The purpose behind the increase in military expenditure is, in my view, both much less complicated and, at the same time, much more sinister.

Imagine that at some point in the near future conscription were brought into the equation, this could be expected to result in the streets being swept clean of 'undesirable elements' while also resulting in a drastic reduction in unemployment. Two election promises fulfilled in one fell swoop. Public support would be overwhelming.

That this would also be a direct preparation for war with anyone, anywhere in the world would be either ignored or regarded as being secondary. The presently escalating situation with North Korea would, given the right spin, be the trigger that could enforce a perceived necessity for such legislation. But there will also be others.

Although this sounds cynical, remember that we're dealing with the conservatives here: This would be a great opportunity to put a gratifyingly large number of those 'undesirables' into little black boxes. Instant national heroes who will cost the state absolutely nothing any more.

Again: this has Steve Bannon written all over it.



Edited by npjnpj - March 19 2017 at 00:58

Comey Confirms F.B.I. Inquiry on Russia; Sees No Evidence of Wiretapping...

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/intelligence-committee-russia-donald-trump.html?mwrsm=Facebook

In summation: Trump is a liar, and may well be a traitor.

Edited by The Dark Elf - March 20 2017 at 16:39

with one eye open

One wonders if Trump was fed the story to provoke him into the idiotic frenzy that it did.   On the other hand, he really needs no help at all.

Atavachron wrote: One wonders if Trump was fed the story to provoke him into the idiotic frenzy that it did.   On the other hand, he really needs no help at all.

Ok, so once again, I'm puzzled. Is there anyone here who knows his or her way about US law (a bit)?

If Trump threatens house members that they will lose their seats if they don't vote in vavour of his healthcare bill, doesn't that constitute coecion and could be interpreted as (another) felony?

It's practically forcing house members to possibly vote against their own convictions so as not to suffer personal repercussions. How is this not coecion?

I mean, it seems as if I'm way off beam here, because the outcry both inside and outside the GOP should be pronounced, to say the least if I were correct. So where am I going wrong in my thinking?


Edited by npjnpj - March 22 2017 at 12:22

^ Trump (or anyone else) can get involved in a congressional election and more or less tell voters that he does not approve of said person and further more, he does not want people to support said person. I don't know how much power Trump is going to have in a year and a half when the elections take place, by then people (even Republicans) may not care who he does or does not approve of. It could even get to the point where Trump's approval could be a politician's kiss of death.

I know a lot of conservative voters and Republicans, and very very few (almost none) have a positive opinion of Trump. Some voted for him so as to defeat Clinton, but I think he is turning out to be much worse than what anyone imagined.
I don't know where this 37% approval rating is coming from. In the very conservative district where I live, I would guess it to be more like 10 or 15%.
I don't think his policies annoy the conservatives around here, but his childish behavior definitely does.

Edited by js (Easy Money) - March 22 2017 at 17:54

Thanks guys, that explains it, of course. The way it was worded in some news outlets led me to believe that Trump could directly relieve house members from their posts, or at least relieve them of some of their functions.

Vote on Trump health"care" delayed. This is what results when you fail to get a mandate. Oh, and by the way, though it's not the final word; ha ha!

I wonder if Trump thnks that a filibuster is anything that exceeds 140 characters.