GaryD

US Government Shutdown

100 posts in this topic

 It's odd to me that since the attack on pearl harbour, there has not been an attack on US soil by a military force,

I think from a technical and legal point 9/11 is a attack on US soil (Twin Towers and Pentagon) by military force.

Even thoug, the weapons in use (civilian air crafts) under normal sircumstances is seen as a criminal act and not a act of war ?

 

It's the only time i NATO,s history article 5 has been invoked.

 

Cut/paste from here : http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/enemy-detention/response-to-911

Quote :

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

On September 12, 2001, for the first time in NATO history, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The Washington Treaty states that an armed attack against one or more NATO countries is an attack against all NATO countries.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to understand that the heritage foundation is one of the primary benefactors of the US military industrial complex.   What "country" attacked us, I know we eventually went to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq.   We were attacked by a Terrorist organization, which I may be incorrect in thinking this, but I compare as a criminal organization.  Otherwise, the attacks by somalian pirates should be considered and act of war by Somali.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to understand that the heritage foundation is one of the primary benefactors of the US military industrial complex.   What "country" attacked us, I know we eventually went to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq.   We were attacked by a Terrorist organization, which I may be incorrect in thinking this, but I compare as a criminal organization.  Otherwise, the attacks by somalian pirates should be considered and act of war by Somali.

I agree with your reasoning, but the "facts" listed on that link is still the same, on the legal historical reactions listed, and we all got draged in to those wars, and have had to pay the price in $ , lives and embaresement

I don't belive much in conspiracy theories, but in the aftermath, I see a lot of foul play from many western players (politicans)

not only the Bush administration

UK' s prime minister, Tony Blair ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair )

and Denmark's prime minister, Fogh Rassmussen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Fogh_Rasmussen )

at the time, was just as much in on "the game" IMO pluss numerous others.

I still wonder about Collin Powel ? I like to think that he got fooled to, his speech in the UN was convinsing on me, I might be naiv ?

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A telling feature of 9/11 was the speed with which the 'Patriot Act' was produced and rammed through Congress and the Senate and signed into law. That sucker was something like 700 pages long; it's pretty clear they had it sitting there ready to go and the Congress was pressured hard to pass it on introduction - no reading allowed.

 

The conclusion is clear - the Administration knew the attack was coming and were all prepared for it. Now the US has a Constitution that isn't worth being used as toilet paper; the new laws transcend any rights the Americans think they have and most Americans sit back safe in front of their programming machines all cosy with the 'knowledge' they are a free people.

 

And in the meantime the largest terrorist organisation in the world is invading Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya at will (if you think using NATO to install an al Qaeda regime somehow excludes Libya, think again) and has been arming and supplying a pseudo-resistance movement in Iraq since the 90's, solely to create profits for the Corporateers and Banksters.

 

I doubt Powell was fooled at all; lots of US Military and Intelligence types, with a wealth of real-world experience, stood up and told everyone what they thought of the invasions. Powell's administration sacked them. Powell sat back and let Rumsfeld reduce the military resources for Afghanistan and Iraq to a level that had the sacked Generals predicting the wars would drag on interminably, would fail to achieve the desired results, create more terrorists because borders could not be sealed and international organisations would flood in their 'warriors' to get trained in live battle, and, most importantly, that the lack of a clear exit strategy would means there would not really be a victory per se.

 

The ABC (Australian TV channel) even had a guy on before Iraq claiming any action in that country would result in a civil war between Sunni and Shi'a as they both tried to assume power after intervention.

 

With 7000 civilians killed just this month, it is clear it doesn't matter what the hype is, Iraq is an ongoing festering pool of violence and terror. The predictions were right, so Powell is either complicit in the mayhem or criminally negligent in his actions in sacking his leading Generals and others because they tried to express views he didn't want known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi...we first canvassed the US Goverment Shutdown over four years ago.  Aside from the political significance of the event, it prompted this dicsussion.  

With the exception of Codi who, it seems, joined APHQ just to voice his anxieties about the discussion, it was a largely courteous exchange in which Americans, Australians and American-Australians (and a Norwegian) expressed views, exchanged ideas and learned...in a generally harmonious fashion.  Trying doing that on Facebook!

Over four years later, we're seeing another US Government Shutdown play itself out...and this thread stands out as evidence of the fact that, among people of goodwill, no subject is too sensitive to discuss.  Nothwithstanding our 'no bullshit'approach to integrated food production (and the robust dialogue that it produced) we had many such discussions on this forum...something of which I'm immensely proud.

The last shutdown occurred in far more political circumstances than the current one.  The planet is at greater risk and we have the added threat of nuclear war.

Your thoughts?

Cecil likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching two dogs going at each other. One was in a fenced yard and the other on the outside. The sound and ruckus coming from both of them  was loud and frightening.  They continued growling and barking at one another and moving along the fence till they came to the gate that had been left open and confronted each other with nothing between them.  Suddenly it became very quiet and looked like they were surprised. Instead of lunging at each other as I was sure would happen from the sounds and growling  since nothing was stopping them from fighting now, they instead looked as if  they they were saying " Oh... hello. Nice to meet you".  They backed up and both took off to a fenced area and resumed barking at each other.  

The current political arena reminds me a little of that.  If the political fences were removed, I wonder how hard the Leaders of the US and N. Korea would go at each other?  We all know what a mess a charismatic leader can make.

 

 Alas, Babylon was require reading when I in high school. At the time I thought it was metaphorical.  I sure hope it doesn't have to turn into a field guide.

Edited by Ravnis (see edit history)
ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ravis,

I'm worried about this country (USA) as it appears the divide into two partisan tribal camps has become worse than ever. Our congress critters have become totally dysfunctional, and one party keeps propping up a president that is a national disgrace because apparently party comes before country. Contrary to what he thinks, our president couldn't deal his way out of a wet paper bag, has no leadership skills, and the constant bald face lies from he and his camp are so common place it appears they are becoming the norm. The bar is set so low with our current president one could stub their toe on it. 

Putin must be laughing so hard his sides are hurting at what a useful idiot Trump has become. And yes "useful idiot" is in the KGB manual for subverting governments. 

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)
ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

I don't know much about U.S. politics so it's difficult for me to comment much, suffice to say I really do not understand them. I certainly do not understand why the majority of the U.S. people voted for Donald Trump.

This time round I heard there was an shutdown but haven't bothered to follow it much or even think about it a great deal. I'm very disillusioned with Australian politics. We have the most anti worker government in power ever and what's worse, the alternative is no better. I have looked for years and seen bad things that could happen to Australia that even blind Freddie could see and no government or opposition did or will do anything to stop them. I don't think U.S. politics are any better so lately I've chosen to watch more educational programmes like Hogans Heroes instead :)

I have noticed The U.S. have chosen to ignore potential flare ups around the world for decades. Think the Iranian hostage crisis and after, ignoring the treatment of the people of Iraq by it's leader. Afghanistan, the withdrawal of Russia and after the Taliban getting stronger and so on...Fast forward to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the willingness of the U.S. and her allies to ignore North Korea. Even now whilst the U.S. are focusing on North Korea they ignore China.

I can tell you, there is feeling in Australia that we are very vulnerable to invasion by a myriad of countries who envy us, and covert our land and resources. China has just about invaded Australia by owning almost every major producing industry, particularly produce and mining.

I digress... "The Post" a Steven Spielberg film starring Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks looks like a good film to watch. I've heard a very detailed description of it by a friend who has gone to the cinemas and watched it.

Cheers.

 

Edited by bigdaddy (see edit history)
Ravnis likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hogans's Heroes is a great show.  Did you know Schultz was actually Jewish? I think Hogan's Heroes was a way to get back at the Germans by Jewish producers, as it sure made the German war machine during WWII look like putzes. Unfortunately they were anything but. 

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)
bigdaddy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cecil,

This divide you speak of is it the cause or a symptom of a greater problem.  For the last 40 years, our education system has been under attack. Finding people who even pretend to think critically is getting harder to find. 

I was talking with someone about there values. They were smearing people they classified as Liberals. Yet there values were pretty liberal, but I didn't argue with them. They said they voted the way they did because the church they went to supported that candidate.  I just shook my head in disbelief.  To me it's an alarming trend that people want others to think for them.  Then gripe about the "guvment" cause it wants to tell them what to do.  This kind of cognitive disconnect seems to be growing at an alarming rate. 

 

Bigdaddy, 

One of the big problems is that Trump did not win the majority of the vote, but won by the Electoral college votes.  He only won the vote by a little more that 25 percent.  The electoral college math was messed up when they capped the number of representatives almost a century ago.  The number of representatives was supposed to increase with population increase. Since capping it, it gives rural voters almost a 5 to one vote ratio as Urban dwellers. The electoral college's original purpose was to keep a demagogue from being elected, but twice in my lifetime it has caused it to happen. It's an outdated concept that needs revision, but due to our present system it won't. I think eventually we well either have our own version of Hitler or another civil war, That is if global corporations don't render our government systems moot as they take over the world's resources.

GaryD and bigdaddy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we are closer now to a Hitler or a Civil war Ravnis. We have a president that would love to be a dictator and acts like one at times. And he's very good at inciting hostility and violence. HIs party will not rebuke anything he does because party comes before country.

As far as the churches I was livid the last presidential election. Churches are supposed to stay out of politics to keep their tax free status. I saw several church yards in my area that had political signs for one particular candidate. Got an email once from a deacon at a Catholic church I once attended that basically told me who I should vote for in a subtle way.  I read him the riot act and told him never to send me an email again. 

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)
GaryD and Ravnis like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

IMO  this article gives a good description of what is happening, not only in the US, but more or less, across the hole western world. 

How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?

By STEVEN LEVITSKY and DANIEL ZIBLATT        JAN. 27, 2018

President Trump hasn’t destroyed the republic. This should not surprise us. Our democratic institutions are strong. And Mr. Trump, despite his reckless attacks on democratic norms, is a weak and inept leader.

But that doesn’t mean democracy is safe. The problems we face run deeper than the Trump presidency. While Mr. Trump’s autocratic impulses have fueled our political system’s mounting crisis, he is as much a symptom as he is a cause of this crisis.

We should not take democracy for granted. There is nothing intrinsic in American culture that immunizes us against its breakdown. Even our brilliantly designed Constitution cannot, by itself, guarantee democracy’s survival. If it could, then the republic would not have collapsed into civil war 74 years after its birth.

To function well, democratic constitutions must be reinforced by two basic norms, or unwritten rules. The first is mutual toleration, according to which politicians accept their opponents as legitimate. When mutual toleration exists, we recognize that our partisan rivals are loyal citizens who love our country just as we do.

The second norm is forbearance, or self-restraint in the exercise of power. Forbearance is the act of not exercising a legal right. In politics, it means not deploying one’s institutional prerogatives to the hilt, even if it’s legal to do so.

We rarely think about forbearance in politics, and yet democracy cannot work without it. Consider what American presidents could legally do under the Constitution. They could pardon anyone they want, whenever they want, undercutting congressional and judicial oversight.

They could pack the courts. With a congressional majority, a president facing an unfriendly Supreme Court could expand it to 11 or 13 and fill the new seats with allies. Or a president whose agenda is stalled in Congress could make policy unilaterally, via executive orders or proclamations. The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit these acts.

Or consider what Congress could do. It could, under the Constitution, routinely refuse to fund the government, effectively shutting it down. The Senate could exploit its right of “advice and consent” to block all of the president’s cabinet nominations. It could prevent the president from filling any Supreme Court vacancies. And a congressional majority could impeach the president on virtually any grounds.

America’s constitutional system thus requires forbearance. If our leaders deploy their legal prerogatives without restraint, it could bring severe dysfunction, and even constitutional crisis. Mark Tushnet, a law professor at Harvard, calls such behavior — exploiting the letter of the law to undermine its spirit — “constitutional hardball.”

Look at any failing democracy and you will find constitutional hardball. In postwar Argentina, when President Juan Perón encountered Supreme Court opposition, his congressional allies impeached three of five justices on grounds of “malfeasance” and replaced them with loyalists. In 2004, when Venezuela’s high court proved too independent, congressional allies of President Hugo Chávez added 12 seats to the 20-member court and filled them with loyalists. Both Perón’s and Chávez’s court-packing schemes were legal, but they nevertheless destroyed judicial independence.

Norms of forbearance have not always been strong in the United States: They were weak in the republic’s early years and they unraveled during the Civil War. But for most of the 20th century, Democrats and Republicans accepted each other as legitimate and exercised power with forbearance.

There were no partisan impeachments or successful court packing. Congress routinely funded the government, obstructionist tools like the filibuster were used sparingly, and the Senate used its power of advice and consent with prudence, routinely confirming qualified nominees. There were instances of executive overreach (Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon), but the most egregious abuses were checked by Congress and the courts.

History suggests, however, that democratic norms are vulnerable to polarization. Some polarization is healthy, even necessary, for democracy. But extreme polarization can kill it. When societies divide into partisan camps with profoundly different worldviews, and when those differences are viewed as existential and irreconcilable, political rivalry can devolve into partisan hatred.

Parties come to view each other not as legitimate rivals but as dangerous enemies. Losing ceases to be an accepted part of the political process and instead becomes a catastrophe. When that happens, politicians are tempted to abandon forbearance and win at any cost. If we believe our opponents are dangerous, should we not use any means necessary to stop them?

This is how democracy died in Chile. Before the 1973 coup, Chile was Latin America’s oldest democracy, buttressed by vibrant democratic norms, including a well-established “culture of compromise.” Chileans liked to say that there was no political disagreement that could not be settled over a bottle of Chilean cabernet. But beginning in the 1960s, Chile’s culture of compromise was shattered by Cold War polarization. Mutual toleration eroded, and political parties eschewed forbearance for a “win at all cost” strategy. Chilean democracy fell into a death spiral, culminating in a bloody coup. (The intervention of the United States accelerated but did not cause this death spiral.)

Could it happen here? It already has. During the 1850s, polarization over slavery undermined America’s democratic norms. Southern Democrats viewed the antislavery position of the emerging Republican Party as an existential threat. They assailed Republicans as “traitors to the Constitution” and vowed to “never permit this federal government to pass into the traitorous hands of the Black Republican Party.”

Norm erosion alters the zone of acceptable political behavior. Partisan violence pervaded Congress. Joanne Freeman, a historian at Yale, counted more than 100 incidents of violence (including fistfights, canings and the pulling of knives and pistols) on the floor of Congress between 1830 and 1860. Before long, the republic would be broken — and Americans would be killing one another in the hundreds of thousands.

America today is not on the brink of a coup or a civil war. Yet our parties are more polarized than at any time during the last century. Whereas 50 years ago some 5 percent of either Democrats or Republicans said they would be displeased if their child married someone from the other party, today 49 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats say so. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 49 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Democrats say the other party makes them “afraid.”

This is not a traditional liberal-conservative divide. People don’t fear and loathe one another over taxes or health care. As political scientists have shown, the roots of today’s polarization are racial and cultural. Whereas 50 years ago both parties were overwhelmingly white and equally religious, advances in civil rights, decades of immigration and the migration of religious conservatives to the Republican Party have given rise to two fundamentally different parties: one that is ethnically diverse and increasingly secular and one that is overwhelmingly white and predominantly Christian.

White Christians are not just any group: They are a once-dominant majority in decline. When a dominant group’s social status is threatened, racial and cultural differences can be perceived as existential and irreconcilable. The resulting polarization preceded (indeed, made possible) the Trump presidency, and it is likely to persist after it.

Extreme partisan polarization had already begun to eviscerate our democratic norms long before Mr. Trump’s election. By the time of Barack Obama’s presidency, many Republicans had abandoned mutual toleration. Prominent Republicans attacked Mr. Obama and the Democrats as anti-American. And of course, in 2016, the Republican Party nominated for president a man who questioned Mr. Obama’s citizenship and insisted that his rival was a criminal.

Polarization also encouraged politicians to abandon forbearance, beginning with the Gingrich-era government shutdowns and the partisan impeachment of Bill Clinton. Other examples include proliferating filibuster use, congressional refusal to raise the debt limit and President Obama’s use of executive actions to bypass Congress.

Perhaps the most consequential was the Senate’s refusal to take up Mr. Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Since 1866, every time a president had an opportunity to fill a vacancy before the election of his successor, he was allowed to do so (though not always on the first try). The Senate’s refusal to even consider an Obama nominee violated a 150-year-old norm.

Democrats are beginning to respond in kind. Their recent filibuster triggering a government shutdown took a page out of the Gingrich playbook. And if they retake the Senate in 2018, there is talk of denying President Trump the opportunity to fill any Supreme Court vacancy. This is a dangerous spiral.

American democracy retains important sources of strength, including vast national wealth, a vibrant media and civil society, and a robust judiciary and rule of law. But the norms that once protected our institutions are coming unmoored. President Trump has accelerated this norm erosion, but he didn’t start it. Intensifying polarization, driven by an extremist Republican Party, is making constitutional hardball a new norm for party politics.

The lessons of history are clear. Extreme polarization can wreck even established democracies. America is no exception. As long as Americans do not overcome their deepening partisan animosities, democracy remains at risk — President Trump or no President Trump.

 

 

cheers

GaryD, Ravnis and Cecil like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do all of you watch CNN? President Trump in his first year has done more for the USA then any other president. I didn't want him as president, but I knew what Hillary would do and that I didn't want. He has really surprised me with what he has gotten done. He is one of the few presidents that is trying to so what he said he was going to do. Watch the unemployment rate, economy, stock market, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dcj

Welcome to APN/HQ

Yes, I watch CNN(International,) and also France24, Deutsche Welle(English), Aljazeera English, CNBC, Bloomberg, however, I prefer BBC International, amongst the international news outlets. 

I do find Norwegian and Danish news outlets, most interesting (and balanced) much like BBC, they are not "partisan" on "US-news", they also report more "real-news" from the rest of the world.

It's rather boring to watch the "Trump show" that fills 50-70% on the US news outlets, from my view point.

So what news outlets do you watch ?

cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2018 at 3:46 PM, davidcjohnson said:

Do all of you watch CNN? President Trump in his first year has done more for the USA then any other president. I didn't want him as president, but I knew what Hillary would do and that I didn't want. He has really surprised me with what he has gotten done. He is one of the few presidents that is trying to so what he said he was going to do. Watch the unemployment rate, economy, stock market, etc.

The economy was already in an upswing before Trump came into office. Don't believe me? Here: 

CnbLj0d.png

The economy of 2017 actually lags behind the economy of 2016.  Don't believe me? Here ya go. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/08/569370879/november-jobs-report-economy-adds-228-000-jobs-unemployment-steady

Same for the stock market having gone up steadily for several years now. 

da5VpcY.png 

That was easy. 

Sorry debating politics is one of my hobbies. You're just repeating talking points. 

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)
GaryD likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, 

I would invite you to read or reread about a very similar president of the United States.  I won't tell you what to think, but rather ask you to draw your own conclusions.  It has been said that history repeats itself if we don't learn from past mistakes.  Never before has information been so easily accessible by the masses.  This might just make the difference this time.

Herbert Hoover

As far as news, I would invite you to examine  

Brainwashing of my dad.   A video on tactics the media uses to reprogram the brain. 

I work in psychiatry and can tell you there are truthful facts in that video.  As to the conclusions that are drawn, I believe it is important for everyone to evaluate and draw there  own conclusions.

This quote is old , but I do believe it applies today.

Hear me, people: We have now to deal with another race- small and feeble when our fathers first met them, but now great and overbearing. Strangely enough they have a mind to till the soil and the love of possession is a disease with them. These people have made many rules that the rich may break but the poor may not. They take their tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich and those who rule.

Sitting Bull  

 

Edited by Ravnis
correct spelling (see edit history)
ande, vkn and GaryD like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like agreement is going out the window to today in the congress. Could be another shutdown? 

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more people in the WH resigned due to abuse against women allegations. "Show me your friends and I'll show you who you are." Trump says they are entitled to due process. What does he know about due process? He shoots his mouth off all the time accusing people of things without even a scintilla of evidence. I.e. Obama wasn't born in the U.S., the five blacks accused of assaulting a woman in NYC"s Central Park are guilty even though the DNA didn't match up and someone else confessed to it later, all his false allegations about Hillary Clinton with no proof, and as of late his tirade on Senator Al Franken. And don't forget he came to phedophile Moore's defense. The double standards and hypocrisy are astounding, but then what do we expect of a sociopathic serial liar who really isn't that smart?  

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 0:47 PM, ande said:

Hi

:lolu:

Gotta build a wall somewhere

cheers

No worries Mexico is going to pay for it.  "Trust me." :rolleyes:

bigdaddy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10.2.2018 at 8:38 PM, Cecil said:

No worries Mexico is going to pay for it.  "Trust me." :rolleyes:

So he says :thumbsu:i722^poriginal_distr.gif

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now