Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(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.
GWB lost 60 diplomats in 13 incidents on his watch, to say nothing of military losses. GOP outrage? Crickets. Military outrage? Ditto.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
12-15-2016, 04:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2016, 04:14 PM by David Horn.)
(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?
So it all comes down to optics then. I see. So far, Trump has said he'll defer to Putin, or work with him at least. That has a name too: collaborator.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(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.
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.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
12-16-2016, 01:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-16-2016, 03:07 PM by pbrower2a.)
Benghazi? The Ambassador returned to a burning building and died of smoke inhalation (the usual killer in a fire -- not heat or flames). We will never know why.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 75
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
12-16-2016, 04:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-16-2016, 04:12 PM by Skabungus.)
Benghazi is an overblown bunch of bullshit no matter how you look at it. If you take the job in the Foreign Service, or an appointment as a diplomat, you already know what risks are in store for you. If you get a post in a hostile country (a great career booster by the way) then you know you have a higher risk of getting kidnapped, shot, blown up, etc., but, you knew that when you signed up. In a dangerous assignment, in an unstable country, under hostile conditions, these guys got killed. Guess what. It comes with the territory. The are the latest in a long line of FS and diplomatic service employees to give their lives for the Fatherland. Send the families some flags and fucking drop it!
I am so fucking tired of hearing about this silly shit, all drummed up to keep pressure on the Dems I could just fucking puke. Forchristsake I DONT EVEN LIKE THE DEMS and this incessant flow of Bengazi bullshit has me sympathizing with the Dems!
There was never any good old days
They are today, they are tomorrow
It's a stupid thing we say
Cursing tomorrow with sorrow
-- Eugene Hutz
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
12-17-2016, 07:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-17-2016, 07:33 AM by David Horn.)
(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.
After the incident with the Marines in Lebanon, we packed-up and left.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 75
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
...............................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."
There was never any good old days
They are today, they are tomorrow
It's a stupid thing we say
Cursing tomorrow with sorrow
-- Eugene Hutz
Posts: 128
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
12-19-2016, 03:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2016, 03:48 PM by tg63.)
(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?
It's Not 1914
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.
"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
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.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
12-19-2016, 08:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2016, 08:15 PM by pbrower2a.)
I'm ready for a return to the Hanoverian monarchy. Or maybe to His Most CatholicMajesty, the King of Spain.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(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).
At this point, it is tempting to say that almost anything would be better.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(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.
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.
Posts: 75
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
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.
There was never any good old days
They are today, they are tomorrow
It's a stupid thing we say
Cursing tomorrow with sorrow
-- Eugene Hutz
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(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.
No, we need dozens of equivalents of Martin Luther King, Jr. this time. We are also going to need a Lincoln--like leader to get us out of this mess. Donald Trump looks more like a new Slobodan Milosevic than even like James Buchanan.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 469
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2017
Check out the online videos of Peter Zeihan. He has some interesting views about how world affairs are about to unfold.
Zeihan is the author of The Accidental Superpower and The Absent Superpower..
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(02-24-2017, 06:52 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: One must wonder, what comes after a Hitler?
What we now have -- mass loathing of anything resembling Hitler. Images of the camps are seared into my head ... and I was born ten years after the war. I ask myself what people could have ever done to get themselves into such a plight. Being Jewish? I look at Judaism as "Christianity without Jesus" (which may be too simplistic for Jews -- my apology!); I have known Jews and have found nothing objectionable about them. I look at Nazis through the Christian mindset that I can never quite escape and I see the most egregious sins possible.
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.
We can only imagine what would have followed the July 20 coup.
Suppose that plotters had cut the phone wires to the lair of Josef Goebbels, the man who unraveled the plot. Or that the plotters had simply killed him. By cutting the wires they could have silenced him at a critical time and arrested him. This was more important than the bomb killing the Antichrist Incarnate. The Holocaust comes to an abrupt end. Maybe the new government protects Jews by drafting all Jewish males into the German Army. The least objectionable of German generals, Erwin Rommel, is put in charge of them.
The plotters would have sued for peace. But in the chaos I can see the Allies willing to cut some deal. Generals Beck and Witzleben would have had to sign peace treaties. In the meantime ther chaos begins. The Polish Home Army takes over in Poland and establishes a non-Communist government and starts exacting revenge upon the SS for atrocities in Poland. Most of the Wehrmacht is willing to cooperate . King Michael of Romania has his coup about a month earlier. Fascist Italy and Vichy France collapse quickly. Revolutions break out in occupied countries.
The Allies would have gotten what they claimed to want in recent conferences without having to do any more fighting. But th at is not too difficult an exercise. Sacrificing Nazi war criminals to avoid occupation, and victims of Nazi aggression self-liberate? Better than fighting.
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."
I consider a military coup possible, especially if it can be shown that the President was elected with the aid of vote fraud. If he got elected with the aid of vote fraud, then so did some US Senators. Democrats seemed likely to win as many as eight Senate seats in a reverse wave of 2010. They got two.
Do 2016 over? That is Constitutionally messy, but it might be right.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Well... what happens now?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
