General US Politics

[Phoenix Wright]

15 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Yeah, I guess that's true, but international law is a joke anyway and will never have any effect beyond being a vehicle for victor's justice.

1

this isn't an argument lol. the point is that it's morally reprehensible.

Quote

If I were a judge in a case where a starving man stole reread I'd let him off with a slap on the wrist. Similarly, I'd let a military commander who targeted civilians when it was absolutely necessary off with a slap on the wrist.

let's just say i count my lucky stars you are no judge.

Quote

I don't think the military as a whole is liable for crimes against humanity. I think individual war crimes(which there indeed were) should be tried individually. It is not a war crime unless intent to kill civilians can be proven. Those certainly happened in Iraq but I don't think the military as a whole can be accused of that.

and why not?

[Moblin Major General]

2 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

do you think the use of a nuclear weapon is justifiable under any circumstance today?

No. I thought that was evident when I said it was unnecessary. I don't like nukes as weapons, today. Too even seek to make one marks just how dangerous a country is, and it only adds to global tension every time a nation decides to join the ~2% of countries that have them, with half of them being known global superpowers at one point. I wish that total nuclear disarmament was possible, but that would only embolden countries that seek them, as that means there would be nothing short of a military invasion that could stop them, especially if the government only cares about power, and not about the people they serve.

[blah the Prussian]

3 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

this isn't an argument lol. the point is that it's morally reprehensible.

Quote

Well, sometimes we have to do things that are morally reprehensible. You were asking if I condoned stuff like Operation Whirlwind, the answer is yes.

3 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

let's just say i count my lucky stars you are no judge.

Quote

Thinking about it, I retract that statement. I'd give both normal sentences. It's important that commanders face harsh punishments so that they'd only target civilians when absolutely needed.

3 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

and why not?

Because the military as a whole did not set out to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians. Collateral damage can't be a war crime because everyone does it.

[Phoenix Wright]

7 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

No. I thought that was evident when I said it was unnecessary. I don't like nukes as weapons, today. Too even seek to make one marks just how dangerous a country is, and it only adds to global tension every time a nation decides to join the ~2% of countries that have them, with half of them being known global superpowers at one point. I wish that total nuclear disarmament was possible, but that would only embolden countries that seek them, as that means there would be nothing short of a military invasion that could stop them, especially if the government only cares about power, and not about the people they serve.

what's different between then and now?

6 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Well, sometimes we have to do things that are morally reprehensible. You were asking if I condoned stuff like Operation Whirlwind, the answer is yes.

Because the military as a whole did not set out to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians. Collateral damage can't be a war crime because everyone does it.

 

ok.

if the military targets indiscriminately, that's equivalent to targeting civilians imo...

[blah the Prussian]

56 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

ok.

if the military targets indiscriminately, that's equivalent to targeting civilians imo...

Depends on if it's reasonably possible to target only the enemy combatants and their resources. If it's not, then the laws of war are clear; it's on the enemy to not hide among civilians.

[XRay]

On 9/1/2018 at 7:17 AM, Time the Crestfallen said:

This is my hang up; in terms of a politician's career, the only thing that matters in the end is that person's political views, actions, and voting record, and McCain's views/actions/voting record (amongst other things) paints an overall extremely dire picture, the whitewashing of which demonstrates to me that this fetishism for 'civility' in political discourse is getting extremely out of hand, especially in regards to people like McCain who are at best, only slightly better than typical GOP politicians in regards to policy yet get a pass because they weren't rude whilst saying/doing it.

It is a little late reply, but I think civility helps and it is something that people often overlook. People skills matter.

While results do matter, how McCain went about those results should matter as well. I disagree with his policies, but I would not doubt his commitment to the betterment of this country.

For example, while I abhor spanking children and I think that is unacceptable, I do not think parents who spank their kids are evil and they are doing it in the best of intentions. Spanking is a bad act, but that does not mean a person who spanks is necessarily bad.

I also do not think we were white washing him. He did not need to maintain his civility to succeed as a politician, so the least we can do is to return the favor and be civil with him.

If anything, his civility helps soothe the animosity between both sides of the political spectrum, even if it is just a little bit for a moment.

 

- - - - - - -

 

This is not bad news, but it is funny. Trump says some pretty funny, naive shit. If his staff had degrees in child development and teaching, things would probably be much smoother in the White House.

My personal favorite is his comment about Giuliani needing a diaper because it seems like he needs one too.

Edited September 4, 2018 by XRay

[Dr. Tarrasque]

EPA ok with 10k+ more deaths per year

Updated Puerto Rico death toll

Message to women from NC candidate

I feel sorry for the rational Republicans that do exist but uh... this party needs to be obliterated.

[Time the Crestfallen]

11 hours ago, XRay said:

It is a little late reply, but I think civility helps and it is something that people often overlook. People skills matter.

The point wasn't that civility is a bad thing, but rather that it's not something that should be praised. Being civil in the political world is something that should be a bare minimum, and the fact that McCain is praised for it isn't a point in his favour for me, it's a demonstration that we've allowed our standards for what is and is not acceptable behaviour for a politician to fall so far that a bare minimum qualification is treated as something to exalted for.

11 hours ago, XRay said:

While results do matter, how McCain went about those results should matter as well. I disagree with his policies, but I would not doubt his commitment to the betterment of this country.

To which I respond to with that old saying about good intentions. To be frank, I don't give a fuck if McCain thought his actions would better his country, because the fact of the matter is that the majority of his actions in the senate have contributed to worsening the lives of most of said country's citizens, either out of bigotry or for the benefit of his party's corporate overlords.

All his platitudes and lip-service towards 'civility' mean nothing if the end-result makes him no better than the average GOP politician other than that he manages not to froth at the mouth whilst spewing his bullshit.

11 hours ago, XRay said:

For example, while I abhor spanking children and I think that is unacceptable, I do not think parents who spank their kids are evil and they are doing it in the best of intentions. Spanking is a bad act, but that does not mean a person who spanks is necessarily bad.

A perfect example that the act of spanking a child despite all the evidence indicating that it is a harmful act without benefit requires either a monumental level of willful ignorance or an outright malicious disregard for what is actually beneficial in favour of discredited methods.

11 hours ago, XRay said:

I also do not think we were white washing him. He did not need to maintain his civility to succeed as a politician, so the least we can do is to return the favor and be civil with him.

His legacy is that of warmongering, bigotry, and crony-capitalism, and all the media wants to do is talk him up as if he's the second coming of Jesus Christ himself and when you point out how his actions do not in any way line up with that portrayal, they give you shit for being a partisan hack and not being respectful because apparently being dead makes a person exempt from all criticism. I won't tolerate it in regards to Reagan or Bush Jr., and I won't tolerate it in regards to McCain either.

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Time the Crestfallen

[XRay]

16 minutes ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

The point wasn't that civility is a bad thing, but rather that it's not something that should be praised. Being civil in the political world is something that should be a bare minimum, and the fact that McCain is praised for it isn't a point in his favour for me, it's a demonstration that we've allowed our standards for what is and is not acceptable behaviour for a politician to fall so far that a bare minimum qualification is treated as something to exalted for.

We have to start from somewhere to rebuild our standard. The least we can do is to point out how necessary it is to have civility.

24 minutes ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

To which I respond to with that old saying about good intentions. To be frank, I don't give a fuck if McCain thought his actions would better his country, because the fact of the matter is that the majority of his actions in the senate have contributed to worsening the lives of most of said country's citizens, either out of bigotry or for the benefit of his party's corporate overlords.

Well, I would at least give him an E for effort instead of an outright F though. He is at least doing something right to be able to serve for so long. He might not be doing much good in our view, but in the eyes of his party and voters, he did a lot to make America great.

5 minutes ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

all the media wants to do is talk him up as if he's the second coming of Jesus Christ himself and when you point out how his actions do not in any way line up with that portrayal

I do not see it that way at all. Yes, people are praising McCain, but that is more of a courtesy/white lie thing out of respect for his friends and family.

He is a war hero, he is a great colleague, he is a great father, etc. Is he a great politician? I think so, at least in the sense of getting things done and fulfilling the wishes of his constituents.

Is he great politician in terms of making America prosperous and great though? I agree with you that he most likely is not, but that does not mean we should not celebrate the positives he brought to the table. At the very least, his death brought a moment of unity and empathy, and I think that is good for America.

[blah the Prussian]

19 hours ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

The point wasn't that civility is a bad thing, but rather that it's not something that should be praised. Being civil in the political world is something that should be a bare minimum, and the fact that McCain is praised for it isn't a point in his favour for me, it's a demonstration that we've allowed our standards for what is and is not acceptable behaviour for a politician to fall so far that a bare minimum qualification is treated as something to exalted for.

To which I respond to with that old saying about good intentions. To be frank, I don't give a fuck if McCain thought his actions would better his country, because the fact of the matter is that the majority of his actions in the senate have contributed to worsening the lives of most of said country's citizens, either out of bigotry or for the benefit of his party's corporate overlords.

All his platitudes and lip-service towards 'civility' mean nothing if the end-result makes him no better than the average GOP politician other than that he manages not to froth at the mouth whilst spewing his bullshit.

A perfect example that the act of spanking a child despite all the evidence indicating that it is a harmful act without benefit requires either a monumental level of willful ignorance or an outright malicious disregard for what is actually beneficial in favour of discredited methods.

His legacy is that of warmongering, bigotry, and crony-capitalism, and all the media wants to do is talk him up as if he's the second coming of Jesus Christ himself and when you point out how his actions do not in any way line up with that portrayal, they give you shit for being a partisan hack and not being respectful because apparently being dead makes a person exempt from all criticism. I won't tolerate it in regards to Reagan or Bush Jr., and I won't tolerate it in regards to McCain either.

 

From my perspective, at least, the majority sets the standards. Civility is not the bare minimum anymore, and that's just a fact. It is something to be praised in this political climate because of how rare it is. Standards have evolved.

[eclipse]

If the Internet has shown me one thing, it's that not everyone thinks they need to be civil (being a mod sucks sometimes).  As a democracy is a reflection of those that vote, I think the general climate has shifted towards more extreme reactions (to put it mildly).  Thus, pointing out someone's civility as a positive point is a Good Thing, even if it should be unnecessary.  What I don't like is that it's called "something from a bygone era" (or crap to that effect), implying that it can't be possible now.

[Time the Crestfallen]

1 hour ago, XRay said:

We have to start from somewhere to rebuild our standard. The least we can do is to point out how necessary it is to have civility.

Not if it comes at the cost of completely ignoring all negative impacts of his actions, which loops around to my point, which is why is it that 'civility' should excuse his past actions?

1 hour ago, XRay said:

Well, I would at least give him an E for effort instead of an outright F though. He is at least doing something right to be able to serve for so long. He might not be doing much good in our view, but in the eyes of his party and voters, he did a lot to make America great.

1) 'E for Effort' is not even close to good enough in a career were one's decisions will have an impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people (and that's only domestic). I refuse to lower my standards that far.

2) In order to serve for that long, he needs to be 'doing something right' in the eyes of the Republican base, and the endorsement of the Republican base is one of the biggest red flags a politician can get in my eyes.

1 hour ago, XRay said:

Is he great politician in terms of making America prosperous and great though? I agree with you that he most likely is not, but that does not mean we should not celebrate the positives he brought to the table. At the very least, his death brought a moment of unity and empathy, and I think that is good for America.

I'm not going to contest you on those other things, because whether or not he's an arsehole on a personnal level is irrelevant (although I would argue that he is), because as a POLITICIAN, whether or not his actions bettered the country is the only thing that matters, and in that regard he IS an outright F. Celebrating the positives he brought to the table (few as they are) means nothing if we cannot look at or discuss the overwhelming negatives.

And as a last note, I'm not exactly celebrating his death and I am no stranger to reading obituaries with great pleasure for what it's worth, but the fact that McCain's death can inspire unity speaks more to how fucked up your political scene is than anything else personnally speaking.

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

From my perspective, at least, the majority sets the standards. Civility is not the bare minimum anymore, and that's just a fact. It is something to be praised in this political climate because of how rare it is. Standards have evolved.

There's a big difference between what IS and what SHOULD be, which is what I said. Yes, civility is very obviously not a bare minimum anymore, but is that something you're expecting me to just accept and be fine with?

52 minutes ago, eclipse said:

What I don't like is that it's called "something from a bygone era" (or crap to that effect), implying that it can't be possible now.

Realistically speaking, it wasn't even a thing in these supposedly bygone eras.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Time the Crestfallen

[blah the Prussian]

42 minutes ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

There's a big difference between what IS and what SHOULD be, which is what I said. Yes, civility is very obviously not a bare minimum anymore, but is that something you're expecting me to just accept and be fine with?

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Oh no, don't be fine with it, but the way to not be fine with it isn't to not praise those who are civil. If anything the way to change that is to continue praising those who are civil.

[Shoblongoo]

Is it wrong that I'm more interested in the Bob Woodward book than the Kavanaugh hearings?

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Is it wrong that I'm more interested in the Bob Woodward book than the Kavanaugh hearings?

Juicy political gossip is always more interesting than boring confirmation hearings.

[Shoblongoo]

Yeah--but this is a bit more than your run-of-the-mill gossip. 

Like you guys know who Bob Woodward is, right???

 

 

 

_________

...Woodward & Bernstein...

The duo that broke Watergate.

That Bob Woodward.

 

 

 

[XRay]

4 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yeah--but this is a bit more than your run-of-the-mill gossip. 

Like you guys know who Bob Woodward is, right???

 

 

 

_________

...Woodward & Bernstein...

The duo that broke Watergate.

That Bob Woodward.

 

 

 

I know. Watergate is like the juiciest filet mignon they found.

Trump is no filet mignon, but his steak is still juicy. If Woodward found evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, then that would have topped Watergate in my opinion.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Is it wrong that I'm more interested in the Bob Woodward book than the Kavanaugh hearings?

I think it's an interesting perspective to take given how Bob Woodward's book will just follow the same reaction from different camps:

1. Non-Trump allies: We already figure that he's probably worse than we know.

2. Trump allies: TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG, DEEP STATE, OBAMA, HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS while ignoring the conversation between Trump and Bob

3. Republican leaders: Silence.

While Kavanaugh is a lifetime appointment with an extremely controversial vote beneficial not only to Trump but any corrupt fuck that ends up being a president under multiple investigations. Kavanaugh's even attempting to dodge the question when we fucking know what the answer is.

 

Trump will be gone sooner than Kavanaugh and the latter will enable other corrupt fucks while being another corporate judge. This hearing shouldn't have happened and any Judge claiming that the president should not be subject to prosecution is directly contradicting the basis for the Constitution and unlike the 2nd amendment, the intent and meaning behind the philosophy is clear: We're not a fucking dictatorship or monarchy.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

2 hours ago, XRay said:

I know. Watergate is like the juiciest filet mignon they found.

Trump is no filet mignon, but his steak is still juicy. If Woodward found evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, then that would have topped Watergate in my opinion.

It took them YEARS to crack Watergate; there's more incriminating material against Trump now then there was against Nixon this early on in his presidency.

...anyways...

We've hereto-now had former Trump staff and associates (Steve Bannon, Omorosa, etc...) reporting on the chaos and dysfunction in the Trump White House, with all the credibility problems that being a former Trump associate carries.

This is the first piece we've gotten from a revered and credible journalist with access to the White House--one who broke the biggest political story of the last century no less--and hes reporting:

1) That General Kelly regards Trump as an "unhinged idiot" who is pointless to talk to or advise, because he doesn't actually listen to anyone 

2) That Defense Secretary Mattis regards Trump as having the discipline, temperament, and critical thinking skills of a "5th or 6th grader"

3) That lower level administration personnel routinely remove papers from the president's desk, present him with distractions, circumvent his authority, and refuse to follow his direct orders. To prevent Trump from making what everyone except Trump himself recognizes would be  "disastrous" decisions on trade and foreign policy.

4) In one instance, Trump's Chief Economic Advisor removed an Order from Trump's desk that Trump had planned on signing and executing later that day. If signed and executed, the Order would have had the United States withdraw from its trade agreement with South Korea. Trump  never realized the Order was missing and forgot about it.

5) In another instance, Trump ordered Mattis to have the United States military invade Syria, assassinate Bashar al-Assad, and "Fucking kill him. Kill the fucking lot of them."   Mattis told Trump "I'll get right on that," then went back to the Pentagon and told his staff "we're not going to do any of that" + directed them not to follow the president's plan.

6) Trump called Attorney General Jeff Sessions "mentally retarded' and a "dumb southerner," and made fun of his southern accent.

7) Trump ordered his generals to draft plans for a unilateral, preemptive attack on North Korea ahead of his meeting with Kim-Jung Un. Mattis had to explain to him that the reason they weren't doing this was because they were trying not to start World War 3.  

8) On or around January 27, 2018, Trump's aides tried to prep him for a sit-down interview with Mueller. Trump was unable to get through the first 30 minutes of the practice interview without melting down, lying, and cursing out the aides telling him that if this were a real interview he would have just perjured himself + calling the whole thing a "god-damn hoax."

9) Trump's personal attorney described Trump's behavior during the practice interview as that of an "aggrieved Shakespearean King" and the prospect of Trump actually testifying under oath in the Mueller investigation for real as a "nightmare."

10) Trump, however, seemed completely unaware that he had failed the practice interview. He expressed disbelief that his attorneys thought he had "struggled" with the questioning. And insisted that he was fully prepared to testify under oath + clear his name. 

11) Attorney John Dowd called Trump a "fucking liar," and told him that if he went before Mueller and testified under oath he would wind up wearing "an orange jumpsuit." 

12) Dowd conveyed what transpired during the mock interview to Mueller, and told Mueller he would not allow Trump to do a sit-down interview under oath because he did not believe Trump was capable of getting through the interview without perjuring himself.   

13) In a strategy meeting on Afghanistan, Trump told his generals: "You should be killing guys. You don't need a strategy to be killing people."

14) There was another strategy meeting on Korea where his advisors asked him what assets he would need in the region to rest easy, knowing that the US was going into talks with Kim-Jung Un from a position of strength. Trump said: "I wouldn't need a fucking thing, and I'd sleep like a baby"  then left the meeting. (this was reportedly back when Rex Tillerson was in the cabinet and present during strategy meetings, and it was reportedly after this meeting that Tillerson called Trump a "fucking moron." That was the contact for the remark that got Tilleson fired from his Cabinet post)      

15) Gary Cohn--one of Trump's Jewish advisors--attempted to resign after Trump's handling of the Nazi march on Charlottseville. Trump refused to accept the resignation and accused Cohn of committing "treason." General Kelly then told Cohn that he should have taken his letter of resignation and "shoved it up his ass six different times."  

16) Trump himself told Woodward that he believed he was the greatest president of all time, and that writing anything less of time in office would be "inaccurate." "Accurate is that nobody's ever done a better job than I'm doing as president," Trump told the veteran journalist on-the-record. 

17) When Trump was caught on the now infamous "Grab em by the Pussy!" tape and absolutely no one would appear on TV to defend his boasts of getting away with sexual assault, except Rudy Giuliani,  Trump called Giuliani after Giuliani's televised defense of "Grab em by the Pussy!" and told Giuliani: "Rudy. You're a baby. I've never seen a worse defense of me in my life. They took your diaper off right there. You're like a little baby that needed to be changed. When are you going to be a man?"
_____

The picture that emerges is one of a staff in perpetual damage-control, with zero respect for their boss or confidence in his competence and decision-making.

 And a boundless narcissist at the center of it all who can't see it--he really believes his own hype that he's the smartest man in the room and nobody knows more than him or can do a better job than him, and anytime someone tells him that hes struggling or making mistakes they're "stupid." They would see how great he is if they weren't "stupid."

Which we kinda already knew--Trump is a malignant narcissist with the emotional intelligence of a child and his staff is running an adult daycare center. Old news.

But to see it all documented by a journalist as accomplished and respected as Bob Woodward, with the clout his name carries and his storied career and the throwbacks to the reporting that became the definitive historical account of the End of Nixon...

...That's not some reality TV star or Breitbart columnist throwing shade...

That's one for the history books. 

50 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Trump will be gone sooner than Kavanaugh and the latter will enable other corrupt fucks while being another corporate judge.

A free press that reports with credibility and high professional standards on misconduct in government is as much a check against abuse as any Judge or Court. And long after Trump is out of office the country will still have to reckon with the damage hes done to journalism as an institution, and the watchdog role of the free press.

...if the last time Woodward published a book on All the Presidents Men against the backdrop of  a White House in full cover-up mode + attempting to discredit the free press for reporting on its lies and scandals is any indication, his work is going to become a substantial piece of the historical record from this time period.

And something that journalists are going to study for years to come on how to do the legitimate work of journalists + maintain high credibility and professional standards, in an era where the profession is under siege and the highest actors in government are trying to rip that credibility away.



 
 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Dr. Tarrasque]

38 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

A free press that reports with credibility and high professional standards on misconduct in government is as much a check against abuse as any Judge or Court. And long after Trump is out of office the country will still have to reckon with the damage hes done to journalism as an institution, and the watchdog role of the free press.

...if the last time Woodward published a book on All the Presidents Men against the backdrop of  a White House in full cover-up mode + attempting to discredit the free press for reporting on its lies and scandals is any indication, his work is going to become a substantial piece of the historical record from this time period.

And something that journalists are going to study for years to come on how to do the legitimate work of journalists + maintain high credibility and professional standards, in an era where the profession is under siege and the highest actors in government are trying to rip that credibility away.

 

... No it's not. The free press will make it transparent to the public but it doesn't have the power to block the executive branch from implementing policies deemed unconstitutional and then enable it after a re-write like with Trump's Muslim travel ban. The people and the press could bitch all they want about any ban that Trump would put into place and gets approved by the Supreme court but in such a situation where Trump gets the courts packed how he wants it, the only thing that could end Trump's power abuse is either impeachment or death.

There's been enough throughout Trump's run that has revealed to the public that the 25th amendment could be invoked and you have, in their own words, Lindsey Graham and Mike Pence's take on what Impeachment is all about but you don't see either of them talking about how Trump should be impeached lately.

The real checks and balances to the president are the Judicial and Legislative branch as it was intended. The problem we face today is the fundamental flaw in Democracy: you NEED the representatives of the people to be individuals with integrity and value in their word.

I'm not doubting the credibility of Woodward or putting it at the same level as Omarrosa and Michael Wolff. I'm also not trying the downplay the addition of testimony against Trump.What I'm saying is that relative to what we already know of Trump and the self-destructed credibility he has, there's really no new information we could get that changes the fact that he's a criminal who will go down in due time. Trump won't make it past the 2020 election, Kavanaugh will be there until he's dead. The latter is a greater asset to the corruption and civil rights issues in our country for sure.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[XRay]

24 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

It took them YEARS to crack Watergate; there's more incriminating material against Trump now then there was against Nixon this early on in his presidency.

Cool. I cannot wait to read Fear 2.0 where Woodward grabs the White House by the filet again. Maybe Trump is an even nicer piece of meat than filet mignon. Who knew aged steak can taste so good.

33 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

3) That lower level administration personnel routinely remove papers from the president's desk, present him with distractions, circumvent his authority, and refuse to follow his direct orders. To prevent Trump from making what everyone except Trump himself recognizes would be  "disastrous" decisions on trade and foreign policy.

Intern kun saves the day again!

38 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

13) In a strategy meeting on Afghanistan, Trump told his generals: "You should be killing guys. You don't need a strategy to be killing people."

Auto-Battle works in Awakening Easy Mode though.

41 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

"Rudy. You're a baby. I've never seen a worse defense of me in my life. They took your diaper off right there. You're like a little baby that needed to be changed. When are you going to be a man?"

That is my favorite quote, because look who is talking!

[Shoblongoo]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The problem we face today is the fundamental flaw in Democracy: you NEED the representatives of the people to be individuals with integrity and value in their word.

Agreed to an extent; but the flaw is more fundamental then what you describe. 

You need VOTERS to eelect representatives with integrity and value. When representatives do not hold these values, the blame is in ourselves for not having the wherewithal to elect better leaders. 

The fundamental flaw of democracy is that it is a device that ensures a people shall e governed exactly as well as they deserve--no better. 

14 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

... No it's not. The free press will make it transparent to the public but it doesn't have the power to block the executive branch from implementing policies deemed unconstitutional and then enable it after a re-write like with Trump's Muslim travel ban. 

Disagree, and this is what I think your analysis misses. 

The law is not self-executing; it is a social utility function. There is a ripeness that issues have to reach in the public discourse before they become cases-in-controversy to be adjudicated before a Court of Law. 

And there is no judicial accountability for corruption in government without a free press to shine light on the absence of accountability--before misconduct can be adjudicated, it must be exposed. 

It all goes back to Democratic institutions only work to the extent an informed and civically engaged population permit them to work. 

The free press in its watchdog role is the instrument of civic engagement that keeps the whole ship afloat.  (at least that's how its supposed to work)
 

2 minutes ago, XRay said:

Auto-Battle works in Awakening Easy Mode though.

Like--why are we still in Afganistan? What is actual the plan?

"You guys should be killing people"--is that really what we're dumping god-only-knows how many billions and billions of dollars into now? (but no public healthcare--that's an abuse of taxpayers. We can't afford that.) 

[XRay]

3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Like--why are we still in Afganistan? What is actual the plan?

"You guys should be killing people"--is that really what we're dumping god-only-knows how many billions and billions of dollars into now? (but no public healthcare--that's an abuse of taxpayers. We can't afford that.) 

I am not really sure either. At the very least, I wish we would start rebuilding their infrastructure, but most voters back home probably would not like spending tax dollars on other people, especially brown people with a different religion.

I am not sure how feasible it is to start rebuilding infrastructure in Afghanistan though with a lot of Taliban still out there.

[Shoblongoo]

4 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

2. Trump allies: TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG, DEEP STATE

The plot thickens get a load of what the New York Times just published in the past hour:

"The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration."

"The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/o...esistance.html

 

"President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans."

 

...someone just had a cathartic release...

Trump's gonna be up late tonight trying to figure out where that came from 

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Etrurian emperor]

9 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

The plot thickens get a load of what the New York Times just published in the past hour:

"The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration."

"The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/o...esistance.html

  Reveal hidden contents

"President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans."

 

...someone just had a cathartic release...

Trump's gonna be up late tonight trying to figure out where that came from 

 

I have some issues with several things he wrote like deregulation or that tax reform being good things but on the whole I'd say I respect this guy. Its good to know there are people who at least try to be an adult.