The Next President is...

[pawnman]

6 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Shifting gears, it's pretty ridiculous that Democrats in Congress are pushing for Pence to invoke the 25th amendment in a bid to remove Trump.

I think that would set a dangerous precedent for using the 25th amendment when opinions are different, and not the president being incapacitated. I guess you could argue Trump is mentally ill, but maybe he's just an idiot or a dick.

Congress has it's own process for removing a president, so how about using that?

Or just wait a week.  

Crazy, I know.

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Clearly Trump avoided press conferences because he couldn't come up with credible responses in real time.  On Twitter he could make outlandish claims without being challenged.  And his base ate it up due to confirmation bias.  

I should add that I'm referring to solo press conferences in which the President takes the podium alone.  In his first three years, Obama did 25.  Trump did 9. 

Trump went to Twitter because he was able to remove layers of filters from what his actual message was. He was a step ahead as a politician in that regard. The media of course derided his decision to use Twitter because it of course gave the media less importance. 

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

There is evidence; widely acknowledged evidence (DoD, US intelligence, UN, UK).  Tulsi's statement suggested that such evidence either didn't exist or was just a wisp of rumor.   If the only source was the New York Times or the Epoch Times, she might have a point.  But that isn't the case here. 

Dude very few people have seen that evidence and Tulsi likely never saw it when she discussed it. Weve all seen intel reports and seen how wildly off base they can be. She was an Army officer she probably remembers that too. She provided a voice of caution. Obama was a warhawk who campaigned on peace, then turned around and entered us into other conflicts most Americans never heard of and deepened out stakes in the two existing conflicts he inherited. That didn't sit well with a lot of Democrats who thought of themselves as the party of peace. The same intel community reported with consensus WMDs were in Iraq. It is considered one of the greatest national intelligence failures of all time and is widely discussed in intel academia. I'm not going to hold a grudge against anyone who said "wait a minute, let's make sure we got our shit straight this time before entering another cluster fuck." 

[jazzdude]

Or just wait a week.  
Crazy, I know.

That's an option too.

However, impeachment, if successful, would end Trump's ability to hold a federal office in the future, as well as be a formal condemnation from Congress on his actions.

So those are the only reasons I can think of to do it this late in his term. Outside pure politics.

[FLEA]

Well, in a move absolutely noone could have predicted... Angela Merkel sides with Trump regarding Twitter ban. 

https://amp.thenationalnews.com/world/germany-s-angela-merkel-leads-european-fears-of-problematic-twitter-ban-on-trump-1.1144394

[slackline]

29 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

That's an option too.

However, impeachment, if successful, would end Trump's ability to hold a federal office in the future, as well as be a formal condemnation from Congress on his actions.

So those are the only reasons I can think of to do it this late in his term. Outside pure politics.

To me, screw politics.  His actions, at the very least for the last 6ish months, have been beyond the pale. Time to show everyone else that wants to blatantly lie that there are repercussions.  It would also serve to hedge all the extremists on the D side since a precedent will have been set.  Impeach or 25th amendment works for me.  

[jazzdude]

To me, screw politics.  His actions, at the very least for the last 6ish months, have been beyond the pale. Time to show everyone else that wants to blatantly lie that there are repercussions.  It would also serve to hedge all the extremists on the D side since a precedent will have been set.  Impeach or 25th amendment works for me.  

I agree with your sentiment, to include he should be impeached.

But I still believe there are Dems that actually don't care about Trump's actions, only that he is a political enemy, and to not let a crises go to waste for political gain.

Put another way, is doing the right action for the wrong reasons ethical?

[slackline]

Just now, jazzdude said:

I agree with your sentiment, to include he should be impeached.

But I still believe there are Dems that actually don't care about Trump's actions, only that he is a political enemy, and to not let a crises go to waste for political gain.

Put another way, is doing the right action for the wrong reasons ethical?

That's a great question!  I think when the right thing is done for the wrong reasons and the negative fallout is outweighed by the positive outcome, you still have the one leg to stand on of "doing the right thing". Rarely, if ever, do politicians (R or D) do the right thing for the right reasons.  Almost always done because it's "conveniently aligned" with their ulterior motives.

Not married to that position though.

[Swamp Yankee]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Dude very few people have seen that evidence and Tulsi likely never saw it when she discussed it. Weve all seen intel reports and seen how wildly off base they can be. She was an Army officer she probably remembers that too. She provided a voice of caution. Obama was a warhawk who campaigned on peace, then turned around and entered us into other conflicts most Americans never heard of and deepened out stakes in the two existing conflicts he inherited. That didn't sit well with a lot of Democrats who thought of themselves as the party of peace. The same intel community reported with consensus WMDs were in Iraq. It is considered one of the greatest national intelligence failures of all time and is widely discussed in intel academia. I'm not going to hold a grudge against anyone who said "wait a minute, let's make sure we got our shit straight this time before entering another cluster ." 

Absolutely there is a very high standard of proof before a conviction or launching sorties.  Again, the issue here is that Tulsi's statements aren't hedging.  She's acting as if there is no/minimal evidence.  Not true.  

Edited January 12, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Swamp Yankee]

48 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Well, in a move absolutely noone could have predicted... Angela Merkel sides with Trump regarding Twitter ban. 

https://amp.thenationalnews.com/world/germany-s-angela-merkel-leads-european-fears-of-problematic-twitter-ban-on-trump-1.1144394

Too bad Trump missed a chance to rub Angela's shoulders like W did.  Then again, she is way above the Jeffrey Epstein-approved age range.  

Edited January 12, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Swamp Yankee]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Trump went to Twitter because he was able to remove layers of filters from what his actual message was. He was a step ahead as a politician in that regard. The media of course derided his decision to use Twitter because it of course gave the media less importance. 

A press conference is unfiltered.  Yes, the media poses the questions, but that's never stopped a President from ignoring those questions and saying what they want. The media's subsequent positive or negative interpretation of a press conference, Twitter post or pre-recorded statement is what's filtered/biased/etc.  

[jazzdude]

A press conference (or really any official communication) is likely heavily filtered by the White House administration staff, likely with legal and policy reviews by administration action officers to ensure they are on message (and consistent with what they've been messaging), and to ensure whoever is delivering the message (whether it's the President or someone else) is prepared for anticipated questions or reactions, especially if they are taking questions.

Twitter, as Trump used it, appeared to be very unfiltered. Maybe it was a well thought out communication, maybe it was just a knee jerk reaction or spur of the moment thought that popped into his mind. Hard to tell it apart, which made it confusing for many people used to seeing official statements (or you could say legacy types of communications).

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Absolutely there is a very high standard of proof before a conviction or launching sorties.  Again, the issue here is that Tulsi's statements aren't hedging.  She's acting as if there is no/minimal evidence.  Not true.  

Seems like you're really committed to calling "gather evidence and try him in court" a defense of Assad.
The whole point is not to launch sorties.  Because we've seen that it often causes more problems than it solves...Is Libya better off without Gaddaffi?

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

A press conference is unfiltered.  Yes, the media poses the questions, but that's never stopped a President from ignoring those questions and saying what they want. The media's subsequent positive or negative interpretation of a press conference, Twitter post or pre-recorded statement is what's filtered/biased/etc.  

Uhhhh, so we agree its filtered then right? Are you just rambling at this point?

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Absolutely there is a very high standard of proof before a conviction or launching sorties.  Again, the issue here is that Tulsi's statements aren't hedging.  She's acting as if there is no/minimal evidence.  Not true.  

Mhmm, because we've never attacked targets accidentally with incomplete intel. Come on man, are you new at this? Do you really trust our intel apparatus that much? They are awful!

[FLEA]

20 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Mhmm, because we've never attacked targets accidentally with incomplete intel. Come on man, are you new at this? Do you really trust our intel apparatus that much? They are awful!

Thinking about it further. I'm not even sure it matters. From Tulsi's point of view, I think the wider interest is we don't need to be policing every world dictator who gasses his people. Its certainly tragic and has a human costs, but shes clearly stated that the human costs of war should be bared by the US alone. Taken more holistically, and having looked up her remarks, I think she's quite clear her stance on international politics is one where we need to be willing to accept a few dictators in the world. I can't disagree with that.

[jazzdude]

Thinking about it further. I'm not even sure it matters. From Tulsi's point of view, I think the wider interest is we don't need to be policing every world dictator who gasses his people. Its certainly tragic and has a human costs, but shes clearly stated that the human costs of war should be bared by the US alone. Taken more holistically, and having looked up her remarks, I think she's quite clear her stance on international politics is one where we need to be willing to accept a few dictators in the world. I can't disagree with that.

I thought our involvement in Syria was largely to oppose Russian interests in the region, and Assad's actions against his own people gave us justification to take military action against a government that supports Russian interests, and help install a government friendly to US interests.

[Swamp Yankee]

34 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Mhmm, because we've never attacked targets accidentally with incomplete intel. Come on man, are you new at this? Do you really trust our intel apparatus that much? They are awful!

My point isn't about evidence that will prove a court case or allow military action.  It's about Tulsi's honest or willful ignorance of a broad agreement that Assad is a bad guy.  Her statements ignore that agreement as well as suggest that there is no evidence and that the claims of Assad's war crimes are fabricated.  She should acknowledge that at a minimum, there are legitimate suspicions about his culpability.  That's why she clearly comes off as an apologist. 

And yeah, I've had to deal with bad/incomplete intel.  

Anyways, I might be splitting hairs.  The horse is so dead at this point it's glue.  

 

[jazzdude]

Citing 'censorship' concerns, North Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter
https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/idaho-internet-provider-blocks-facebook-and-twitter/293-867cc22b-fb90-4142-a296-8d800d2a03fb

That's a foul, but legal based on the policies pushed by Republicans. An ISP should not have the power to unilaterally decide to block internet traffic.

But it's put Republicans in a weird spot: they don't want ISPs regulated or treated as common infrastructure, but that means that an ISP, as a business, can block whatever they want. They haven't really done so in the past because there hasn't been a business case for doing so (although streaming service can and do get throttled)

So the GOP (and the region served by that ISP) is reaping what the GOP sowed, and suddenly are surprised that their political platform has real consequences.

When you put all your faith in the free market, you are putting your faith in the market keeping the same values as you; otherwise, you can get screwed over real quick. And now conservatives (primarily on the far right) are getting screwed by the system they profess to love.

So it's internet access a right? Or is it a luxury? Because right now conservatives are screaming it's a right, and yet have blocked efforts for years to have internet treated as infrastructure, or to provide access to the poor ("Obama phone"), or to force ISPs to improve the physical internet infrastructure especially to rural areas.

[Sua Sponte]

I lived in Spokane for 10-years, just moved in August, and have never heard of that ISP. However, that type of mentality checks in North Idaho.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Sua Sponte

[pawnman]

39 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

I thought our involvement in Syria was largely to oppose Russian interests in the region, and Assad's actions against his own people gave us justification to take military action against a government that supports Russian interests, and help install a government friendly to US interests.

 

How's that strategy worked out for us, historically speaking?

[pbar]

Well, whatever happens in the wake of the Capitol riots, you can rest assure the DC types will handle it in such a way as to create the worse possible outcome for everyone, especially the rest of the country who wasn't there taking part...  They seem to excel at that. 

[slackline]

2 minutes ago, pbar said:

Well, whatever happens in the wake of the Capitol riots, you can rest assure the DC types will handle it in such a way as to create the worse possible outcome for everyone, especially the rest of the country who wasn't there taking part...  They seem to excel at that. 

I agree they'll mismanage the crap out of it, but I think you're forgetting that many state capitols dealt with identical issues that day, and are under threat of further violence on inauguration day, so yeah, no one else was involved.

[jazzdude]

How's that strategy worked out for us, historically speaking?

Not great... But we keep doing it

And it seems to backfire on us, creating decades of headaches

[ViperMan]

On 1/11/2021 at 8:34 AM, Swamp Yankee said:

I like Tulsi's stated positions on many issues, which are moderate and for the most part sensible.  However, something isn't quite right.  On Rogan and other podcasts she spends almost all her time railing against the left and virtually no time discussing/defending her political positions.  My cynical side thinks that she is a "democrat" in order to stand apart from the crowd.  Once her awareness grows beyond the IDW, she'll reposition herself as a republican and drop some of the more progressive positions she claims to have but never discusses.  If true, it is deceptive, although I may still be in alignment with much of her platform. 

It's because many of her positions are "Russia adjacent." I think she has some good qualities, but her foreign policy views are, frankly, extremely naive. Reference the buzz term she leans on during many of her interviews: "regime change wars." She dresses up her opinion with things that make sense (i.e. "military's mission is defense of America," etc.), but it is not at all coupled with the realpolitik of our modern world where smaller nations states fall into the orbits of larger ones.

She has some valid points, but her fundamental conclusion and orientation is wrong.

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Thinking about it further. I'm not even sure it matters. From Tulsi's point of view, I think the wider interest is we don't need to be policing every world dictator who gasses his people. Its certainly tragic and has a human costs, but shes clearly stated that the human costs of war should be bared by the US alone. Taken more holistically, and having looked up her remarks, I think she's quite clear her stance on international politics is one where we need to be willing to accept a few dictators in the world. I can't disagree with that.

I would agree with her in terms of we don't need to police the world, and I also think it's defensible to accept a few dictators in the world. IMO, our whole problem with AFG/IRQ (part 2), was how we fought. We went in full-bore when we should have gone in with extremely and narrowly tailored objectives; instead we went in trying to "take the cake."

Edited January 13, 2021 by ViperMan