Demokratie-Beschädiger

Das ist genauso "dehnbar" und kann leicht missbraucht werden. DT benutzt gern solche Begriffe um seine Feinde bzw. seine vermeintlichen Feinde zu attackieren. Bitte nicht.

Aber Danke, dass du einen neuen Faden aufgemacht hast. Ich dachte, diese 300er Begrenzung wurde irgendwann beseitigt, aber anscheinend nicht.

Meinungsfreiheit ist wörtlich genommen ein irreführender Begriff. Im ersten Zusatz der amerikanischen Verfassung steht "freedom of speech". Die Gerichte interpretieren, was alles als "speech" gilt, z.B. gilt seit 1989 (Texas v. Johnson, SCOTUS) das öffentliche Verbrennen der amerikanische Flagge als von der Verfassung geschützte "Rede". Was im Wortlaut im Grundgesetz steht, weiß ich nicht mehr.

Im allgemeinen ist Lügen nicht verboten, in bestimmten Situationen (z.B. Aussage vor Gericht; in DE und anderen Ländern, nicht aber den USA: Leugnen des Holocaust) aber schon. Wie Amy-MiMi bereits anmerkte, lügt DJT praktisch täglich, weit über das bei Politikern übliche Maß ("Ich gebe ihnen mein Ehrenwort" -- "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski") hinaus. Lügen ist natürlich einem sinnvollen politischen Diskurs nicht zuträglich.

DT benutzt gern solche Begriffe um seine Feinde bzw. seine vermeintlichen Feinde zu attackieren. Bitte nicht.

Es ist also unzulässig, eine Sammelbezeichnung für Leute zu wählen, die dem demokratischen Prozess durch Ausübung von Gewalt aktiv Schaden zufügen? Was ist die praktische Alternative? Jedesmal eine Liste möglicher Straftaten aufzählen?

bewusst Gewalt in den politischen Prozess tragen

Naja. Das wird schon schwammiger... Wann genau passiert das? Ist das juristisch definiert?* Ich für meinen Teil brauche keinen Begriff und deshalb suche ich auch keinen. Aber iA bin ich sehr vorsichtig, wenn ich jemand zum "Feind" erkläre. Natürlich mache ich das oft als Scherz, aber das ist was anderes. Und mit "Feind der Demokratie" stellt man diejenigen in eine ganz üble Ecke. Das ist eine ganz andere Dimension. Das klingt in meinen Ohren nach "Staatsfeind" oder gar Volksfeind. Diese Menschen sind dann vogelfrei. Das kann leicht missbraucht werden. DT war ein extremes Beispiel. Es gibt aber zahlreiche andere. Und wenn das salonfähig wird...

Ich sehe rot bei dem Begriff!

*Was heißt "Gewalt" und was genau ist "der politische Prozess"? Jemand, der ein Wahlplakat abreißt, und jemand, der einen Politiker verletzt oder gar erschießt gehören meiner Meinung nach nicht in dieselbe Kategorie. Man muss da schon differenzieren, und das Gesetz tut das auch, soviel ich weiß. (Ich bin kein Jurist.)

It's a paraphrase in the widest possible sense, I assume? "The end justifies the means" may capture the spirit of Macchiavelli's "Prince", but I don't recall that a similar statement appears anywhere in the book itself (which does not mean much, my memory is sometimes pretty poor). Or was this taken from a different work by Macchiavelli?

Wer (1) vertritt, für den ist Gewalt zur Durchsetzung der als richtig und gut erkannten Ziele akzeptabel.

Wer (2) vertritt, für den ist Gewalt zur Durchsetzung der als richtig und gut erkannten Ziele nicht akzeptabel.

Ich bin eine Vertreterin von (2).

Bedauerlicherweise scheint momentan eine Mehrheit Haltung (1) zu vertreten. Mit Haltung (1) kann ich im Extrem alles von der Ruhestörung bis zum Mord rechtfertigen. Und genau das passiert momentan auf beiden Seiten.

Norbert predigt - nach meinem Empfinden, bitte korrgiere mich, wenn ich falsch liege - Haltung (2).

Philosophie ist nicht meine Stärke. Ich habe eine starke Präferenz für gewaltfreie Wege des Zusammenlebens, denn Gewalt erzeugt Gegengewalt, das lehrt die praktische Anschauung. Ich bin aber kein Pazifist -- ich war nie einer und werde wahrscheinlich auch keiner mehr -- und sehe verhältnismäßige Gewalt als ein legitimes Mittel der Verteidigung an, bei Angriffen auf die Demokratie von innen wie außen. Das Gewaltmonopol des Staates ist richtig und wichtig. Es sollte von staatlicher Seite nur das unbedingt nötige Maß an Gewalt angewendet werden, was leider nicht der momentanen amerikanischen Realität entspricht: zwei Aspekte sind die Existenz der Todesstrafe und die hohe Einkerkerungsrate.

zu #8, 12-14, 16 re #253, 287, 291: Tut mir leid, dass meine Bemerkung in #291 Verwirrung gestiftet hat. Ich wollte in keiner Weise Deine #253 inhaltlich in Frage stellen, Bion (im Gegenteil: die Argumentation hat mich überzeugt und beeindruckt). Dass sich der Vorwurf ausschließlich auf Doris' missinterpretierbaren Verweis bezog und gänzlich unernst gemeint war, schien mir unmissverständlich. Humor ist wertvoll, geht aber auch manchmal daneben. Sorry.

Danke, Jenna2713, für die Erläuterung.

Mit war in meiner # 1 eher dieser Satz wichtig:

Was hilft mir Meinungsfreiheit (oder halt free speech), wenn ich keine gemeinsame Grundlage mehr habe über richtig und falsch?

Darin sehe ich ein grundlegendes Problem - wenn ich nicht mal mehr eine Übereinkunft über grundlegende Prinzipien finden kann, wie kann ich dann überhaupt noch das Zsammenleben gestalten? Beispiel: Die Reaktion einiger republikanischer Senatoren auf Trumps „wouldnt“-Lüge. Ein Präsident lügt sie schamlos an und sie finden das ok.

Wie Sascha Lobo in dem Spiegel-Artikel, den ich im ersten Faden verlinkt habe, schrieb: Wenn Trump morgen behauptete, der Mond sei aus grünem Käse, würde das sicherlich auch bald entsprechend verteidigt werden - denn das Ziel des Machterhalts (oder das Ziel, die „Linken von der Macht fernzuhalten) ist eben wichtiger als Prinzipien (Mittel). Sehr eindrücklich auch zur Zeit in UK zu beobachten.

Die Reaktion einiger republikanischer Senatoren auf Trumps „wouldnt“-Lüge. Ein Präsident lügt sie schamlos an und sie finden das ok.

Finden die das wirklich OK, oder machen sie "gute Miene zu bösem Spiel"? Sind sie "Überzeugungstäter" oder brauchen sie in naher Zukunft vielleicht Unterstützung von DJT und seinen treuen Anhängern? Politischer Pferdehandel ist ja nichts neues. Wenn ich mich da groß wundern würde, käme ich mir vor wie Captain Renault in 'Casablanca': "I am shocked — shocked — to find that gambling is going on in here!"

Die alte republikanische Partei hat eigentlich schon fast aufgehört zu existieren, und ihr Umbau wird sich noch beschleunigen, wenn viele der jetzigen Amtsträger demnächst in den Ruhestand gehen. Das neue Modell ist die Trump-Partei. Und Herr Trump kennt nur zwei Sorten von Menschen: Solche, die ihm 100% loyal sind, und all anderen, die gilt es auszuschalten. Da fühlen so etliche etablierte republikanische Politiker jetzt den Druck.

Meine Analyse auf Laienebene ist, dass DJT sich überhaupt nicht schert, in welcher Partei er ist. Er hat nur -- richtig -- erkannt, dass für seine Ziele die bereits morsche republikanische Partei den einfacheren Übernahme-Kandidat darstellt.

https://www.bustle.com/p/was-donald-trump-a-d...

Trump first registered as a Republican in 1987, which was also the first time he ever joined any party, according to Newsweek. He then dropped the GOP in 1999 and instead joined the Independence Party. That didn't last long, though, because in 2001 this site reports that he joined up with the Democrats instead. In 2009, then, he listed himself as a Republican again — before saying that he didn't want to be a member of any party in 2011. Finally, Newsweek reported that Trump re-joined the Republican party in 2012, and he hasn't left it since them. Only three years later, in fact, Trump formally announced that he was running for president as a Republican.

As I understand polls, this polling outfit is one of the less accurate ones, but the results nonetheless provide us with a strong indication why it may be a risky move for Republican lawmakers to publicly criticize the president's handling of the press conference at the Helsinki "summit". It is clear now that DJT was not exaggerating much when he (in)famously claimed that he could "stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody" and retain all his supporters.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/39...

Poll: Large majority of Republicans back Trump summit performance

Nearly 80 percent of Republicans approve of President Trump’s performance during his press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, a new Axios/SurveyMonkey poll found. Of Republicans surveyed, 79 percent said they approved of how the president handled the joint press conference. Only 18 percent said they disapproved.

@#9, 11 AGB usw.

Du hast recht. Sie (=meine Frage) ist/war letztendlich keine politische Frage, sondern eine moralische.

Wenn ich ein gläubiger Christ wäre, würde ich den 2. Punkt vertreten. Schließlich wird der Herr im Jenseits alles richten. Die Schuldigen werden bestraft und "the meek shall inherit the earth." Das wäre dann wirklich sehr schön, aber das ist für mich zu einfach. Ich bin Agnostiker. Ich finde, man muss jeden einzelnen Fall prüfen, abwägen. Mein Standpunkt wäre irgendwo zwischen Punkt 1 und 2. Ich persönlich mag keine Gewalt, besonders Gewalt gegenüber Menschen verabscheue ich. Ich habe nie eine Waffe in der Hand gehalten und werde das in Zunkunft auch nicht tun.

Jetzt fällt mir das Beispiel ein, das mir vorher nicht einfallen wollte. (Vielleicht ist es anderen schon eingefallen) Und ich weiß auch jetzt, warum ich ein mulmiges Gefühl im Bauch hatte. In der DDR gab es den Begriff "Feind(e) des Sozialismus" oder "Feinde des sozialistischen Staates". Bei der Stasi, "das Schild und Schwert der Partei", war dieser Begriff besonders beliebt. Damit haben die Mitglieder der Stasi alles Mögliche rechtfertigt, von einfachen Abhöraktionen bis hin zu Erschießungen an der Grenze. Ich glaube es ist generell problematisch von "Feinden" zu reden. Und die Kombination "Feinde des/der [aktuelle Regierungsform hier einsetzen]" hat eine schlechte Herkunft. Aber wenn man den Begriff benutzen und definieren will...

Für mich muss ein "Feind der Demokratie" nicht unbedingt Gewalt anwenden. Überhaupt nicht. Wenn ein Mensch Tag für Tag versucht, wichtige und kostbare Güter der Demokratie, wie eine unabhängige Justiz, freie Presse, freie Wahlen, auszuhöhlen, der hat für mich wirklich den Namen verdient. Wenn dieser Mensch nun das Amt des Präsidenten innehat, und wenn er die Macht des Amtes missbraucht, um sein Kaputtmachen voranzutreiben, dann muss ich mir einen anderen Begriff dafür suchen... Hat jemand eine Idee?

RE Trumps „wouldnt“-Lüge.

Ahhh... so it was all just a simple slip of the tongue. A misused double-negative. DT seems to know quite a bit about English grammar. Amazing!

Finden die das wirklich OK, oder machen sie "gute Miene zu bösem Spiel"?

Letzteres. Es ist ein offenes Geheimnis, dass auch die meisten Republikaner ihn hassen, sie trauen sich bloß nicht, das öffentlich zu sagen.

Sind sie "Überzeugungstäter" oder brauchen sie in naher Zukunft vielleicht Unterstützung von DJT und seinen treuen Anhängern?

Letzteres, bis auf vielleicht... wie heißt er noch mal? Rohrabacher? Er soll überzeugter Russland-Freund sein. Und auch finden sie es ok, weil sie Angst haben, DT zu widersprechen oder kritisieren. Zumindest nicht öffentlich. Ein Twittersturm von ihm oder tagelang beißende Kritik in Sendungen von FN könnte das Ende ihrer politischen Karriere bedeuten. Oder zumindest würde das ihnen das Leben viel schwieriger machen. Selbst Senatoren wie Paul Ryan kritisieren ihn nur bei den schlimmsten Fällen und dann nur indirekt. Er hat beim Wahlkampf in seinem Bezirk nichts zu fürchten, aber das ganze Hin-und-her könnte tagelang dauern und lenkt ab von seiner eigentlichen Arbeit.

I didn't see Norbert's #23 before posting #24.

@harambee

Yes, my fingers tremble as I type this, but by all indications, DT looks on track to win a second term. The last I heard, his poll numbers (among voters) are also up.

Ist das eine zu europäische Denkweise? I don't know. The strategy in American politics is that the candidate who can best stand up to criticism in the primaries will also best be able to weather the onslaught in the general election.

dass sich eine Partei auf welchem Wege auch immer auf einen Kandidaten einigt, bevor sie sich in den internen Vorwahlen zerfleischt haben?

Not really. Then there would be no point to the primaries. In some instances there is a clear favorite, though. I think John Kerry didn't face all that much opposition in 2004.

auf welchem Wege auch immer auf einen Kandidaten einigt

Naja, they could get into BIG trouble for that.

It all boils down to how well the parties can mobilize their existing supporters and gain new ones. Remember that about 20% of eligible Americans are not even registered to vote. Out of those that are registered, 75% show up for a presidential election. 0.75 x 0.8 = 0.6, so about 60% of eligible voters vote in presidential elections.

If the Democrats want to secure a win in 2020, they need to make sure that (1) the turnout of registered Democrats is high, (2) they attract the majority of independent voters that are registered as neither Democrat nor Republican, (3) they register as many new likely Democratic-leaning voters as possible.

Our own hm--us has summarized this in the mantra "register & vote, register & vote, ..."

The current leadership of the Democratic Party is weak. Part of the issue is an old guard that clings to power for no good reason I can discern other than personal gratification. This includes Ms. Pelosi and our senior senator from California, Ms. Feinstein. The latter recently failed to secure an endorsement from California Democrats for the mid-term election, showing that the Democratic base is hungry for a change in leadership.

I would also claim that the kind of backroom deals designed to ensure that there would be only one viable Democratic candidate in 2016, Ms. Clinton, also have great potential to get the party into trouble: see the unexpected incursion into Democratic territory by Mr. Sanders.

As an independent voter, I have some residual hope that Mr. Trump may face competition from within the Republican Party. But since it seems to be quickly transforming into the Trump Party, that hope is probably in vain. The Republican candidate I liked the best in the last election was Mr. Kasich, the governor of Ohio, and I have noticed that he appeared in the media quite often in recent months, which makes me believe that he is at least contemplating a run in 2020. He could run as an independent if need be, but that hasn't worked well for other people that have tried this approach before.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/21/kas...

Kasich: ‘All of my options are on the table’ for 2020

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, appearing alongside former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as he mulls a primary challenge to President Donald Trump, said Wednesday that the Republican Party has “never been my master” and that “all of my options are on the table” for 2020.

If the Democrats want to secure a win in 2020, they need to make sure that (1) the turnout of registered Democrats is high, (2) they attract the majority of independent voters that are registered as neither Democrat nor Republican, (3) they register as many new likely Democratic-leaning voters as possible.

Logisch, aber es bleibt noch die Frage, welche Strategie man dafür benötigt. Anti-Trump scheint mir nicht ausreichend zu sei, wenn sie nicht auch einen Kandidaten (schließt Frauen ein) und ein Programm haben, das zugleich einfach und überzeugend anders als das von Trump ist. Mit dem "einfach" will ich nicht sagen, dass amerikanische Wähler dumm sind und komplizierte Dinge nicht verstehen. Ich fürchte aber, dass es überall auf der Welt in Zeiten, in denen sich ein Großteil der Wähler über Social Media informiert, schwierig ist, mit komplizierten Themen zu punkten. (Nein, früher war nicht alles besser, aber vielleicht das eine oder andere einfacher.) Zudem glaube ich nicht, dass die Demokraten auch nur versuchen sollten, sich in der Russland-Affäre als bedauernswerte Opfer darzustellen. Das ist kontraproduktiv. Wer will sich schon von Opfern regieren lassen.

Would it be possible to enumerate some specific "skills necessary to win elections"? I am not necessarily disagreeing with the assessment, I am just wondering what particular skills are being referred to here.

es bleibt noch die Frage, welche Strategie man dafür benötigt. Anti-Trump scheint mir nicht ausreichend zu sei,

That's definitely true. I think it is too early to tell what philosophy / vision the party will espouse going forward, and who the champions of that are going to be. In general, there is an ongoing shift to the left at the base of the Democratic Party, at least from what I can see happening in California. As a middle-of-the-road independent voter, that concerns me, just like the significant right shift in the Republican Party did. I am afraid that the only candidates ultimately left standing will be the ones at the political extremes, which may create an impossible choice for me.

Would it be possible to enumerate some specific "skills necessary to win elections"?

There are two skills: discipline and organization

Those 3 three points you mentioned about voter turnout all require exceptional organizational skills. I've worked in these programs before and my experience was that it wasn't very well organized (Democratic Party).

Discipline is necessary for instance in making sure your party stays on message and is well co-ordinated. Running a nationwide campaign requires enormous co-ordination, which in turn requires good organizational skills and discipline. My impression was that the Obama campaign had both.

Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the redundant question. You had stated the skills in #28, but I had somehow parsed the sentence incorrectly. I think the numeral '2' (which I mistook for an ordinal '2.') may have thrown me off. Or it's owed to the fact that my brain turns to molasses at three in the morning. I have little direct insight into a lack of organizational skills among Democrats, as I live in an area where 60%-75% of voters go for the Democratic candidate, depending on the quality of the individual candidate.

As for the "Russian Affair", it isn't over yet. The Russian government continues to pursue a disinformation campaign designed to damage our political system. In 1984, a KGB defector described the KGB's goal as ideological subversion, which he defined as follows: "What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6...

an area where 60%-75% of voters go for the Democratic candidate,

Right. Then they don't need to be well organized. In Berlin many of the Americans living here are business men and they are usually registered already and vote Republican. :-(

Schlaf schön!

... ich frage mich, ob es nicht langsam an der Zeit wäre, dass die Demokraten einen überzeugenden Gegenkandidaten aufbauen. (#25)

DIe Republikaner auch.

"... ich frage mich, ob es nicht langsam an der Zeit wäre, dass die Demokraten einen überzeugenden Gegenkandidaten aufbauen. (#25)

DIe Republikaner auch."

Klingt gut, aber ist es das auch? Steven Pinker, einer, der Free Speech gar nicht mal so schlecht findet, gibt vier Gründe zur Verteidigung desselben und kommt in der letzten Minute auf Präsidentschaftswahlen zu sprechen. Er vertritt die These, Trump sei von vielen gewählt worden, weil sie vom politisch korrekten Konsens derart angewidert waren, dass sie einfach den wählten, der sich dem entgegenstellt. Und das war halt Donald Trump.

Falls er recht hat, sollten sie nicht einfach einen guten Gegenkandidaten aufbauen, sondern das Problem der politischen Korrektheit angehen - parteiweit.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kt8XnPJksA

It must be ten years or so since I last read something by Pinker ...

The video is worth watching since Pinker very cogently and eloquently lays out the case for free speech. However, he does not say that many voted for Donald Trump as a form of protest against political correctness. He says that he "was stunned by the number of people who supported Donald Trump [...] simply because they were so disgusted with the politically-correct consensus." The absolute number of people he is referring to may be quite small, and his evidence is clearly anecdotal.

Also anecdotally, I don't recall any Trump supporters raising the issue of political correctness as the reason to vote for him. The most common argument I personally heard from Trump supporters is that they were dissatisfied with the current state of the "system". I presume in an economic and political sense, but they usually were very short on details, with anti-immigrant sentiments high up the list. From their point of view, here was (finally!) a candidate that would "shake things up".

Just as with Obama supporters who wanted "change", I rarely heard specific proposals as to how they thought "the system" ought to change. Political discourse is difficult if a sizeable percentage of people just say "I don't like the way things are and I want something else", without being able to articulate what specifically should change, in what ways, and why.

DT trump railed constantly against "political correctness" during his campaign. It was one of his favorite punching bags and still is. This resonated with lots of Republicans. He is a master at exploiting other people's grievances.

He certainly did. But was that one of the major reasons people voted for him? I haven't seen any analysis, from polls or otherwise, that says it was. Did he get more mileage out of "The Wall", the "Muslim Ban", and MS-13 than railing against PCness? I would very much think so. As I learned first hand, one can catch even immigrant voters with that kind of rhetoric. My wife calls this effect the better-immigrant syndrome, as in: my group of immigrants is superior to that other group of immigrants. And of course there are the "I am in, now close the doors" immigrants. That effect I first encountered with immigrants in Germany.

Well, that depends on what your definition of "major" is. ;-) I would not discount its effect. I've looked at so many polls...after a while it all becomes tedious. (Not that I'm knocking polls; they are oftentimes useful.) If you can cite some reliable polls that try to measure various reasons (including "He is against being PC" or similar) for voters (before or immediately after the election) supporting DT that would be great. In my own view, there was a kind of synergy effect of the various reasons. After all, many of his "positions" overlap with "not being PC". Banning Muslims from entering the country? That in itself is an afront to "political correctness." (To me, it's simply racist thinking. No need to invoke the concept of PC) I don't see how one can separate the two.

The main basis for my thinking and my comment, though, is personal experience with a friend of mine.

EDIT: My wife calls this effect the better-immigrant syndrome, as in: my group of immigrants is superior to that other group of immigrants.

Very interesting comment. I myself have never encountered anything like that, but that doesn't mean much. I haven't lived in the U.S. in a long time and I grew up in a small town. We had several immigrant families, but no immigrant groups. The town was just too small for that. None of the families ever considered themselves to be better than the others. They were all just Americans.

Es geht nicht nur ums better-immigrant syndrome, sondern auch um den Schutz von Migranten. Zufälligerweise habe ich von erster Quelle gehört, dass das Durchsetzen von islamischen Regeln in Flüchtlingslagern durchaus ein Problem ist. Kein Kopftuch zu tragen oder während des Ramadan etwas zu essen kann für Flüchtlinge sehr kritisch sein. Was die Betreuer und Beamten des Gastlandes den Islamwächtern sagen, ist denen so ziemlich egal. Scharia geht vor.

Nicht zuletzt fliehen viele vor dem Islam. Wenn man dem Islam die Türen unkontrolliert öffnet, schadet man den echten Flüchtlingen.

correction:

...an affront to...

Responding to wupper's point, I can attest to the lack of organization in the Democratic Party, at least in 2016.

We had an exchange student living with us at the time, and she had to complete a certain number of volunteer hours during her stay. She had the idea that she would like to volunteer for the Clinton campaign. She wanted to learn more about the election process and American democracy, and I think she was genuinely excited that a woman could be president. We tried to connect with the Clinton campaign, but were unable to do so. It's possible we would have been able to do so through Facebook, but neither of us is on it.

I was pretty sure that the campaign's apparent lack of interest in volunteers and the dearth of Clinton signs in town, boded ill for the Democrats in Michigan, and I was right. After all, in my town there were more Sanders signs STILL up in November than there were Clinton signs. And the Trump signs around town were bigger.

I am fairly certain that my exchange student would have managed to connect with the Obama campaign in either 2008 and 2012.

Clinton wouldn't have had to win very many votes in Wisconsin and Michigan to carry those two states and win the electoral college and the election. I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but my impression from Michigan was that the Clinton campaign THOUGHT it was going to carry Michigan without a problem and didn't compete very hard here. It was a sloppy campaign run by people who thought their candidate was entitled to win. And this despite the fact that Clinton lost the primary to Sanders in both Wisconsin and Michigan. Clinton lost Michigan in the general election by .3%. Had she gotten 10% of Johnson's (Libertarian) votes or 25% of Stein's (Green) votes, or some combination, she could have carried Michigan. She lost here by 11,612 votes.

"I think there's no ignoring the fact that for whatever reason, this President acts like he's compromised," Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on ABC News' "This Week."

"There is simply no other way to explain why he would side with this Kremlin former KGB officer rather than his own intelligence agencies," he said.

But Tom Bossert, the former White House homeland security adviser, said on the same show that suggestions that Trump was compromised by Russia were a "cheap shot."

Contrasting Putin's background as a former KGB agent who uses "penny-ante spy tactics" with Trump's as a former businessman, Bossert said, "We spend our time trying to have productive meetings with foreign leaders. All the rest of this speculation and smoke is meant to undermine the President. It's domestic partisan political concern mixed with some legitimate need to throw our intelligence forces against the prevention of spying and interfering in the United States."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/d...

Obiges scheint zu zeigen, dass sich momentan die Politik in USA immer stärker auf Extreme zurückzieht und damit Staaten wie Russland und China, die aus dem resultierenden, innenpolitischen Chaos in USA Vorteile ziehen, stärkt.

Ich bin ja durchaus für eine multipolare Welt, aber bitte nicht so, dass Krieg (auch Handelskrieg) wieder wahrscheinlich wird.

Was der Typ so alles 'approved'.  :o)

würde man vielleicht zu dem Schluss kommen, dass eine direkte Konfrontation zwischen den USA und dem Iran unvermeidlich ist

Sometimes I think that defense secretary Mattis is the only person left to block Mr. Trump's path toward actual military confrontation, and his influence seems to be waning. I find that scary. On the other hand, Mr. Trump so far seems to be following an "all bark, no bite" strategy regarding global conflicts. If someone has better luck reading the political tea leaves, please enlighten us.

It is very hard to tell whether there is a "method to the madness". There is a fine line between acting like a madman and actually being a bona fide madman.

Yeah, well at least he doesn't drink like Nixon did...

He's a teetotaler. His brother, however, was an alcoholic.

There is a fine line between

Otherwise that fine line would have been crossed long ago, I think. Nixon was the "original" madman, and he drank.

EDIT: I don't believe DT takes any drugs. (Would be glad to learn of any reliable information to the contrary, though.) It's just sex and ego gratification with him.

There is a saying that most teetotalers are "trockene Alkoholiker" (alcoholics who manage by not drinking)

I doubt there is any research that backs that up, and, as a saying, it is clearly insulting to the many people who choose not to drink alcohol for religious reasons or simply out of personal conviction.

@ulinne #64: Ich vermute, die Umwelt- und Arbeitsschutzstandards sind mit "barriers" gemeint:

It would be huge news if the US and Europe ever agreed to get to the zero tariffs, zero subsidies and zero barriers standard that both leaders proposed on Wednesday.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/d...

In meinen Augen liegt der Erfolg für Juncker darin, dass Trump zugestimmt hat, während der Verhandlungen keine weiteren Zölle einzuführen. Das heißt, für's erste müssen europäische Unternehmen keine weiteren Zölle fürchten. Ob und wann ein Vertrag über "zero tariffs, zero subsidies and zero barriers" zustande kommt, steht in den Sternen. Ich sehe das als ein auf Zeit Spielen von Juncker. Und natürlich bieten solche Verhandlungen die ideale Möglichkeit, ungeliebte Regelungen auszuhebeln.

Und natürlich wird ein Problem darin liegen, dass man sich wie bisher nicht darauf einigen kann, was denn "zero subsidies and zero barriers" bedeutet. Umweltstandards sind verschieden. Mal sind sie in den USA strenger, mal in Europa. Es ist schwer vorstellbar, dass eine Seite ihre Umweltstandards verringern wird. Das wird die andere dann aber als Barriere ansehen. Bei den subsidies kommen dann wieder die Aufträge ans Militär ins Spiel, auf die weder die Amerikaner noch die Europäer verzichten wollen. Ich kann mir allerdings nicht vorstellen, dass es Trump besonders wichtig ist, die europäischen Arbeitsschutzregelungen aufzuweichen. Für ihn sind amerikanische Firmen, die in Europa produzieren, doch ohnehin mehr als suspekt, und wenn europäische Firmen Mehrkosten durch Arbeitsschutz haben, dürfte ihm das egal sein.

DLF brüstet sich gerne damit, auch unliebsame Themen anzuschneiden.

Mein Eindruck ist, daß diese Kölner Truppe des öfteren ihre höchst eigene Interpretation der Realität weitergibt.

Interessant, nicht mal dem Guardian Online ist Junkers Reise zum Potomac eine Zeile wert. (Hab aber auch nicht zu intensiv nachgeschaut)

Vor nicht allzu langer Zeit wurde im Zusammenhang mit dem JEFTA Abkommen darüber berichtet, dass man auf dem gescheiteten TTIP und den negativen  Reaktionen in der EU gelernt habe und bestimmte Dinge, wie zum Beispiel private Schiedsgerichte, nicht mehr in Verhandlungen zustimmen würde.

Ich bin aus der Kategorie 'hoffnungslose Optimisten' und vertraue darauf, dass DT  TTIP gekippt hatte ohne wirklich auch nur im Entferntesten zu wissen was da verhandelt worden war. Vielleicht ist die die von ihm ungewollte Chance es seitens der WU besser zu machen.

# 66 Für ihn sind amerikanische Firmen, die in Europa produzieren, doch ohnehin mehr als suspekt, und wenn europäische Firmen Mehrkosten durch Arbeitsschutz haben, dürfte ihm das egal sein.

'Witzigerweise' gilt das für seinen Handelsminister (zumindest theoretisch) nicht. Der hat mit seinem Firmengeflecht auch europäische Interessen - was man an seinen Aktionen gegen die EU allerdings nicht merkt.

Eine Freundin von mir arbeitet in einer seiner Firmen in der EU.

Im Grundsatz sind die Bedenken von Euch schon berechtigt, aber ein Handelsabkommen wird nicht mit einem Treffen zwischen Junker und Trump vereinbart. Das bedeutet ausführlichliche über Jahre andauernde Verhandlungen über jedes einzelne Wort und jedes einzelne Komma eines Vertrags. Außerdem müssten dann auch wiederum diverse Gremien (in der EU und den Mitgliedsstaaten) zustimmen. Ich wäre mir nicht einmal sicher, ob ein solches Abkommen überhaupt in der Amtszeit von Trump abgeschlossen werden könnte.

Ich hatte diesen Artikel heute Vormittag gelesen: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul...

Daraus ergibt sich auch, dass eine ganze Reihe von Staaten Vorbehalte angemeldet haben und dass manche Vereinbarungen, z.B. dass die EU bestimmte Produkte von der USA kauft dann doch eher kryptisch sind.

Der wesentliche Grund dürfte doch sein, dass die USA Ihre Strafzölle zurücknimmt. Das wird wahrscheinlich auch die einzige kurzfristige Folge einer Vereinbarung sein.

Bubb & Jenna

Hätt mich auch gewundert, aber ich wüsste bis eben nicht, daß da vier verschiedene Ausgaben existieren. Auslernen gibt's nicht.

Zur Frage, wie "die EU" mehr amerikanische Sojabohnen kauft, hat Reuters das hier (Hervorhebungen von mir):

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-...

Discount not discourse to boost U.S. soy sales to EU

HAMBURG (Reuters) - European Union imports of U.S. soybeans will remain strong for economic reasons with talks between U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker giving them only a symbolic boost, European traders and analysts said. [...] EU buyers have already been stepping up purchases, with U.S. supplies now available at a significant discount to exports from South America. [...] “It is not the European Commission that buys, but the industry, and traders who look for goods where they are the least expensive for their financial interests,” one European soybean trader said. “If U.S. soy is cheaper than the Brazilian it will be preferred.”

The screeching from DJT is getting louder and more desperate, so I guess Mueller is getting closer:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/10...

This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further.

Apparently Mr. Trump forgot that Mr. Sessions recused himself from this investigation, so he cannot stop it. It proceeds under the leadership of Mr. Rosenstein, who seems to have the level of integrity I would expect from someone in his position, as he has not budged despite constant attacks from Mr. Trump and his allies in Congress. As I recall, Ken Starr worked as independent counsel for four years before wrapping up his investigation. I see no reason not to grant Mr. Mueller the same time frame for his if that is what he needs.

Mein Eindruck vom Frau Sanders ist, dass sie das ganze sportlich sieht, vielleicht als Test ihrer Reaktionsfähigkeit oder Fabulierkünste. Sie ist ja auch meist in der Lage, aus dem Stegreif ein Märchen eine Widerlegung zu formulieren bei kritischen Fragen. Und ihr Gesichtausdruck verrät manchmal ihre Gedanken dabei (so kommt es mir zumindest vor): "Ich weiß, dass ihr wisst, dass das jetzt alles an den Haaren herbeigezogen ist".

The screeching from DJT is getting louder and more desperate,

Yes, another one of DT's top campaign officials donning prison garb does not bode well for him...

This article provides a glimpse of the process by which the Republican Party is turning into the Trump Party:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/03/politics/diane...

Washington Republicans just keep losing primaries

[...]

The message being sent by Republican voters is clear: They want more Trumps, not fewer. The President was the leading edge of a movement fueled by anger and disappointment with Washington, not its conclusion. [...] This shouldn't be terribly surprising. Poll after poll shows that Trump is among the most popular modern presidents among his own party. While only 40% of the overall population approves of the job Trump is doing in Gallup polling, 87% of Republicans are on board with how Trump is handling the presidency. Republican voters love how much Trump is willing to freak out the establishment -- even within his own party.

Fortunately, it's not all unadulterated bad news, Norbert. Here's the latest Gallup survey on party affiliation:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affi...

Republicans are running third behind Democrats and - by a significant margin - behind Independents. (Yes, I am aware that when it actually gets to the election Independents can break either way, but for a variety of reasons I think it less likely they'll favor DT.)

Christine Todd Whitman, who was Republican Governor of New Jersey when I lived there and is a self-described Eisenhower Republican, quoted similar figures in a CNN interview I saw yesterday.

She also urged her fellow Republicans to call on Trump to step down.

In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times earlier this week, Christine Todd Whitman wrote that Trump's recent behavior toward Russia and his performance at the Helsinki summit reveal that he is "unfit for office."

when it actually gets to the election Independents can break either way, but for a variety of reasons I think it less likely they'll favor DT

I have been part of that "mighty" block of independents ever since I became a citizen. About 40% percent of voters identified that way back then (i2007), and the percentage is still the same today according to the cited data. It has not fluctuated much in between either, looking over the complete data set. Since this covers the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations, I don't think one can say that independents lean strongly one way or the other.

I took note of Ms. Whitman's remarks when she made them several days ago. But she is part of the group of classic Republicans that is being pushed out by Trump's followers. Her power to move things in the Republican Party is approaching zero right now.

Im Vorgängerfaden habe ich in 262 behauptet, die Presse sei mehrheitlich links, was bezweifelt wurde, unter anderem mit dem Argument, das käme sehr stark darauf an, wo der politisch steht, der das behauptet.

Hier etwas zu einer Metastudie über Journalisten in 17 entwickelten Ländern.

https://bazonline.ch/leben/gesellschaft/journ...

"Die ersten Resultate der dänischen Studie unterstreichen das verbreitete Vorurteil. Am häufigsten stehen die Journalisten grünen Ideologien nahe, gefolgt vom Feminismus. Es gibt in den Redaktionen durchschnittlich drei Mal so viele Grüne und Feministen wie im Rest der Bevölkerung. Auf Platz drei liegt der Sozialliberalismus, gefolgt von Kommunismus und einer pro-europäischen Haltung. Diese drei Einstellungen sind bei den Medien doppelt so häufig vertreten wie in der Bevölkerung. Am seltensten ist eine nationalkonservative Haltung. Sie ist in der Bevölkerung rund sechs Mal häufiger vertreten als bei den Journalisten."

Leider weiss ich nicht, wer die Studie verfasst hat oder wo man sie anschauen kann, welche 17 Länder sie umfasst, wie gross die Unterschiede in den Ländern sind, ob in allen 17 Ländern der grün-linke Bias vorherrscht; von dem her ist die Berichterstattung enttäuschend.

In der Schweiz ist der Bias auf jeden Fall klar da:

https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/sonntagszeitung/...

"Fast 70 Prozent aller SRG-Journalisten bezeichnen sich als links. 16 Prozent verorten sich in der politischen Mitte. Und 16 Prozent sehen sich als rechts."

"«Journalisten der SRG unterscheiden sich in ihrer politischen Einstellung nicht signifikant von Journalisten der privaten Medien.» Das heisst: Alle Journalisten ticken gleich – in der Mehrzahl links."

Vielleicht ist aber die USA in dieser Hinsicht ausgewogener.

I don't know what to make of this kerfluffle with Manigault Newman. Initially I wasn't interested in the least. But then I read some recent Gezwitscher from "the currently elected president of the United States" (to quote a tour guide): People in the White House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. I would rarely see her but heard...really bad things. Nasty to people & would constantly miss meetings & work. When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems. I told him to try working it out, if possible, because she only said GREAT things about me - until she got fired!

Let's summarize here: I heard she was doing a bad job, but I told them to try to keep her on staff because she said GREAT things about me. You don't even have to read many of his tweets to be able to tell when one wasn't written by a staffer. I'd rate that 100% on authenticity and high on truthfulness. It puts him in such a bad light, but he is apparently unable to tell that.

The sad thing about this current administration is that you can't believe anything at all that comes out of there. I don't know much about Ms. Newman, but the more I read about and from her, the less I like her. She looks like she's just trying to cash in on having been a minor player in the WH for 15 minutes, and having been on the "Apprentice" before that and thus having gained an "insider's" knowledge of Trump's inner workings. I wish I could just skip the next three years and live in a different universe.

I wish I could just skip the next three years and live in a different universe

Where do I sign up? Maybe a medically induced coma would do, what do you think?

My experience in industry was that corporate culture is basically determined by the behavior of the person heading the organization. The same seems to apply to the White House. With a pathological liar and master manipulator at the top, we now have an administration full of similar personalities. A bunch of backstabbing schemers, eager to spread falsehoods and leaking to the press on a grand scale to further their objectives.

Some of Ms. Manigault-Newman's accusations are plausible and likely true, but it is exceedingly hard to tell which of her statements are truths, which are exaggerations, and which are outright lies. As the German saying goes: "Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht".

In regards to the current US Administration I am strongly reminded of "der Fisch stinkt vom Kopf".

I am sure that Manigault Newman is self-serving and will exaggerate and lie if she deems it helpful. But I am equally sure that her accusations of cult like behaviour inside the WH and of racism experienced by her is not a lie.

please read "I am sure" = "I am of the opinion"

seems very american to me

Oh, such very typical German America-bashing. (Irony intended.)

BTW: In English, adjectives of nationality are always capitalized. Not doing so seems very german to me. (Irony intended.)

Oh, such very typical German America-bashing. (Irony intended.)

Well..it wasn´t intended to be any bashing at all...just an observation....and of course without judgement. There is nothing wrong with making a quick buck - a talent that other nations lack.

As for the correction: very german indeed - but we haf vays to make you talk!

Mich hat vor allem "fasziniert" das sie

1. desöfteren Aufnahmegeräte mitnehmen konnte (wobei das jedes Smartphone kann)
2. desöfteren AUfnahmen gemacht hat, obwohl das verboten ist und sie eine Geheimhaltungserklärung unterschrieben hat.

Das Ganze wirkt auf mich geplant.

Das Ganze wirkt auf mich geplant.

My thoughts exactly. But, having been on his stupid "Apprentice," show, and having been fired there three times previously, I'm pretty sure that she knew who she was dealing with and was arming herself.

Darf ich lachen?

https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/ausland/e...

Die Einführung von Strafzöllen auf europäischen Stahl durch Donald Trump hat hingegen US-Handelsminister Wilbur Ross mittlerweile auf den Plan gerufen: Er verdächtigt einheimische Hersteller des Preiswuchers. Es liefen Untersuchungen, ob einige Marktteilnehmer die Zölle für "ungerechtfertigte Preistreiberei" genutzt hätten, sagte er am Mittwoch vor dem Finanzausschuss des Senats.

"Es gibt keinen Grund, den Stahlpreis um weit mehr als die Prozentzahl des Zolls anzuheben und dennoch geschieht es", klagte Ross. Er sprach von "gesellschaftsfeindlichem Verhalten" in der Industrie, nannte jedoch keine Firmen. Allerdings wäre es aus seiner Sicht zur Linderung von drohenden Angebotsengpässen angebracht, wenn der Hüttenbetreiber US Steel Corp eingemottete Hochöfen im Bundesstaat Illinois wieder hochfahren würde.

Als ob das Hochfahren eines Hochofen mal eben so ginge.

Egal was passiert - die amerikanischen Verbraucher werden mMn den größten Schaden haben.

NAchtrag: die Gute war 3x in der Apprentice Show?

War sie doch besser als gedacht, einfach eine gute Quotenbringerin oder hat sie Trump so dermaßen gelobt **, dass er sie um jeden Preis in der Show haben wollte.

**In einem Beitrag las ich, dass er getweetet hat, er habe gehört dass sie  xxxx (jede beliebige Verfehlung bitte hier einsetzen)  aber sie mag, weil sie sich so positiv über ihn geäußert habe.

Well..it wasn´t intended to be any bashing at all...just an observation....and of course without judgement. There is nothing wrong with making a quick buck - a talent that other nations lack.

Looks like I am in Stereotype Central this morning :-) (1) Nations don't have talents, people do. (2) "quick buck" clearly has negative connotations. Hint: Try substituting adjectives of other groups of people for "American" and see whether that statement still sounds like "just an observation".

I don't think making a "quick buck" clearly has negative connotations. I've made a quick buck in my life occasionally, and without there being anything negative about it. It simply means you didn't have to work or haggle very hard or long for it. Maybe you thought something could be a tough sell and it went surprisingly easy and quick instead. It happens. :-)

I do think Americans love making quick bucks. The US is, after all, the citadel of capitalism. People around the world have dreamed of coming here to make lots of money for centuries. And whereas Europe and other places pride themselves on their philosophers, artists, thinkers, etc., most Americans unabashedly tout their billionaires. It's all about money here, even in our public school systems (another sad story that could take up lots of space on LEO if we let it).

However the US was in a large part founded by people with certain religious ideas, e.g. "those who are wealthy are in the grace of god".

The most common religious denomination in the US today is? Yup, you guessed it: Catholicism, at 25% of the population. Generally speaking, accumulation of wealth is not considered something to be ashamed of in the US: there is not much class envy around here. If people learn that you did well financially, they might respond with "Good for you". A good portion of us certainly take a much dimmer view of those just out to make a quick buck, while others apparently don't give a hoot; see this thread :-).

national stereotypes are something to overcome - but they did not pop up from the void. Historical perspective should not be overlooked.

I live in the tenth largest city in the US where 40% of the people are immigrants, hailing from 140 different countries. What national stereotypes would you suggest we overcome, and which historical perspectives should we make sure not to overlook? Please advise.

BTW, I have no idea what "total capitalism" is. It might be helpful to define it.

The most common religious denomination in the US today is? Yup, you guessed it: Catholicism, at 25% of the Population.

certainly - but there is a lot of smaller denominations like Baptists, Methodists etc that share the calvinist root. I don´t have a statistic at hand but I would presume that their total number combined would be larger than the catholics.

As for the national stereotypes to overcome: I think it is very clear that all stereotypes that lead to discrimination should be overcome.

Examples: Italians are mobsters - they are not of course but the main part (or core) of the Mafia was italian when they ruled certain parts of cities. It is a historical fact and negating it is faking history.

And of course you are certainly familiar with the stereotypes concerning Jews. Isn´t that something every Society or Nation should overcome? ..and do you really need my advice for it?

Der Boston Globe hat die Zeitungen in den USA aufgefordert, heute in ihrem Editorial vor Donald Trumps Angriffen gegen die Pressefreiheit zu warnen. Mehr als 300 Zeitungen - vom groß bis klein - sind dem gefolgt. Die Editorials schreibt jede Zeitung individuell.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/08/14/... 

Ich weiß allerdings nicht, wieviele Zeitungen es in den USA gibt.

#117 - Ich weiß allerdings nicht, wieviele Zeitungen es in den USA gibt.

This website claims:

In the last presented year (2016), there were 1,286 daily newspapers in the United States, down from 1,748 in 1970.

It won't reveal the source of this information unless you pay though.

Brett Kavanaugh ist knapp in dem Supreme Court gewählt worden.

Kavanaugh cleared a key procedural vote on Friday. In that result – 51 yes votes to 49 no votes in the 100-seat Senate, moderate Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the lone Republican to oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination. Joe Manchin, a red state Democrat facing a touch re-election battle in West Virginia, was the only Democrat to break from his party and back the judge.

Herzlichen Glückwunsch.

Es hat etwas Gruselkabinett-artiges. Ich meine, sollen sie doch ihre Prinzipien und ihre Institutionen den Bach runter gehen lassen wegen mir. Bitte. Wenn nur nicht immer die ganze Welt mehr oder weniger in Mitleidens haft gezogen würde.

ungeachtet der ganzen Proteste

Im allgemeinen sind Proteste, Petitionen, usw. im politischen Prozeß westlicher Demokratien selten maßgeblich. Ein Kommentar der ehemaligen Gouvernörin Christine Todd Whitman:

http://time.com/5416627/help-survivors-elect-...

The Best Way to Help Women Survivors Be Heard? Elect More Women

Und hier etwas speziell für junge Leute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POiqY4FIfMY

Senatorin Collins hat in einer zwanzigminütigen Rede dargelegt, wie sie zu ihrer Entscheidung gekommen ist. Den Wortlaut ihrer Rede findet man hier:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politic...

Man muss mit ihrer Entscheidung nicht übereinstimmen, aber ich denke nicht, dass man sagen kann, sie hätte sich nicht Gedanken dabei gemacht.

Side remark: Public discussions of women's dress, hair, or makeup annoy me terribly unless it directly relates to their job, e.g. as a model. I'd rather focus on what job-related things they do and say.

My philosophy is that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on many contentious issues. I have respect for thoughtful politicians of above average integrity, even if I don't agree with their positions. In my thinking, based on watching proceedings in the U.S. Senate for many years, senator Collins is such as politician. I don't consider people brave or heroes simply because their conclusions match mine, and I don't consider them cowards because they come to a different conclusion. I want to see politicians that ponder the issues and draw their own conclusions, not simply follow a party line (plenty of those among both Democrats and Republicans).

I have stated before that I think senator Feinstein should have retired (we need generational change in the Washington crowd), and I think she handled the Blasey-Ford allegations in a suboptimal manner. But looking at her challenger in the upcoming election, I think she will win re-election rather easily.

I can only cross my fingers for Brazil

Talking to my Brazilian friends and seeing what they write and share online, I fear that today's vote may be no more sensible. There are too many people to whom Lula has brought economic success who now suffer from the economic crisis, and they believe Bolsonaro's simple (and simplistic) promises ...

Mir ging es aber nicht um den Vergleich mit Deutschland, sondern darum, dass der Senat die eigenen Institutionen beschädigt.

Bingo. And that's lasting damage that can't be solved by the next election.

(Und danke für das Wort 'Institution'. Ich wusste nämlich nicht, dass man es auch im Deutschen so benutzen kann.)

RE age

What about Chuck Grassley and Mr. McConnell? They aren't exactly spring chickens (85, 76 resp.). And they did play a much bigger role (to put it mildly) than Feinstein in getting the new judge on the bench. Why don't they resign? (If we're going to be bemoaning old politicians clinging to power, that is...)

Nine people are confirmed dead as a result of the Camp Fire in Northern California, which spread with unprecedented speed. DJT's compassionate response:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10...

There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

I can only hope there is a hell and that it has a special corner reserved for the likes of DJT. The facts:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-governme...

Through the national forests, national parks, Bureau of Land Management, and others, the federal government manages more than 40 percent of California’s total acreage, as of 2015. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, by comparison, manages a little more than 30 percent. [...]

The Trump administration’s own budget request for the current fiscal year and the coming one proposed slashing tens of millions of dollars from the Department of Interior and U.S. Forest Service budgets dedicated to the kind of tree clearing and other forest management work experts say is needed.

I saw a report yesterday by someone who lives in the area. He stated: Around the origin of the Camp Fire, there was only sparse forest and there were no issues with overgrown brush, which got cleared by a fire a few years back. Massive amounts of forest undergrowth due to lack of forest management is a problem in some parts of California, but apparently not in this case. This person reported that 40 mph winds drove embers from the Camp Fire horizontally, in a ground-hugging layer at least the height of a person, allowing the fire to hop up to a mile at a time.

As for "Billions of dollars are given each year": The biggest payers of federal taxes are by far, you guessed right, the people of California: $405,851,295,000 in 2015. A 2017 analysis showed that California receives $0.99 for every dollar it sends to Washington, so we are hardly mooching off the federal government. The ratio used to be significantly worse (for California) twenty-five years ago, I seem to recall something like $0.79 per dollar returned. And it will probably be more unfavorable going forward, as changes to SALT deductibility kick in for the 2018 tax year.

Thank you, Norbert. I suppose by 'managing' the forests he meant cutting them down. How sad.

Though apparently in the current dryer climate, people who live in or near forests or brushy areas do indeed need to do a lot more cutting of brush and creating a wider perimeter around their houses, even if it means sacrificing trees. That was one of the sad realizations in the Bastrop area, east of Austin, after the fire there a few years ago. The people who moved out there to live in the middle of the trees simply hadn't realized the risk of having them so close to their houses.

But that doesn't mean either the US Forest Service or the state agencies, both struggling under reduced budgets, should necessarily have to do it for them. I would think that conservatives would be all in favor of letting individuals shoulder their own risk.

Though part of the problem is that these risks today are suddenly more extreme, and less uncommon, than anyone had previously imagined. I wish I thought that with more disasters like this, local governments were getting better able to predict danger and order evacuations, but I can imagine that many small towns in remote areas just don't have that kind of resources. Another reason to mourn the state and federal funding that once helped more with research and prevention .

The point about the recent tax law reducing not only corporate taxes, but also individual deductions for SALT (state and local taxes), is an interesting one. One recent article points out that some of the Republican disappointments in wealthy suburbs seem to correlate with people unhappy about losing the larger SALT deduction. Trump seems to have targeted that federal tax increase at 'blue states' with high taxes, such as NY and CA, but it ended up hitting Republican voters not only there but also in NJ and the DC suburbs.

____________

The law appears to have hurt Republicans in some high-income, high-tax districts, where many residents were angry about the law’s $10,000 cap on the deduction for state and local taxes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/business/e...

____________

I don't whether anyone is still interested in links to background articles about the current administration, or able to access them. But just in case, I previously posted a few in the CC one day when I was unable to post in this thread.

Siehe auch: Crossover Chat # 344 - #75

The one about a company taking over local TV stations was particularly sobering. I'm curious now how many of those opinion-dominated markets were in regions that stayed redder than expected this election cycle.

Das nennt man dann wohl Teufelskreis.

Color me confused. Worauf genau bezieht sich diese Bemerkung jetzt?

Und sollte sich Kalifornien durch Klimawandel zu einem größeren Teil in (Halb-)Wüste verwandeln .... Dazu braucht es keinen Klimawandel. Kalifornien ist von je her schon mehr oder weniger eine Halbwüste. Stell dir vor, es gäbe keine Wasserzufuhr vom Colorado River, von Owens Valley und vielen weiteren, wasserreicheren Orten. Oder keine Stauseen in den Sierras, usw., usf. Kalifornien hätte nicht einmal die Hälfte seiner jetzigen Einwohnerzahlen, und Los Angeles (z.B.) wäre immer noch ein kleines, unbedeutendes Kuhdorf. Man braucht auch nur einmal aus den Küstenstädten raus Richtung Osten fahren (oder fliegen), um zu sehen, wie riesengroß eigentlich die Wüstengegenden (und Halbwüsten) in Kalifornien sind. Ohne künstliche Bewässerung wäre Kalifornien nur an der Küste entlang besiedelbar - so wie es vor kaum mehr als 100 Jahren eben war.

Das gleiche gilt natürlich auch für Städte wie Laughlin, Needles, Barstow, oder jenseits der Staatsgrenze, Las Vegas, Phoenix und all den anderen Städten, die ihr Wasser vom Colorado River (der übrigens nur kaum größer als ein Bach in den Golf von Kalifornien mündet) beziehen: alles nur Wüste, und nicht einmal halb.

Der kleinere Teil Kaliforniens ist von Natur aus Halbwüste. Deswegen schrieb ich ausdrücklich vom "größeren Teil".

Los Angeles (z.B.) wäre immer noch ein kleines, unbedeutendes Kuhdorf.

Nicht unbedingt. Es gibt seit Jahrzehnten Meerwasserentsalzungsanlagen. Aber das Grundargument stimmt schon: ohne mit viel Aufwand Wasser quer durch den ganzen Staat zu pumpen wäre Kalifornien heute viel dünner besiedelt und wäre nicht zur fünfgrößten Volkswirtschaft in der Welt (vor Großbritannien) geworden.

Ohne künstliche Bewässerung wäre Kalifornien nur an der Küste entlang besiedelbar

Große Teile des Zentraltales hatten ausreichend Wasser. Am Südende des Zentraltales lag vor zweihundert Jahren noch ein relativ großer flacher See, Tulare Lake (?). Die übermäßige Nutzung durch intensive Landwirtschaft hat den See austrocknen lassen, und der San Joaquin River im südlichen Zentraltal fließt heute nur noch in einigen Wintermonaten.

Ich würde sagen, der kleinere Teil Kaliforniens ist von Natur aus Wüste, der größere Halbwüste (allein die Hälfte des riesigen Central Valleys gilt ja schon als Halbwüste).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_...

The northern half of the Central Valley receives greater precipitation than the semidesert southern half.

Und südlich vom Central Valley wird's ja nur noch trockener.

allein die Hälfte des riesigen Central Valleys gilt ja schon als Halbwüste).

Das wäre mir neu (ich sehe, Beleg jetzt nachgeliefert). Und ein Blick auf die Karte sagt mir, dass selbst wenn es so wäre, das noch lange nicht den größeren Teil von Kalifornien ausmacht: Wikipedia sagt zur Größe des Zentraltales:

It covers approximately 18,000 square miles (47,000 km2), about 11% of California's total land area.

Wenn die südliche Hälfte als Halbwüste gezählt wird, sind das ca. 6% der Fläche. Den Tulare Lake gab es länger als ich bisher wusste:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake

Above a threshold elevation of 207 to 210 feet, it overflowed into the San Joaquin River. This happened in 19 of 29 years from 1850 to 1878. No overflows occurred after 1878 due to increasing diversions of tributary waters for agricultural irrigation and municipal water uses, and by 1899, the lake was dry except for residual wetlands and occasional floods.

Heute gibt es in dem Gebiet im Sommer Sand-/Staubstürme. Eine von Menschen gemachte Halbwüste.

Also, einfach zu bestimmen ist das alles sicher nicht, aber in Kalifornien gibt es 3 Wüsten: Sonora, Colorado und Mojave. Insgesamt sind mindestens 25 Prozent von Kalifornien schon mal Wüste:

https://www.kcet.org/shows/artbound/high-dry-...

According to William L. Fox, the Mojave Desert contains 54,000 square miles ...

Twenty-five percent of California is desert.

Dann kommen noch wer weiss wie viele tausende von Quadratmeilen Halbwüste dazu. Insgesamt würde ich jedoch schätzen, dass riesige Teile Kaliforniens als Wüsten oder Halbwüsten definiert werden können. Selbst die Gebirge sind ja größtenteils so trocken, dass man sie fast nur als Wüsten oder Halbwüsten bezeichnen kann.

Ich weiß nicht, ob du schon mal auf dem Hwy. 395 warst, aber entlang der Strecke (die sich über so ziemlich die gesamte Länge Kaliforniens erstreckt) ist es besonders ersichtlich: die Ostseite der Sierras (westlich von Hwy. 395) ist meistens staubtrocken (im Gegensatz zur Westseite der Sierras, wo es noch Seen, Flüsse, Bäume und Gräser gibt), und östlich vom Hwy. 395 ist sowieso alles nur Wüste oder, im Norden, Halbwüste.

Offenbar jedenfalls genug Wüste, dass der Präsident Angst vor Regen hat:

After a few hours in a Paris hotel, the White House called off Trump’s attendance at the first memorial event of the weekend, at Belleau, where 2,000 US marines were killed. The ostensible reason for the sudden cancellation: rain.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/11...

This is about as much as effort as one can expect from Cadet Bone Spurs. BTW, I would think president Macron (or his speech writer) had DJT in mind when he crafted the following remark:

https://www.lemonde.fr/centenaire-14-18/artic...

Car le patriotisme est l’exact contraire du nationalisme : le nationalisme en est la trahison. En disant « nos intérêts d’abord et qu’importent les autres ! », on gomme ce qu’une Nation a de plus précieux, ce qui la fait vivre, ce qui la porte à être grande, ce qui est le plus important : ses valeurs morales.

Google Translate renders this into English in a reasonable way (based on my minimal knowledge of French :-):

For patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is treason. By saying "our interests first and what do the others matter!" We erase what a nation has most precious, what makes it live, what brings it to be great, which is the most important: its moral values.

A sign of the times:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/americas/canad...

2,550 US citizens applied for asylum in Canada in 2017. That's more than 6 times as many as in 2016

[...]

There's a large number of asylum-seekers this year as well, with 1,215 Americans requesting refuge in Canada through the end of August. Canadian officials said that while Canada remains an open, welcoming country, crossing into it is not "a ticket for permanent residence."

Naja. Die CIA hat seit etwa zwei Jahren einen neuen Chef und sie mögen ihn nicht.

Will da jemand dem Präsidenten schaden?

Kann gut sein. Es kann auch gut sein, dass jemand einfach möchte, dass die Wahrheit ans Licht kommt. Nicht, dass die amerikanischen Geheimdienste immer richtig liegen. Das tun sie nicht. Aber warum sollte diese Informationen geheim bleiben?

Ein "ordentlicher" Präsident würde diese Information selber an die Presse geben, meine ich. DT stellt aber diese Erkenntnisse in Frage. Und das ist nicht das erste Mal. Nein, das ist kein gutes Zeichen. :-(

Meine Hauptfrage war ohnehin, wie üblich oder unüblich es denn ist, dass solche Informationen durchgestochen werden.

Meines Wissens ist das eine gängige Praxis bei sowohl der CIA als auch beim FBI und zwar immer, wenn (ein) Mitarbeiter das Gefühl hat, dass der Präsident seine Macht missbraucht oder aber das Land in Gefahr bringt bzw. bringen könnte. Siehe Watergate, Deep Throat, usw.

OK, der FBI ist kein richtiger Geheimdienst, aber vielleicht ist folgender Artikel für Dich interessant:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/can-tr...

Can Trump stop the FBI? Ask the 4 presidents who tried.

Facts can’t be fired, even if the commander in chief only faces them as a regular citizen.

Das ist ein bisschen Info zum Hintergrund.

dass sich mal jemand mit etwas verquerem Weltbild oder gar unlauteren Absichten durch die Hierarchien des FBI mogelt.

Ach so. Du meinst jemanden wie J._Edgar Hoover (1895-1972).

Das So einen hatten wir schon ;-)

Ich möchte hinzufügen, dass es in diesem Fall nicht unbedingt ein Mitarbeiter der CIA gewesen sein muss. Es hört sich eher an nach jemandem im Kabinett.

Z.B. hier (ebenfalls aus der WP):

...said a U.S. official familiar with the CIA’s conclusions.

re #154: ... ich frage mich - mal vorausgesetzt, die Meldung stimmt -, ob es normal ist, dass derartig brisante Informationen an die Presse geraten. Wer hat Interesse an einer solchen Veröffentlichung?

Ob die CIA oder das FBI Interesse an den von dir genannten Veröffentlichungen hat, sei dahingestellt. Vor allem die CIA ist ein Geheimdienst, da liegt das Interesse wohl allgemein eher daran, gewisse Sachen geheim zu halten und im Geheimen zu agieren. Tatsache in dem Fall Khashoggi ist allerdings, dass Erdogan (und nicht die CIA oder das FBI) gleich am Anfang so einiges ausposaunt hat, darunter auch die Tatsache, dass er Aufnahmen von vermutlich von den Saudis geheim geglaubten Telefonaten und Gesprächen besitze, was ja, wenn man bedenkt, dass es sich hier um ein Konsulat handelt, als besonders illegal gilt (wenngleich auch natürlich nur, was die Öffentlichkeit angeht, denn andere Länder spioniert man insgeheim gerne mal aus).

Was können amerikanische Organe anderes tun als dabei erst mal "mitzuspielen" und die Sache ihren Lauf nehmen zu lassen? Und dass diese Situation jetzt auch für DT besonders fatal sein kann (angesichts seines neuen Freundeskreises), reizt natürlich den Teil der amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit, denen 45IQ eh schon ein besonders großer Dorn im Auge ist.

dass das veröffentlicht wurde, weil jemand den saudischen Prinzen los werden will.

Und das ist keine politische Nutzung? Man helfe mir auf die Sprünge, bin noch vor dem ersten Kaffee.

dass sie es nicht mal mehr schaffen, ihr Land zu verlassen

The only way out would appear to be via boat to Somalia, Eritrea, and Djibouti. Given the situation in the first two of these countries, it is probably not a smart idea to go there. A couple of hundred thousand Yemenis have left the country, as far as I know.

The infrastructure of Yemen has been destroyed, there is widespread starvation, and massive outbreaks of cholera every rainy season. Most people don't have access to hard currency, and the local currency is worthless. Yemen used to be one of the poorest countries in that corner of the world prior to the war. I suspect that few Yemenis can muster the resources to flee. Consider that migrants from Africa often pay $3000 - $5000 to human traffickers to get into Europe. Poor people need not apply. Here is an unofficial price list from last year:

https://www.mindsglobalspotlight.com/@middlee...

Post 9/11, did we do an honest assessment how ideology and money from Saudi Arabia has radicalized Muslims around the world culminating in terrorist attacks, to the detriment of the United States and its allies?

Oh, yes. There were many comments in the press about this - both in opinion pieces and statements made by politicians IIRC. I remember many people pointing out that 15(?) of the 19 hijackers and bin Laden himself were Saudi citizens. Also about how many "charitable" organizations in Saudi Arabia were more or less fronts for the funding of terrorist organizations and Saudi citizens gave generously to such organizations. But the indignation did not last very long. I think the "special bond" between the Bush clan and the the Saudi royal family had something to do with that.

Anyway I think it's highly ironic that what Jamal Kashoggi was not able to achieve while alive, namely, make American officials and lawmakers put real pressure on Saudi Arabia to end the killing in Yemen, he has a good chance of achieving after his murder. We'll see. The crown prince may have "silenced" a critic, but made his voice only more powerful.

It appears I expressed myself poorly. What the press writes is largely irrelevant. What I meant is: At a concrete foreign policy level, did the US fundamentally rethink and rejigger its relationship with Saudi-Arabia post 9/11? Not that I have noticed. The Obama administration took a more reserved stance, now reversed by the Trump administration. Nothing to see here, please move along.

I assume this is because the profits from importing Saudi oil are privatized (i.e. they accrue to US energy companies), while the costs of the accompanying "collateral damage" are socialized (borne by American taxpayers). As I understand it, with the advent of fracking, the US has not need to rely on Saudi oil, and might be well advised not to for national security reasons: Any dollars send to the Saudis means more money in the coffers of those who want to harm us.

to Norbert's #179:

I admit I was a little curious what you meant by "we", but I took it to mean "we as a nation". I for one don't think that what the press writes is in any way irrelevant to us as a nation. In part the press quotes politicians and partly politicians quote the press. The free press also has a special place in the U.S. constitution. But I agree - whatever thinking went on back then (after 9/11) was short-lived and didn't result in actual changes at the foreign policy level. Unfortunately.

What I am seeing now are things like this:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-pois...

The Senate’s first step came last Wednesday, when a bipartisan group, mostly members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, invoked the Global Magnitsky Act, which requires the president to conduct his own investigation into whether or not a “foreign person,” in this case high-ranking officials in the Saudi government, were responsible for the killing, torture, or other human rights violation against a person expressing freedom of expression.

...

Senators have also been signaling that they would seek to curtail the United States’ support for the Saudi bombing campaign in neighboring Yemen, which the United Nations has called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Some lawmakers have long been skeptical of U.S. involvement in Yemen, and this year’s defense policy bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, reflected some of that suspicion. The bill required the administration to certify that the Saudi and Emirati governments were taking steps to alleviate civilian suffering and pursuing a diplomatic cessation to the civil war. U.S. law would prohibit continued participation if Saudi Arabia engages in war crimes like

But some senators have already indicated that the administration is relying too heavily on the word of the Saudi government in meeting those requirements and that they may put more pressure on the U.S. in the future to withhold support in Yemen. The Khashoggi incident has added even more fuel to those senators’ fire. [my bold]

“Certainly our involvement in Yemen with Saudi Arabia will be affected. That involvement barely survived in the last go-round with the National Defense Authorization Act. It certainly won't survive with this kind of accusation, if it is true.” Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., told ABC on Sunday.

...

Senators have also contemplated tying the president’s hands when it comes to arms sales to Saudi Arabia but there are few actual sales to block. Despite Trump’s assertions that there is a $110 billion arms deal in the works with Saudi, most of that figure is aspirational.

...

Since June of this year, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has used his authority on this committee to object to sales to Saudi during the informal review process that precedes the administration submitting sales to Congress for approval. Assuming the Trump administration continues to abide by the precedent of having the Foreign Relations Committee sign off on arms deals, Menendez can continue his blockade in light of the Khashoggi revelations. [my bold]

It’s possible Trump could circumvent Menendez and simply ignore his informal hold on Saudi sales.

If that happens, several senators on the Foreign Relations Committee have said there would likely be enough votes to pass a resolution of disapproval on the Senate floor and to override a presidential veto.

***********************************************************************************************

Sorry for the copious quotations but the situation is not simple to describe. This is new. While it is all in the talking phase right now these are concrete policy steps and I don't recall seeing anything of the kind after 9/11. So I am very skeptical at this point, but I am watching it closely. I think there is something to be seen here.

Re #182: They weren't unknown, but the number of earthquakes in OK has increased significantly due to fracking, correct. Like with all mining and extraction activities, there are risks. These risks can me mitigated, in this particular case through better building codes. I'd rather have us pursue that than continue to have the Saudi tail wag the US dog. Clearly DJT is moving in the other direction: He has yet to find a dictator or despot he doesn't like.

I for one don't think that what the press writes is in any way irrelevant to us as a nation.

The press is important as a provider of information, it informs our political process. However, information alone has only a minor influence on political action or political power. If it were otherwise, the current occupant of the White House wouldn't be there.

However, information alone has only a minor influence on political action or political power.

Really? And do you think that Bob Woodward's coverage of the Watergate scandal had only minor influence on the outcome of the events? The largely negative coverage (read 'body bags') of the Vietnam War was only a minor factor on the nation as a whole losing support for it? The press coverage of events in the 50s and 60s had only minor influence on Congress passing civil rights legislation? Of course it's not always a factor and hardly ever the only factor, but calling it only a minor influence is dismissive. A friend of mine is a (print) journalist and he would be very disheartened to hear your assessment.

DJT has broken down many people's belief and faith in the press. That is what helped him win the election and what also caused irreparable harm to the nation and the system we have relied on for so long. That won't go away if we get a new pres. It's easy to break things like this; it's next to impossible to repair them. Like Humpty Dumpty.

Really? And do you think that Bob Woodward's coverage of the Watergate scandal had only minor influence on the outcome of the events?

I wrote "information alone". Bob Woodward's reporting alone would not have led to Nixon's resignation. Information in the press can provide a kick-off for political change, as can people demonstrating in the street. Neither of those by themselves will carry the ball across the finish line, I am afraid. I have been a newspaper reader for forty years, and I think it is fair to say that the influence of the printed press and the "mainstream media" has diminished over that period of time. Sorry if this causes your friend mental distress.

BTW, I would be interested in your friend's response to Gibson's question in #172.

I haven't asked him about this specific story (Kashoggi killing/war in Yemen), but I have talked to him about similar issues in the past. To put it in a nutshell, there are journalists who write stories and then there are other people, usually journalists as well or business people, that publish stories, and therein lies the difference. My friend belongs to the first group - mainly. So there are journalists out there interested in some uncomfortable subjects (like American support for the war in Yemen) and writing stories about them, but they don't get published. At least not by the major news organizations...

I understand perfectly. I will note that the few major pieces of reporting on the war in Yemen that I have seen have all been in major news outlets, including PBS. I think the amount of reporting on a particularly nasty [*] war that has been going on for years vs the reporting on the fate of Mr Khashoggi is a quick reminder that information by itself doesn't do much: One can't even get it in front of a substantial number of readers without support from moneyed interests.

[*] For example, there seems to be a disturbing pattern of Saudi airstrikes hitting critical healthcare facilities much more frequently than could be explained by random error, suggesting intent. An example is a brand new cholera treatment center by Doctors Without Borders that was leveled days before it was about to open: https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we... (full disclosure: I donate to Doctors Without Borders).

One can't even get it in front of a substantial number of readers without support from moneyed interests.

Yes it very often is. But most often it's not external interests, but the organizations' own bottom line. They print stories that sell. Or to put it today's language, they publish articles that people click on. They have to, otherwise they wouldn't exist. And they most often print stories that sell well. A "sexy" story such as a particularly brutal murder sells well and there are few copy editors that can resist the pressure. Especially now, where many, many print-based journalists have lost their jobs and many newspapers just don't exist anymore. My friend would say an article like that - "It's a house fire". But in this case one can lead to the other IMO and that's not a bad thing. I certainly would like to see more reporting on the war in Yemen and more talk about it, both in the halls of Congress and among the people. If Kashoggi's murder achieves that then I'm happy. That's my interpretation or perception.

BTW I've been reading newspapers for over 30 years, more intensely starting about 15 years ago. It's possible that two people experience the very same thing, but come away from it with two very different perceptions - like in The Bridge of San Luis Ray. I may be wrong, but I think that is what is maybe happening here between you and me and the press and what constitutes major and minor.

the few major pieces of reporting on the war in Yemen that I have seen have all been in major news outlets, including PBS

Yes. I was speaking in general terms. A story that takes place in a foreign country (and a more remote country if I'm not mistaken) takes a lot of resources and expertise that only major outfits can afford. The expense of producing such a story is high and the ROI is most likely very low.

I would think that a wealthy Jeff Bezos acquiring the Washington Post is an example of moneyed interests, just as when a wealthy Joseph Pulitzer bought the New York World some 150 years ago. I would be surprised if Bezos ran the Post as a profit center; he is perfectly aware of faster ways of making money. Note that I am not trying to equate the Post's reporting with Pulitzer's yellow press.

I think it was hm-us who pointed out previously that the Sinclair Broadcasting Group keeps buying up TV stations, another example of moneyed interests shaping mainstream news reporting.

Ich habe in 166 auf harambees Statement reagiert

Es geht gerade durch die deutschen und vermutlich auch durch die amerikanischen Medien, dass die CIA Erkenntnisse hat, die nahelegen, dass der saudische Kronprinz Salman den Mord am Journalisten Khashoggi angeordnet hat. 

D.h. die CIA hat Informationen veröffentlicht, die den saudischen Prinzen in Zusammenhang mit dem Mord an Khashoggi brringen. Für mich wahrscheinlich, dass dasurch versucht wird, dem Kronprinzen zu schaden oder ihn loszuwerden.

Und wegen der etwas schwierigen Beziehungen zwischen USA und Saudi-Arabiem ist es auch besser, das die CIA veröffentlichen zu lassen statt durch das Weiße Haus selbst. So kann das WH im Zweifel immer noch einen Rückzieher machen, wenn der Kronprinz doch an der Macht bleibt und ein paar CIA-Leute entlassen, und schon sind die Beziehungen so gut wie zuvor.

Falls der Kronprinz nun aber doch zurücktreten (abdanken?) muss, hat man sein Ziel erreicht.

Sprich: Natürlich sind das politisch genutzte Informationeb.

Und Jemen ist zu arm und strategisch zu unwichtig, als dass sich jemand in Europa oder USA dafür interessieren würde. So wie 10 Jahre Krieg der Sowjets im (armen und strategisch unwichtigen) Afghanistan auch niemanden interessiert haben. Soll nicht zynisch klingen. Ich glaube einfach, hiefür Aufmerksamkeit zu bekommen wird mühsam werden.

I would think that a wealthy Jeff Bezos acquiring the Washington Post is an example of moneyed interests,

The editors and managers at the WP have strongly denied that Bezos has any influence over editorial content at the Post. Trump has made that claim often enough without presenting any evidence. It could be true, but I know of no evidence that supports that. Do you? Or did I misunderstand your point?

Journalism, by its very nature, is essentially the proliferation of opinions because every journalist and every publisher is a human being and as such is motivated by certain events, generally lending his or her slant to a story, especially stories of political nature.

Oh I agree with that. Definitely.

You can think what you will about Breitbart, for instance, but for a lot of its readers, Breitbart tells nothing but the truth, whereas the same reader will tear papers like the NYT or WP to shreds as liberal lies.

That's true as well, obviously. But what has changed is not the reporting IMO. What's changed is that significant numbers of people are now comparing these two, when 10, 20 years ago no one would have thought of comparing a publication like Breitbart (or its equivalent in print form) with the New York Times. Now they do. And that's very problematic in a democracy. DT didn't start this, but he turbo-charged the development.

I think it is simply wise to keep media ownership in mind, regardless of whether the money behind it attached to the name Springer, Murdoch, Mercer, or Bezos. In any company I have ever worked for, there was a culture that emanated from the top, and you quickly learned what the unspoken rules were about what could be said without getting into trouble, and what was better left unsaid.

I would assume it is similar with newspapers: People have some pretty good ideas what will or will not fly at certain publications long before they go to work for them. To take a British example: There is a marked difference between the Guardian and the Telegraph when they report on the same news item. Even for a casual reader like me it isn't hard to figure out what article was published where strictly from the article itself. Side remark: When I read LEO forums posts, I am often able to identify the writer after the first (!) or second sentence, long before I get to see their name at the bottom (provided they are a regular poster).

I think it is quite possible that Bezos goal isn't to change the political leanings of the Post, just keep them roughly where they were before before he took over, and he is willing to spend money to keep it that way.

Ich lese und staune. Orange County im Süden Kaliforniens, eine republikanische Hochburg seit mindesten fünf Jahrzehnten, wurde geknackt:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ora...

Orange County goes blue, as Democrats complete historic sweep of its seven congressional seats

Gil Cisneros defeated Republican Young Kim on Saturday in the last of Orange County’s undecided House races, giving Democrats a clean sweep of the state’s six most fiercely fought congressional contests and marking an epochal shift in a region long synonymous with political conservatism. [...]

Trump, who lost Orange County to Hillary Clinton in 2016, was no help, weighing down Republican incumbents and challengers alike. [...]

The Democrats also hammered Republicans for siding with Trump on his tax overhaul, which threatens to hurt many Orange County residents by limiting federal deductions for state and local taxes.

Was mich erstaunt, ist eher, dass es so lange gedauert hat. Orange County hat sich in den letzten Jahren sehr verändert, demographisch wie auch (daher) politisch. Was mich am meisten freut jedoch, ist, dass Dana Rohrabacher endlich rausgeflogen ist. Der ging mir schon lange auf die Nerven.

RE #196

It's good that some of the text was copied along with the link. FWIW this is what I get when I click on the link:

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

I wonder, how long will it take them to find these "solutions"? With other U.S. (news) sites you just click on a consent box and it's no problem...

Do other LEOnites in the EU have this problem?

Ivanka Trump nutzte privates Mail-Konto dienstlich

https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/ausland/u...

Die Zeitung zitiert einen Anwalt von Ivanka Trump, der die teilweise Nutzung des privaten Mail-Accounts seiner Mandantin einräumte und betonte, dies sei geschehen, bevor sie über die Regeln zum Umgang mit E-Mails informiert worden sei.

Ääh, sie hatte die Tiraden Ihres Herrn Papa bezüglich Hillary nie mitbekommen, oder?

#MakeAmericaRakeAgain

I like that. MARA. It has a certain ring to it...

Ich hab auch noch die Variante

Rake America great again!

gelesen

In diesem Punkt hat er doch gegenüber der Presse (gestern?) klar gesagt, dass es ihm hier um Ölpreise, Waffenverkäufe, usw. geht, und dass ihm der Khashoggi schnurzpiepegal ist. In anderen Worte, es geht hier um's Geld und sonst nichts, und das hat er klar zum Ausdruck gebracht. Was war an dieser Aussage (Kurzfassung von Raudona, auch die ich mich bezog: Moral ist ihm sch...egal, Hauptsache, das Geld fließt) verlogen?

Auch ein pathologischer Lügner macht dann und wann ein wahres Statement.

I don't see a contradiction between these. "maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!" is an instance of his typical "I don't know!" cop out whenever someone tries to nail him down. His other statements were quite clear that no matter the facts of the Khashoggi case, the only things that matter here to him is a strategic relationship (e.g. danger of Saudi Arabia getting cozy with Russia or China), oil supply, and arms sales.

Was Der Postillon dazu weiß:

" Bin Salman wüsste von Trump gerne, wie viele Journalistenmorde er noch frei hat

Riad, Washington (dpo) - Einmal ist keinmal, aber wo liegt die Grenze? Der saudische Kronprinz Mohammed bin Salman wüsste gerne von Donald Trump, wie viele ungestrafte Ermordungen von Journalisten er noch frei hat. Nur so könne er das weitere Vorgehen gegen Kritiker seines Regimes planen."

https://www.der-postillon.com/

Dass er nun daraus ein "man wird's vielleicht nie wissen" macht, ist doch dann im Grunde genommen eine Lüge.

Das ist ja auch in diesem Faden völlig unbestritten.

es geht ihm weniger um Amerika als um ihn und seinen Clan.

Hear, hear.

In anderen Worte, es geht hier um's Geld und sonst nichts, und das hat er klar zum Ausdruck gebracht.

But whose money does he mean? The country's money or his own (bzw. that of his family)? That's the real question here. Is DT really acting in the best interest of the country, ie. its security and safety as he purports, or his own bottom line? The Saudis love to stay at the Trump Hotel im Washington and they also have lots of money to invest in his property and also to bail out the beloved son-in-law Jared, who has lots of real estate debts. So whose interests is he really watching out for? The country's or his own? That is the real question here and we will never know. One thing is for sure, however: Trump himself never addresses this question.

Aussage #1: Ob MBS was mit Khashoggis Tod zu tun hatte, ist mir nicht klar. Lüge.

Aussage #2: Die Details zu Khashoggis Tod interessieren mich gar nicht, es geht hier einzig um strategische Beziehung, Ölpreise und Waffenkäufe. Wahrheit.

Nach meiner Lesart bezog sich Raudona in #212 auf die Aussage #2. Die #212 kommentierend bezog ich mich in #213 definitiv auf die Aussage #2.

Den eklatante Wiederspruch zu "America first" sehe ich schon darin, dass es DJT für unklug hält, MBS zu widersprechen, denn die amerikanische Abhängigkeit von Saudi-Arabien sei dafür zu groß. Klartext: Saudi-Arabien ist der Schwanz, der mit dem Hund Amerika wedelt oder auch: Saudi-Arabien ist die echte #1. Und dieses Kow-Towing for dem Hause Saud machen die USA ja schon mindestens seit der Regierung Bush The Younger, ist also keine Spezialität von DJT.

denn die amerikanische Abhängigkeit von Saudi-Arabien sei dafür zu groß.

Is that really true? One could easily make the argument that Saudi Arabia's dependency on America is just as great.

Is that really true?

I don't know whether that is true. I was summarizing DJT's statements in the above. The fact that a string of US administrations has been far more accommodating to the Saudis than I would claim is warranted suggests that it may well be true (unfortunately).

In my thinking the US should work on shaking off that dependency, certainly in terms of energy independence and by pursuing rapprochement with Iran. The relationship with Saudi-Arabia is harmful to the US in my view, for reasons I pointed out previously.

The fact that a string of US administrations has been much more accomodating to the Saudis than I would claim

That is neither here nor there. Let's face it: Russian weapons just don't cut the mustard. Let them have SCUD missiles.

Other administrations have been wrong in the past. I wouldn't attach too much meaning to that. I think oil dependency was the overriding basis for policy in the past. There is no reason for the U.S. to support S.A. so strongly IMO. They are a kingdom, not a democracy.

There is no reason for the U.S. to support S.A. so strongly IMO

I agree completely. But I consider it possible that the various inhabitants of the White House have (and have had) information available to them that made them come to a different conclusion. If I had my druthers, the US would have kicked Saudi to the curb decades ago.

But I consider it possible that the various inhabitants of the White House have (and have had) information...

Like I wrote much earlier, the "special relationship" between the Bush family and the House of Saud colored much of the previous relationship between the U.S. and Saudia Arabia (2 administrations). That should not be a factor in U.S. foreign policy.

Ich denke, es spielen noch andere als persönliche Faktoren eine Rolle, z.B. dass die saudische Lobby in den USA indirekt Unterstützung von der Israel-Lobby erfährt, nach dem Motto "der Feind meines Feindes (hier: der Iran) ist mein Freund".

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/israel-das-lau...

Das laute Schweigen im Fall Khashoggi

Nach dem Tod des saudischen Journalisten Khashoggi halten sich israelische Politiker mit Kritik gegenüber dem saudischen Königshaus spürbar zurück. Denn obwohl Israel und Saudi-Arabien keine offiziellen Beziehungen unterhalten, sind die so ungleichen Länder in bestimmten Fragen zu engen Partnern geworden.

Zu den jüngsten massiven Waffenkäufen der Saudis in the USA kamen, so weit mir bekannt, auch keine negativen Äußerungen von israelischer Seite.

There is no reason for the U.S. to support S.A. so strongly IMO. They are a kingdom, not a Democracy.

Nun, King Donald würde doch so gut klingen. Und die Erbfolge wäre auch gesichert.

Nun, King Donald würde doch so gut klingen. Und die Erbfolge wäre auch gesichert. (#232)

Ich bin mir mit der gesicherten Nachfolge nicht so sicher. Nach Tod/Abdanken von King D The First würde ich einen Erbfolgekrieg zwischen Donald II, Eric und Ivanka erwarten.

Aber seine Reaktion zu den Aussagen der CIA bezüglich Khashoggi und MBS ist typisch. "Ich will es nicht wissen, dann muss ich keine Konsequenzen ziehen und alles bleibt für mich bequem. Die anderen interessieren mich nicht."

#235   würde ich einen Erbfolgekrieg zwischen Donald II, Eric und Ivanka erwarten.

Jared nicht zu vergessen, der mit Ivanka eh schon das politische Pauerkappl bildet.

Dass aus den großspurig *zumir*/ wie sonst?\*zumir* angekündigten Friedensverträgen noch nichts geworden ist, spricht für seine Ausdauer.

Donald und Eric haben nur unsichtbare oder gar wegge Frauen und werden in der erfolgreichen Namensvermarktung bei befreundeten ausländischen Leuten dringend gebraucht.

Our chief economist at work:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/106997050053...

....I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so. It will always be the best way to max out our economic power. We are right now taking in $billions in Tariffs. MAKE AMERICA RICH AGAIN

Taking in? The costs of tariffs are almost exclusively borne by American consumers. Meanwhile, in a different universe: