(12-15-2016, 12:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 01:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 11:51 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: You expected the military to vote for "what does it matter any more" Clinton?  If the Democrats wanted the military vote, they should have nominated Webb.

Why is Trump better in this regard?  He dodged the draft, and he's never shown any interest in the military until he ran this time.  Why is that better?

Lack of interest is better than actual harm.

(12-15-2016, 12:42 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: There's no stormy relationship between Trump and the military.  I mean, seriously, he appointed a defense secretary whose nickname is "mad dog"; for the average soldier, what could be better than that?

(12-15-2016, 04:11 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-15-2016, 12:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 01:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 11:51 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: You expected the military to vote for "what does it matter any more" Clinton?  If the Democrats wanted the military vote, they should have nominated Webb.

Why is Trump better in this regard?  He dodged the draft, and he's never shown any interest in the military until he ran this time.  Why is that better?

Lack of interest is better than actual harm.

In other words, Benghazi by a different name.  Sorry, that doesn't fly.  Ronald Reagan never had a problem with the military, and he put 168 unarmed Marines "in barracks" under hostile conditions.  The "barracks" were in the open on an airfield.  The hostiles had higher ground, and just butchered them.  That's true malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, yet he got a bye anyway -- because he was a Republican.

(12-15-2016, 09:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-15-2016, 04:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: In other words, Benghazi by a different name.  Sorry, that doesn't fly.  Ronald Reagan never had a problem with the military, and he put 168 unarmed Marines "in barracks" under hostile conditions.  The "barracks" were in the open on an airfield.  The hostiles had higher ground, and just butchered them.  That's true malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, yet he got a bye anyway -- because he was a Republican.

Reagan did not refuse to send in aid that was available - granted, that was Obama not Clinton - and Reagan did not later go into denial about it, the way Clinton's quoted remark does.  Instead, Reagan adjusted his tactics and won.  Soldiers like victory.

(12-19-2016, 03:25 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 01:35 PM)Skabungus Wrote: ...............................Meanwhile in Turkey, an Ankara cop guns down the Russian Ambassador to Turkey and shouts,  "Don't forget Aleppo! Don't forget Syria!" and " Only death will take me out of here. Anyone who has a role in this oppression will die one by one."

Is this our Sarajevo 1914 moment?

Quote:Will today’s crime spark conflict between Putin’s Russia and Erdogan’s Turkey? Only if those two authoritarian rulers want trouble. If trouble comes, today’s assassination will not be the cause, but only the justification. If, more likely, trouble is avoided, it will not be due to some noble commitment to peace on the part of two always ruthless and often violent men—but because for them all deaths, like all lives, are of value only for their own harsh and selfish political purposes.

(12-20-2016, 01:37 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 08:14 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I'm ready for a return to the Hanoverian monarchy. Or maybe to His Most CatholicMajesty, the King of Spain.

Right now I would throw my lot with the House of Windsor in a heart beat. God Save the Queen (and I did not write that in the facetious John Lydon sense).

(12-19-2016, 08:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Paul Krugman: How Republics Die



...Republican institutions don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican facade.

On the first point: Roman politics involved fierce competition among ambitious men. But for centuries that competition was constrained by some seemingly unbreakable rules. Here’s what Adrian Goldsworthy’s “In the Name of Rome” says: “However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his and his family’s reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic … no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power.”

America used to be like that, with prominent senators declaring that we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that. (A new poll shows that Republican approval of Vladimir Putin has surged even though — or, more likely, precisely because — it has become clear that Russian intervention played an important role in the U.S. election.) Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.

And what happens to the republic as a result? Famously, on paper the transformation of Rome from republic to empire never happened. Officially, imperial Rome was still ruled by a Senate that just happened to defer to the emperor, whose title originally just meant “commander,” on everything that mattered. We may not go down exactly the same route — although are we even sure of that? — but the process of destroying democratic substance while preserving forms is already underway.

Consider what just happened in North Carolina. The voters made a clear choice, electing a Democratic governor. The Republican legislature didn’t openly overturn the result — not this time, anyway — but it effectively stripped the governor’s office of power, ensuring that the will of the voters wouldn’t actually matter.

Combine this sort of thing with continuing efforts to disenfranchise or at least discourage voting by minority groups, and you have the potential making of a de facto one-party state: one that maintains the fiction of democracy, but has rigged the game so that the other side can never win.

More here at the New York Times.

Eric the Green Wrote:

pbrower2a Wrote:Paul Krugman: How Republics Die



...Republican institutions don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican facade.

On the first point: Roman politics involved fierce competition among ambitious men. But for centuries that competition was constrained by some seemingly unbreakable rules. Here’s what Adrian Goldsworthy’s “In the Name of Rome” says: “However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his and his family’s reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic … no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power.”

America used to be like that, with prominent senators declaring that we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that. (A new poll shows that Republican approval of Vladimir Putin has surged even though — or, more likely, precisely because — it has become clear that Russian intervention played an important role in the U.S. election.) Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.

And what happens to the republic as a result? Famously, on paper the transformation of Rome from republic to empire never happened. Officially, imperial Rome was still ruled by a Senate that just happened to defer to the emperor, whose title originally just meant “commander,” on everything that mattered. We may not go down exactly the same route — although are we even sure of that? — but the process of destroying democratic substance while preserving forms is already underway.

Consider what just happened in North Carolina. The voters made a clear choice, electing a Democratic governor. The Republican legislature didn’t openly overturn the result — not this time, anyway — but it effectively stripped the governor’s office of power, ensuring that the will of the voters wouldn’t actually matter.

Combine this sort of thing with continuing efforts to disenfranchise or at least discourage voting by minority groups, and you have the potential making of a de facto one-party state: one that maintains the fiction of democracy, but has rigged the game so that the other side can never win.

More here at the New York Times.

I'm wondering what role the Courts are playing in this. Their gerrymandered legislature was already ruled illegal, and yet they still make the laws? Can the legislature reshape the NC court system? Determine who sits on election boards, and when?

NC is one of the closely divided battleground states where the great contest between red and blue is being waged. It will be interesting to watch. The Democrats are going to need to get as tough and ruthless as the other side, or they will lose. Gen. McClellans will not do; we'll need Gen. Grants.

(12-22-2016, 01:07 PM)Skabungus Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:

pbrower2a Wrote:Paul Krugman: How Republics Die



...Republican institutions don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican facade.

On the first point: Roman politics involved fierce competition among ambitious men. But for centuries that competition was constrained by some seemingly unbreakable rules. Here’s what Adrian Goldsworthy’s “In the Name of Rome” says: “However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his and his family’s reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic … no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power.”

America used to be like that, with prominent senators declaring that we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that. (A new poll shows that Republican approval of Vladimir Putin has surged even though — or, more likely, precisely because — it has become clear that Russian intervention played an important role in the U.S. election.) Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.

And what happens to the republic as a result? Famously, on paper the transformation of Rome from republic to empire never happened. Officially, imperial Rome was still ruled by a Senate that just happened to defer to the emperor, whose title originally just meant “commander,” on everything that mattered. We may not go down exactly the same route — although are we even sure of that? — but the process of destroying democratic substance while preserving forms is already underway.

Consider what just happened in North Carolina. The voters made a clear choice, electing a Democratic governor. The Republican legislature didn’t openly overturn the result — not this time, anyway — but it effectively stripped the governor’s office of power, ensuring that the will of the voters wouldn’t actually matter.

Combine this sort of thing with continuing efforts to disenfranchise or at least discourage voting by minority groups, and you have the potential making of a de facto one-party state: one that maintains the fiction of democracy, but has rigged the game so that the other side can never win.

More here at the New York Times.

I'm wondering what role the Courts are playing in this. Their gerrymandered legislature was already ruled illegal, and yet they still make the laws? Can the legislature reshape the NC court system? Determine who sits on election boards, and when?

NC is one of the closely divided battleground states where the great contest between red and blue is being waged. It will be interesting to watch. The Democrats are going to need to get as tough and ruthless as the other side, or they will lose. Gen. McClellans will not do; we'll need Gen. Grants.

Screw that.  We need a half dozen William T. Shermans.

(02-24-2017, 06:52 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: One must wonder, what comes after a Hitler?

Quote:I am not referring to what actually happened at the end of WW2.

I am referring to what comes organically, if the reign of that type of totalitarian fiend crosses a certain threshold, where even the tyrant's lieutenants can no longer abide.

I suspect the answer would be, a junta takes over. That's what was brewing in Nazi Germany. Hitler's days were numbered, even if the Russian punch through and the Allied operation Overlord has not gone well.

Quote:In our case, what will follow Trump?

Will he be impeached?

Or, will he be removed in a manner that we have not yet experienced here in the US, and will it result in a terrible Constitutional crisis - the end of "The 1st Republic of the USA."