The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Classic-Xer]

(01-09-2020, 07:01 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-09-2020, 01:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I watched and listened to your speaker today. Hint...What I saw and heard relating to her and the crowd of reporters questioning her did not impress me very much as a regular guy who knows more about the American system than the average liberal politician, liberal reporter or liberal reader these days. Example, the Iranian general that was recently killed would be equal to George Washington being killed by the British during the revolutionary war a couple hundred years ago or a one star general in charge of covert military operations located some place in the world today. I heard a few major contradictions and conflicts in interests come from her mouth. I saw self incriminating signs and statements as well. I saw a woman flapping her gums in front of group of casual political supporters/friends. I saw signs of a woman being out of her league in a powerful position ( she is third in line to the presidency which she should not be in today). I saw a woman who was unsure if what she was doing/saying to us was right or wrong thing to be doing or saying because she was outside of her comfort zone. In other words, I didn't see confidence, confidence in herself, confidence in her beliefs, confidence in her position or an understanding as to why she and most liberals feel uncomfortable because the internet is loaded with people who hate their guts today.

It depends a lot on how strict one wants to be.  Is ISIS the same as Iran?  If so, Trump did not strictly disregard the War Powers act.  Was use of force approved by Congress for another president, and not desired for this one.  If you think that true, it is appropriate to file for another War Powers authorization.  If a proxy militiamen shoots at you is it OK for you to shoot back?   Probably, so long as there is no significant escalation.

Thing is, it gets risky to exchange acts of war.  Someone might get the idea that a war is on.

Now back in WW II, we did kill Yamamoto, the admiral who planned Pearl Harbor.  I have no trouble with killing people in uniform of an authorized enemy, regardless of rank, even deliberately targeting them.  But this guy was number two guy in Iran.  That would be the equivalent of Pence, compatible with Pelosi.  That would be quite an escalation.  At the same time he has been planning and escalating terrorist activity for quite some time.  He could and should be considered a proper target.

Killing people that high in government is an interesting president, one which is for some odd reason generally not set by people that high in government.  This is one case where the unpredictable Trump by just being Trump made enough people nervous that it more or less worked.  It was fine if you like playing with fire.

Could Pelosi suggest another article of impeachment for violating the war powers act?  If she does not trust Trump to use force appropriately in the Middle East, could she look for legislation to strip that authority from him?  She chose not to do either of these things.  She could.  She perhaps should.  It would get through the house.  It might be more interesting  in the senate.  Still, there is enough else going on.

But if you take rule of law seriously, you would have to take all these questions seriously.  I personally am not going to second guess Pelosi this quickly.  I do know I do not trust Trump enough to let him play king, to use force freely against anyone in the region.  I would be tempted to try to strip authorization, even if this implies bringing all the troops in the region home.  We seem to have reached that point anyway.

He wasn't in the upper tier of the government. He was the supreme leaders right hand man * top general* who was in charge of running covert military operations/wars and protecting the regime. He was Iran's military version of bin Laden or General George Washington. Iran is a much larger, more organized, better funded and more deadly terrorist organization than ISIS. So, I don't view them as equals but very similar. Now that he's gone, we might see a military coup because he was supposedly a very charismatic leader and if his elite troops associated him with god then his loss may have a crippling emotional affect. It's definitely a major set back. I mean, their response was minor and they let us know that their response would be it for now. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave us an advanced notice of their missile strike. Just a guess. At some point, you would think they would figure out that God ain't going to save them from being destroyed by us.

I suppose Nancy could impeach him for saying that she's not playing with a full deck if she wanted to as well. One more farce charge isn't going to hurt her any worse at this point. Personally, I think Nancy had her hand forced by her caucus and she had no other choice but to do it to keep the Democratic coalition together. It's pretty clear and obvious to me, the radical Democrats have control over her and the party. I don't know if that's good thing or bad thing to you. All I know is that it's not not going to be good for the long term.  We have two cultures in this country and I figure we come from the same culture/class. I figure what lays ahead is a classic clash between classes and cultures and were not France. Do you remember the riots during the 60's. Well, you probably want to get ready for a repeat.