. That doesn't make either of them not racist.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @04:39AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @04:39AM (#490696)

                  People supported building the wall because they are fed up the illegal immigrants. And they don't like illegal immigrants because they are illegal immigrants aka criminals that are breaking the law, not because they are racist. People supported Trump and building a wall because finally there was a candidate out there that showed they acknowledged and the problem and would do something about it. Heck, a lot of them didn't even believe that Trump would actually literally build a wall, they just took the talk as Trump saying he was serious about doing something about it.

                  And besides, last time I checked Mexican was a nationality, not a race you stupid racist fuck.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:27AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:27AM (#490131)

                Tens of millions of people voted for Trump.

                More people voted against Hillary than for Trump.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @12:23PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @12:23PM (#490174)

                yes, there was a third option: being an idiot.

              • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 07 2017, @05:01PM (2 children)

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday April 07 2017, @05:01PM (#490349) Journal

                Tens of millions of people voted for Trump. Are you really going to say that there are literally only two reasons to vote for Trump

                You're right. A few of them probably voted for him because he repeatedly promised not to bomb Syria:

                "AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!"

                My Favorite: "Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."

                "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."

                "Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III."

                -- Donald Trump

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:32PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:32PM (#490472)

                  My Favorite: "Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."

                  Last week his gallup approval ratings hit the lowest mark yet - 35% - which is lower than Obama ever got through his entire time in office.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:35PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:35PM (#490508)

                  My Favorite: "Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."

                  How is that your favorite, when there is this [twitter.com]:

                  Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?

                  It won [nytimes.com] the Daily Show Third Month Mania :D

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday April 07 2017, @02:05PM (5 children)

              by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @02:05PM (#490227) Homepage Journal

              As I commented just after the election [soylentnews.org], this was a fairly typical election in terms of results.

              The real differences were that:
              1. Older, blue collar Americans who had previously voted Democratic felt ignored by the Democratic party and voted for Trump in the mistaken belief that he was on their side;
              2. African-Americans voted in smaller numbers than in 2008 and 2012.

              The difference in the election was ~70,000 votes out of ~130,000,000 total votes cast (0.05%) to swing the electoral college.

              It was never about "draining the swamp." Both houses of Congress had incumbent re-election rates of > 90% This was a pretty normal election cycle in terms of voting patterns and polling. Just about all the polls (within the margins of error) turned out to match the election results.

              The issues are complex and the electorate is diverse, but in the end in came down to partisan politics for the vast majority.

              We could be better than this, but I'm not holding my breath.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:56PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:56PM (#490255)

                Why are you and so many others so determined to turn away from the actual research?
                Its like you don't want to admit that america is full of racism.
                I can understand politicians not wanting to call a turd a turd because they need votes from some of those turds who have decided that the r-word is an insult to whites equivalent to the n-word for blacks. But fuck that stupid political correctness. The r-word is actually a description of thought and behavior. The people who take it as an insult are fragile little snowflakes who can't stand to look in the mirror.

                The #1 predictor of whether or not an obama voter switched to voting for trump was not economics, it was racial insecurity.

                Perceiving growing racial diversity as a threat strongly predicts Obama to Trump vote switchers, and more positive attitudes towards diversity predict the probability that a Romney 2012 voter would defect from the Republican nominee in 2016.
                        — Fear of Diversity Made People More Likely to Vote Trump [thenation.com]

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday April 07 2017, @03:20PM (2 children)

                  by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @03:20PM (#490275) Homepage Journal

                  Why are you and so many others so determined to turn away from the actual research?
                  Its like you don't want to admit that america is full of racism.

                  There's plenty of prejudice in the US, including racism, sexism and religious intolerance. Please show me where I said otherwise?

                  The numbers are the numbers. Blacks didn't vote for Clinton in the numbers that they voted for Obama. Older, white, blue-collar men voted for Obama and then for Trump. That smacks more of sexism than racism, friend.

                  Regardless, the election results clearly show that the 2016 elections were pretty typical R vs. D affairs. There's no doubt that the manufactured divisions between Rs and Ds (we have much more in common than we have differences) have complex admixtures of motives and "reasoning." Some of that is undoubtedly related to prejudice. But as the numbers show, the 2016 election cycle was pretty typical of the last four or five presidential election cycles.

                  Please show me where any of the above is incorrect.

                  I'll also note that since many of those who voted for Trump to give him his electoral college victory apparently voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. That gives the lie to your statement, don't you think? You know, since Obama is African-American and Hillary Clinton is lily white.

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:59PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:59PM (#490303)

                    ? Older, white, blue-collar men voted for Obama and then for Trump. That smacks more of sexism than racism, friend.

                    The #1 predictor of switching from Obama to trump was racism.
                    The #1 predictor of switching from Romney to Clinton was anti-racism.
                    Friend.

                    the election results clearly show that the 2016 elections were pretty typical R vs. D affairs.

                    This is to ignore the fact that since LBJ the parties have gradually self-sorted into the party of racists and the party of anti-racists. Trump just finished what the dixiecrats started.
                    In other words, what a "typical R vs D affair" actually represented in terms of beliefs is very different today than it was even in 2000. Hell, in 2000 more muslims voted republican than voted democrat. Now it isn't even close.

                    I'll also note that since many of those who voted for Trump to give him his electoral college victory apparently voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. That gives the lie to your statement, don't you think? You know, since Obama is African-American and Hillary Clinton is lily white.

                    No, I don't think. And if you had bothered to read the linked article it explained that your simplistic binary understanding of how racism actually works in life is wrong you'd understand why your claim is just reductive foolishness.

                    • (Score: 2) by Pav on Friday April 07 2017, @11:08PM

                      by Pav (114) on Friday April 07 2017, @11:08PM (#490593)

                      I'm an Australian, but I was interested in the election, and somehow got pulled into the racist angle and watched a lot of US black media online. BOTH the black electorate and the white working class didn't show up for Clinton, and it could be argued BECAUSE Clinton failed to commit to strong policy on race (or any policy for that matter).

                      It seems the black electorate weren't inspired by Clinton and figured she would just put a nicer face on the racism, and some were actually happier with Trump just leaving it out in the open. The more educated were more likely to vote for Clinton, but had no illusions about her racial credentials. The Clintons had presided over the legislation responsible for the vast increase in the "prison industrial complex", and other legislation which disadvantaged African Americans in a practical sense. There was also a sense of betrayal because Obama didn't roll back these measures. Apparently Clinton didn't even have any black staffers (before Donna Brazile, and she was definitely problematic)... with Trump at least having some.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:02PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:02PM (#490524)

                  I can understand politicians not wanting to call a turd a turd because they need votes from some of those turds who have decided that the r-word is an insult to whites equivalent to the n-word for blacks. But fuck that stupid political correctness. The r-word is actually a description of thought and behavior. The people who take it as an insult are fragile little snowflakes who can't stand to look in the mirror.

                  Given that the word "Racist" covers everything from cowardly cross-burnings and lynchings at midnight to insufficiently checking one's privilege, it's no wonder that people take it as an insult. There's no way to tell what point on the scale is being talked about. Even the KKK has trouble identifying itself with the term. [cnn.com]

                  Calling someone racist derails the conversation the same way the question "when did you stop beating your wife?" does. Neither affirmation nor denial is useful as a rebuttal. It demonizes the accused to the point of social isolation. It puts the accused one step up the social ladder from pedophiles. There is no reason to expect this to change in the near future. Not wanting to take any part in such a conversation does not make someone a fragile snowflake.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 07 2017, @03:41AM (1 child)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @03:41AM (#490039) Journal

            The Democratic Party has almost half a century of this corporatist horseshit backed up in it. As I've said many times before, they sold their soul after McGovern lost in '72, and since then, *no one* has been on the side of the poor. The GOP makes some shallow, cynical attempts to pretend it resonates with their values, while the Dems don't even bother with that demographic.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:39AM (#490080)

            People voted for trump because either they were rich republicans or they were racist.

            Wow, that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It's so very simplistic and it Others your opponents, so it makes rabid partisans feel good to believe it.

            Hip hip! Truely, people voted for Trump because they were both rich Republicans and racist. It is only the margins of poor, stupid, racist, hillbilly whites that put him over the Electoral Collage vote. And yes, Rich Rabid Republicans are Others to everyone else. It is almost as if they were lizard people. . . . Just saying.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 07 2017, @05:43PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday April 07 2017, @05:43PM (#490378) Journal

            Effects can have more than one cause.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:55PM (#490550)

            They can fix it by being less corporatist and pushing for more policies that actually help the people, such as single payer, free college, and no unnecessary wars.

            I seem to recall when Obama's ACA was being rammed through Congress that single payer was briefly considered then quickly rejected as "socialized medicine". In this very forum I once suggested that college should be free because it was a public good to have an educated populace; I had some asshat respond that I was a moron who had a bleeding heart for little kiddies who lived all their lives getting "participation awards". And every political campaign I can recall people have turned a rather jaundiced eye toward anyone who did not enthusiastically beat the war hawk drum; people just don't seem to like their politicians to be peaceniks. I don't know what parallel Universe you are posting from but it sure ain't mine.

            As for those who voted for Trump, I can't really say if they all are racist but they sure did know what they were voting for. Trump made no bones at all about where he stood, and it wasn't at all pretty or nice. Those who say otherwise are living in denial.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:25AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:25AM (#490130)

          How about all those who believe that the US has a two party system, and voting third-party is throwing your vote away?

          There were a lot of people who didn't vote for a candidate, but against one. A log of people voted against Hillary (and a lot of people voted against Trump, but not enough to make a difference).

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday April 07 2017, @11:26AM

          by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @11:26AM (#490159) Homepage Journal

          A lot of people voted against Hillary because she scared da fuck!

          If they'd run Sanders, I'm guessing he would have won. They shoulda dropped the pig.

          --
          --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 07 2017, @12:40PM (2 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @12:40PM (#490180) Journal

          Oh puhleeze, "100% chance" my ass.
          That's nothing more than you claiming your fantasies as fact.
          Grow up.

          Hillary voted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. She voted for the PATRIOT Act. She voted for every military intervention and overreaching government infringement of our liberties when a Senator, and supported the same while Secretary of State. So voters had actual data points to use in evaluating whether or not Hillary was going to be a warmonger. (That's even if you discount her aggressive campaign rhetoric, which you could be forgiven for discounting because she's a pathological liar who can't even admit to having a cold.) None of those data points indicated she was a champion of negotiation or peaceful resolution, so 100% is pretty close to true by rhetorical standards.

          Blaming the democrats for trump is bullshit.
          People voted for trump because either they were rich republicans or they were racist.
          The only way the DNC fixes that is either become more racist themselves or cater even more to the rich.

          Hemocyanin was blaming the DNC, not the rank-and-file. The DNC is certainly to blame for rigging the primary contest wildly for Hillary. They rigged it from the state party committees to the consultants every campaign relies on to run get-out-the-vote efforts to campaign materials to buying air time on local TV affiliates. That Bernie even came close to winning the nomination is a testament to the one-sided support he had among the rank-and-file vs. the rigged game of the Democratic party machinery. I would parenthetically add that if you believe the party machinery is not so rigged then you really ought to volunteer for a real campaign some time and go see it for yourself.

          Rich Republicans in fact wanted anybody but Trump, because his populist, anti-globalist rhetoric rattled them. They gave massive piles of money to Jeb Bush, and anyone else they could to try to stop Trump. Racists did want Trump, but the kind of racists you're thinking of are a small, single-digit percentage of the Republican base. Soft racists (the kind that would tell a black joke) might elevate that number over 10%, but they don't have enough traction even in the Republican party to command a primary by themselves. To win, Trump had to attract the Tea Party faction, which he did, with his populist themes.

          I, as a progressive, voted for Trump because he promised to shut down the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an existential threat to the American middle class. Hillary had promised in her campaign to shut it down, too, but had previously strongly supported it for many years, had negotiated it while Secretary of State; she's also a proven pathological liar so I surmised it would take her all of 15 seconds to reverse her campaign rhetoric on that subject after winning the Whitehouse. We will never know 100% for sure if that surmise was correct, but Trump instantly killed the TPP upon taking office so my gamble there paid off. For everything else Trump is, on that he was sincere and effective and it's in fact the only time in my life that a politician has ever actually done what he promised to do while campaigning. So that's great.

          In short, you're are pushing a rhetorical line here that is absurdly reductionist. The world is not so two dimensional and cartoonish as you make it out to be. Whether that is because you're intellectually lazy or naive or simply malicious is between you and your god.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:44PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:44PM (#490296)

            She voted for every military intervention and overreaching government infringement of our liberties when a Senator,

            Nice way to gloss over the details.
            There was exactly one military intervention to vote on while she was in the senate.

            Rich Republicans in fact wanted anybody but Trump, because his populist, anti-globalist rhetoric rattled them.

            You are being deceptive again. Rich republicans may have preferred others in the primaries. But they were happy to vote for trump in general. And they got exactly what they wanted when he loaded up their gold mansacks. The stock market's trump rally wasn't because the rich thought they were about to get their comeuppance.

            To win, Trump had to attract the Tea Party faction, which he did, with his populist themes.

            Dude, the tea party was all about racism. 68% of teagoppers think anti-white bias is at least as big a problem as anti-black bias. [mintpressnews.com] There are many kinds of populism and tea party populism is clearly the racist kind.

            The world is not so two dimensional and cartoonish as you make it out to be.

            Oh please, spare me the "I'm a deeper thinker than you are" bullshit.
            Yes, plenty of people just vote on party because of mental inertia.
            But people who chose to vote for trump, rather than abstain, chose to do so because they were OK with his unapologetic racism.

            Ignoring the fact that racial security for members of the dominate racial group is more important than economic security is how we will continue to lose as long as whites are still a majority of the population. If you listen to trump voters [motherjones.com] they aren't so worried about their own economic insecurity as they are the chance that "undeserving" people are getting government help with their economic insecurity. They are all about lazy blacks on welfare and mexicans with anchor babies on welfare.

            As long as trump or some other demagogue is willing to exploit that racial anxiety and animus, no amount of giving them more economic security will change their minds that undeserving brown people are getting free stuff. In europe, a larger welfare state actually corresponds to increased far-right activity. [vox.com] In the US, 60% of the white working class think that discrimination against whites is the biggest problem with race relations despite there being no evidence in outcomes to support their feelings of persecution. [mintpressnews.com] Those are trump voters.

            • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:32AM

              by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:32AM (#490664)

              She voted for Iraq. Before voting for Iraq, she almost gave herself an orgasm talking about the former Yugoslavia (remember, that place she helicoptered into under sniper fire (proven lie)). She was instrumental in Libya. She was in the chain of command for drone strikes. She lobbied hard and long to attack Syria.

              You can try to revise history, but a lot of it is on video (including my comment about her creaming her pants over Yugoslavia while cheerleading for the Iraq war):

              synopsis:

              TITLE: Hillary Clinton talks about her vote to go to war, Saddam, and WMDs
              POSTER: Kirsten Michel
              LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g [youtube.com]
              TIMELINE:

              1:40 HRC enters room.
              Code pink intro: war in Iraq will harm American and Iraqi families and cost a lot.

              6:30 HRC parrots the WMD arguments, blames the danger to Iraqis on Hussein, ignores harm to Americans, financial costs, and the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the US nor involved in 9/11.

              8:52 HRC lies about careful review of WMD info [remember that HRC never even read the National Intelligence Estimate which while suggesting WMDs existed, also contained significant disagreements with that conclusion that a reader not interested in a particular outcome would have agreed called the whole thing into question].

              10:00 Audience member: not up to the US to disarm Hussein, up to the world community, Iraq has no connection to terrorism, not only are Iraqi people in danger, so are US people, and will harm the economy. It's reckless.

              11:14 HRC: The world community would not take on difficult problems without US forcing the issue. Goes on and on about Bosnia – clearly she is pining for another chance to bomb stuff. Segues into how GWB tax cuts are a bad idea.

              13:29 [regarding the tax cuts] "Here at home, this administration is bankrupting our economy forcing us to make the worst kinds of false choices between national and homeland security, which they don't fund ..." [In other words, HRC would have preferred GWB raise taxes for more war and domestic surveillance – consider what we've learned about the NSA in the ensuing years thanks to Snowden.]

              14:12 HRC is given a pink slip

              14:20 HRC goes off: "I am the Senator from NY I will never put my people at risk ..." [Yeah, like Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.]

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:48AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:48AM (#490671) Journal

          Unfortunately for you, Hillary harped on invading Syria for years before the election. Hillary ranted agains Assad, again and again. Had Hillary been elected, she would already have been in Syria. Worse, Hillary would be in direct confrontation with the Russians, insisting on punishing them, and maybe even instigating a war with Russia.

          Hillary is an out-and-out warmonger.

          --
          Keep all chemicals out of the reach of meth heads.
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Friday April 07 2017, @04:35AM (5 children)

      by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Friday April 07 2017, @04:35AM (#490077)

      Assad gave him exactly what he needed..

      Please tell us you don't actually believe something so retarded. Russia (the ones holding Assad's leash) assured the world they had handled the chemical weapon problem and taken them all out of the country. Do you really think that now, when Assad was virtually assured of winning and staying on his throne, he would embarrass Putin by some pointless exercise? Remember, he can roll all the barrel bombs he wants, which are about as nasty, and at most a few harsh words are said on Western TV. Magic 8-ball sez ISIS did this one and the usual suspects are willfully ignoring it because they see so much opportunity in this. The only question is whether Trump is doing the minimal needed to defuse this or has fallen hook line and sinker for such an obvious trap.

      a distraction from failing at every single domestic policy initiative

      Go on thinking that. The SCOTUS problem will be solved tomorrow, which will allow dropping the hammer on the lower courts defying his immigration orders. The repeal of OCare is going about as fast as I expected; again, you didn't really think any Conservative had any intention of reversing an entitlement, right? They are going to have to be beaten into submission first, a project that is going nicely. Tax reform is the same, Trump wants far more than the usual cut a few rates, eliminate a few deductions to balance it and call it good. Getting the Rs to sack up and do something meaningful is going to take some work.

      Meanwhile Obama's regulatory legacy is being quickly rolled back and bids are coming in for the Wall. The Deep State fears their treason being revealed. The economy is starting to believe prosperity is possible and attitude often drives the economy. Yellen has other plans of course so there is still danger.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:14AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:14AM (#490111)

        When most people write a post its to convince the readers of ideas the writer believes.

        But when j-mo posts its usually in response to something that challenges the legitimacy of the alternate reality that's been constructed for him by the alternative press.
        You can tell the only person he's trying to convince is himself. The act of typing it out makes it seem more true in his own head.
        Is it possible to brainwash yourself? J-mo is proof it can be done!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:43AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:43AM (#490148)

          You strawman too much?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @01:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @01:30PM (#490204)

            We have a lot of straw men around here, but I don't think that's one of them.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:36PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:36PM (#490368)

            If you're not sure its a straw man maybe you shouldn't be name-calling! Maybe he's just a really skinny dude?

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:52AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:52AM (#490672) Journal

        I've spent hours reviewing what is known, what is claimed, what is not known. I'm becoming convinced that this is a false flag operation. Remember when the "rebels" fucked up, and released biochemical agents in Aleppo? Same thing here, I think. Except, Saudi Arabia actually provided the Sarin to these "rebels" this time around. Rather than an accidental release, the sarin containers were destroyed by Assad's air strike.

        I'm not 100% convinced of this story line, but I'm a hell of a lot more than half convinced. Assad had nothing to gain with the use of NBC warfare - absolutely nothing - and he had a lot to lose.

        So, the Powers That Be decided to stage an NBC attack by Assad.

        --
        Keep all chemicals out of the reach of meth heads.
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:30AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:30AM (#490107)

      Trump's Twitter feed is the gift that keeps on giving:

      Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

      2:39 PM - 9 Oct 2012

      https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/255784560904773633 [twitter.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:17PM (#490497)

        Sean Hannity @seanhannity (verified)

        Glad our arrogant Pres. is enjoying his taxpayer funded golf outing after announcing the US should take military action against Syria

        6:42 PM - 3 Sep 2013

        https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/375071259643879425 [twitter.com]

  • (Score: 1) by ben_white on Friday April 07 2017, @03:23AM (2 children)

    by ben_white (5531) on Friday April 07 2017, @03:23AM (#490022)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:39AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:39AM (#490038)

      Yes, we gotta bring in more illegals to pick our cotton fields, I mean, keep labor costs down, despite rising unemployment and outsourcing.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 07 2017, @01:39PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @01:39PM (#490209)

        You forgot: despite robotic worker drones.

        --
        ALL LIABILITY IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH THAT RESULTS FROM READING THE SOURCE CODE.
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:31AM (30 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:31AM (#490027)

    In case anyone was wondering why minorities and women vote Democrat, THIS IS WHY.
    We are absolutely terrified of war-mongering white men running the world.
    Yes, Assad gassed his own people repeatedly.
    But starting World War 3 is NOT THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:36AM (#490035)

      Yes, why won't they vote against bigger welfare?
      I like how women despite being 50% of humanity is in the same category as minorities.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:46AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:46AM (#490044)

      Yeah, all this hostility to a major nuclear power is going to cause World War III... oh wait, that was the Democrats screaming about Russia.

      Before screaming about Russia, there was that little ceremony where Hillary offered the Russian ambassador a silly little plastic "reset button". Back then the democratic line was that Russians would be our friends. They made fun of Palin for warning of the Russian hazard, saying that she was stuck in the cold war. I guess that went out the window with Crimea, which must have embarrassed Hillary, so now democrats are hostile to Russia.

      At least the Republicans are consistent: be careful of Russia, don't trust them, don't provoke them, try to find common ground where you can.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by butthurt on Friday April 07 2017, @05:45AM (5 children)

        by butthurt (6141) on Friday April 07 2017, @05:45AM (#490098) Journal

        This attack on their ally, Syria, would seem to have a likelihood of provoking the Russians.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 07 2017, @05:04PM (4 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday April 07 2017, @05:04PM (#490351) Journal

          This attack on their ally, Syria, would seem to have a likelihood of provoking the Russians.

          Already happening!

          US air strikes in Syria latest: Russia suspends agreement that prevents direct conflict with American forces [independent.co.uk]

          Russia says US air strikes in Syria came 'within an inch' of military clash with their forces

          • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday April 07 2017, @06:25PM (2 children)

            by butthurt (6141) on Friday April 07 2017, @06:25PM (#490415) Journal

            From that second story:

            Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said the strike deliberately avoided sections of the base where the Russians were believed to be present.

            -- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-us-air-strikes-syria-russia-within-inch-military-clash-war-dmitry-medvedev-prime-minister-a7672791.html [independent.co.uk]

            If that's true, then the Anonymous Coward poster above was correct: an effort was made to avoid provoking the Russians.

            Those people investigating whether Mr. Trump and his associates collaborated with the Russians should be regretful. For all our sakes, I hope they call off that investigation.

            /politics/article.pl?sid=17/03/31/0316213 [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:41PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:41PM (#490476)

              Those people investigating whether Mr. Trump and his associates collaborated with the Russians should be regretful. For all our sakes, I hope they call off that investigation.

              That is some battered-wife syndrome shit right there.
              If russia attacked the US election process we should just pretend it didn't happen so that we won't get into a fight with russia.
              News flash, dumbass, if the allegations are true that was an act of war. Literally.

              • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:35AM

                by butthurt (6141) on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:35AM (#490645) Journal

                > [...] if the allegations are true that was an act of war.

                The United States tried, with apparent success, to manipulate an election in Russia:

                Urged by the United States, the International Monetary Fund granted a $10.2 billion loan to Russia in February [1996] and enabled the government to spend huge sums paying long-owed back wages and pensions to millions of Russians, with some overdue checks arriving shortly before the June election.

                -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_1996#Campaign [wikipedia.org]

                This investigation could embarrass Mr. Trump. Is he trying to show us that he isn't under Russia's thumb?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:45PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:45PM (#490479)

            Russia says US air strikes in Syria came 'within an inch' of military clash with their forces

            Yes!

            I was so worried when Hillary lost. I thought that World War 3 might not happen without her.

            I hope there are nukes!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:09AM (#490063)

      The Russian government was notified prior to the launch as they have resources in the area that was attacked.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 07 2017, @10:55AM (3 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Friday April 07 2017, @10:55AM (#490155)

      But starting World War 3 is NOT THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE.

      It may be a WW3, but this won't start it... yet.

      What make me say that, you ask? Because the president of the soon to be first world power, Xi Jinping, was in US while this happened.
      Do you think for a second he would be still in US if he would be disapproving USA's actions in Syria? I'd bet Agent Orange even asked Xi before ordering the attack.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @11:55AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @11:55AM (#490165)

        If you haven't noticed, we already have been in WW3, only not against Russia. There is another global force, one which is not a regular nation state.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:19PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:19PM (#490499)

          White mediocrity?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:35AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:35AM (#491531)

            Drugs.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday April 07 2017, @11:47AM (8 children)

      by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @11:47AM (#490164) Homepage Journal

      http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/index.html [cnn.com]

      (CNN)Hillary Clinton called on the United States to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's Air Force on Thursday, days after a chemical attack killed more than 70 people in the war-torn country.

      Day before Trump launched his attack. So who would have started WW3 first?

      All this shitting on Trump, and guess who's just as big a warmonger!?!
      Give it a rest!!! She lost, Sanders probably would have won if they'd been smart enough to go that way, but they weren't, and Trump WON!

      Pull up your panties and wipe off the facial and GET OVER IT!!!

      --
      --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 07 2017, @05:06PM (3 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday April 07 2017, @05:06PM (#490352) Journal

        All this shitting on Trump, and guess who's just as big a warmonger!?!

        Guess who's actually the president. Guess who actually authorized the strike. Hint: NOT CLINTON

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday April 07 2017, @05:26PM (2 children)

          by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @05:26PM (#490362) Homepage Journal

          YES! Because SHE LOST!

          But don't be a hypocrite: she would have authorized it as well.
          Again!:
          http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/index.html [cnn.com]

          Just because she lost the election doesn't mean she's not a warmonger: she just can't do anything about it but sit there and watch as Trump Presidents and Bill spurts on to other womens dresses.

          --
          --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:56PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:56PM (#490519)

            But don't be a hypocrite: she would have authorized it as well.

            Well, yes, of course she would.

            I believe that the point is, people were saying they can't vote for Hillary because she's a warmonger.
            They also couldn't vote for Hillary because she's corrupt.
            They also couldn't vote for Hillary because she's constantly lying.
            They also couldn't vote for Hillary because she would only use the presidency for personal gain.
            They also couldn't vote for Hillary because her husband is a sex predator.

            So they voted for Trump, because he's not like that.

            Heh.

            So now the President is a corrupt, lying sex predator who uses presidency for personal gain, and with this was also shown to be a warmonger.

            Good thing we avoided Hillary! Whew, bullet dodged.

            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:13AM

              by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:13AM (#490622) Homepage Journal

              Let's get to the meat of it:

              Trump should not have won: Sanders should have, but Hillary-wasserman-shitz stole that from him (and they complain that Trump stole the election: someone speaks with forked tongue).

              Trump, though, is a lame duck president (i have always said this). He has no support and is disorganized and will not make a second term.
              Hillary is a through and through political person with backing and connections. She could have done REAL damage to America.

              Sanders should have been given the leadership after getting ripped off so badly by corrupt individuals. His party was too corrupt and stupid to give it to him.

              Sanders should have won.
              Sanders should have won.
              Sanders should have won.
              Sanders should have won.
              Sanders should have won.
              Sanders should have won.
              I have always said this, as well.

              --
              --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 07 2017, @05:45PM (3 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday April 07 2017, @05:45PM (#490380) Journal

        So Trump LIED about Syria and Clinton told the truth. Glad you could set the record straight on that one!

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday April 07 2017, @05:47PM (2 children)

          by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @05:47PM (#490384) Homepage Journal

          WTF you talking about?

          --
          --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 07 2017, @05:59PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday April 07 2017, @05:59PM (#490397) Journal

            WTF you talking about?

            I'm talking about the eighteen times Trump said the US shouldn't bomb Syria. [time.com]

            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:01AM

              by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:01AM (#490617) Homepage Journal

              Sooo... you've pointed out that he's an idiot... congratulations! You win the Captain Obvious award!! ( I never said he wasn't an idiot)
              But now that he is more informed, maybe he thought it was the appropriate measure?

              What i was saying is that everyone is saying he is an idiot (yes... he is!, and i have never said he isn't!!), and that he is ADHD and that he shouldn't be president.
              And everyone is right!
              But Hillary was saying bomb the hell out of them DAY/DAYS BEFORE he did it (who's ADHD now). She said "we should bomb them"... and if she'd been president, she probably would have said "we are going to bomb them" BEFORE bombing them, which is what Trump was complaining about.
              He's also right: America shouldn't have been over there in the first place.

              If he is ADHD and an idiot and shouldn't be president, neither should Hillary. SANDERS should have been president, but Hillary STOLE that from him: yeah, she'd make a good president... right....

              1: Donald J. Trump

              @realDonaldTrump

              Why do we keep broadcasting when we are going to attack Syria. Why can't we just be quiet and, if we attack at all, catch them by surprise?

              Is he right? yes he is!

              2. Donald J. Trump

              @realDonaldTrump

              @walaa_3ssaf No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.

              Yes... don't announce it, just do it: standard military tactic

              3. Donald J. Trump

              @realDonaldTrump

              If we are going to continue to be stupid and go into Syria (watch Russia), as they say in the movies, SHOOT FIRST AND TALK LATER!

              Again... yes

              4. Donald J. Trump

              @realDonaldTrump

              Let the Arab League take care of Syria. Why are these rich Arab countries not paying us for the tremendous cost of such an attack?

              And he is SOOOO right! Why are you fighting their fight? Because America started that whole shit heap that is happening over there! If they (which includes Hillary) had stayed out of that region in the first place, none of this would be happening!!!

              TRUMP IS AN IDIOT, BUT AN IDIOT WITHOUT SUPPORT.
              HILLARY IS AN IDIOT, BUT AN IDIOT WITH SUPPORT.

              I'd rather have a castrated idiot in charge than an idiot with real power.

              God bless America: you are going to need it.
              DISCLAIMER: I do not believe in God/Gods... you are sooooo screwed.

              --
              --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 07 2017, @01:13PM (3 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 07 2017, @01:13PM (#490193) Journal

      We are absolutely terrified of war-mongering white men running the world.

      Perhaps you'd like to take your chances with rule by Rwandans, or pine for the could-have-been utopia of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Or, perhaps you optimistically hope to replicate the dramatic uptick in fortunes that occurred in Zimbabwe after Mugabe's Zanu PF seized power? Or maybe you're talking about something with a little more salsa in it and want to see what South American death squads can do. No? How about race/religious riots that kill people by the thousands like they have in India?

      Look, white men have a mixed record. They should be and are held accountable for their failings. They have also done good things, and having non-white men and women perennially completely elide those is tedious and itself racist. My Korean wife, herself an immigrant, was bemoaning all the evil white people last week after Trump did something. I pointed out that without the evil white people there wouldn't even be Korean people such as herself, because the Japanese colonial power was literally erasing the Korean language and culture when US marines bled their way across the South Pacific to free them, and then a second time when the evil white people literally saved her parents' lives by bleeding out their life's blood on the sands of Inchon.

      It's also worth pointing out to all the people working themselves into an apoplectic fit over Trump's stance on immigration that we wouldn't even be having this conversation in Japan or China. There is no Statue of Liberty off the coast of Shanghai or in Tokyo harbor.

      The Japanese are so xenophobic in fact that before they had the ethnic Koreans (imported as slave labor during the colonial period) to beat on and disenfranchise they had to invent a class of people to beat up on called the burakumin, literally leatherworkers and those unclean who interacted with animals in Buddhist feudal Japan.

      So, in short, take a breath and pull yourself together. Stop watching CNN, and stop thinking in sound bites.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:44PM (#490478)

        Ah, your racism apologia is starting to make sense now.
        I've been getting those vibes off your posts for a while now, just didn't really click until now.
        You are that uber-white bernie bro type who really doesn't care all that much about racial justice, too hung up on pretending racism isn't really a big problem anymore.

      • (Score: 2) by chromas on Friday April 07 2017, @11:54PM (1 child)

        by chromas (34) on Friday April 07 2017, @11:54PM (#490613)

        What was your wife's response?

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:09AM

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 08 2017, @01:09AM (#490640) Journal

          She realized she had overstepped and fell silent. It's a bit understandable because working in nonprofit in NYC all day long she hears people bashing white men all day long. And that's on top of her having grown up in a city where racism and tribalism are second nature. She and her brother forget themselves occasionally and disparage white people until i make some tongue in cheek remark like how they can't see their own racism for what it is because they have such little eyes. Then they laugh and apologize.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday April 07 2017, @05:25PM (3 children)

      by Lagg (105) on Friday April 07 2017, @05:25PM (#490361) Homepage Journal

      You're such a horrible piece of shit that I don't want to read the replies because people here are good at breaking down horrible pieces of shit and it's going to make me cringe.

      Reason I say piece of shit is - you are what resulted in Trump. Troll account or not, I hope no one forgets that. This bullshit here, you were the ones that elected Trump more than rural people or electoral college.

      Next election. Make sure to vote democrat. Always vote democrat. Because teh evil white men. You party line country ruining fuck. Just ignore the global corruption and always vote democrat. That'll fix it! If you just changed your flag color you'd fit in fine with the "BUT WHAT ABOUT OBAMA" and "MELANIA 2026" people.

      Whatever dumbass rated this insightful might as well rate this post insightful while they're at it. And then go find a world as boring and black & white as the one you and parent seem to want to exist. Because you are sure as hell not needed in this one.

      --
      http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
      8DF5 7CC6 9572 2282 4BD7 CC2C 1316 E8D2 AB04 0CBD
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:38PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:38PM (#490509)

        Ah, the old "I'm so tired of being called a racist that I voted for the only candidate in recent history to be unapologetically racist" chestnut.
        It never gets old.

        • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday April 07 2017, @09:33PM (1 child)

          by Lagg (105) on Friday April 07 2017, @09:33PM (#490535) Homepage Journal

          Proving my point again about both of you being two halves of the same kind of bigoted retard willfully discarding critical thought and casting the same accusation on the other group. But no. I don't vote for aspiring dictators. Which includes Trump and Clinton as comforting as it is for people to pretend otherwise.

          and honestly. Assuming people have called me racist? Oh yeah that happens all the time. Completely tired of it. It's like the second most common accusation I get next to being a shill for the pharmaceutical industry.

          No but seriously you're a dumbass.

          --
          http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
          8DF5 7CC6 9572 2282 4BD7 CC2C 1316 E8D2 AB04 0CBD
          • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday April 07 2017, @09:41PM

            by Lagg (105) on Friday April 07 2017, @09:41PM (#490541) Homepage Journal

            Man I feel less guilty and betraying of my country for not voting now. Thanks AC. I needed that after these recent months. :D

            --
            http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
            8DF5 7CC6 9572 2282 4BD7 CC2C 1316 E8D2 AB04 0CBD
(1) 2